My first criticism of the Obama administration over the oil spill was the seeming lack of action more than a week after the spill. At that time, the big response was to send in the lawyers and blame BP. Some on both the right and left have been critical, with people like Karl Rove and Chris Matthews coming down hard on Obama. Then there are others like Yuval Levin, who compares the oil spill to Katrina not in terms of the poor response, but in terms of public expectations.
I’m somewhere in the middle. There are two points to keep in mind: 1) We probably don’t know all the important details, and 2) to Levin’s point, the federal government can only do so much. That said, I still believe the federal response was slow and insufficient. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, back in the spotlight, has been asking for an emergency plan to dredge and build new barrier islands, and the federal government has dragged its feet. A lot of work could have also been done before the spill, as a plan was in place to have fire boom available. The plan wasn’t implemented.
Levin’s point is fair, however, and should keep our criticism reasonable. Working in a heavily regulated industry, I know how public expectations can be, and how the political pressures can build up when something goes wrong. The key point Levin makes is that you can rarely, if ever, make any process perfect. The goal is often to make the process as efficient as possible while minimizing risks. We like to think, however, that nothing should go wrong, so when it does, politics come into play as government feels the need to at least appear to be doing something.
In this situation, the politics seem to be of higher importance than actually fixing the problem. This has been evident as President Obama has turned into our plaintiff lawyer in chief, reminding us constantly that BP is to blame and will pay for the damages. That does nothing to help the situation, but it may help deflect some of the blame. Talking about restricting oil production is also not constructive in this situation, and is a mostly political move.
President Obama claims, however, that he’s been on top of the situation from day one. That may be true, but we haven’t seen much in terms of results until today’s announcement about the success of “top kill.” And President Obama hasn’t helped his case. In the early days of the spill, he was out criticizing Wall Street and the Arizona immigration law. Recently, he hosted a big party for the Mexican president, and participated in a campaign event for California Senator Barbara Boxer. As Hugh Hewitt suggested, maybe Jindal could have gotten the president’s attention if he had thrown a fundraiser for Boxer. It’s hard to believe Obama has been sufficiently engaged with all this going on.
I keep reminding people that we’re getting what we elected. President Obama never exhibited much leadership experience, and we’re seeing that no matter how strong he might be behind closed doors or a teleprompter, he’s in over his head when it comes to facilitating a cross-functional response to a disaster. My suggestion: put the politics aside and stop the leak before worrying about liability, and compare BP’s process controls with the industry standards before proposing more regulations.
UPDATE: Engineers are now saying that “top kill” has failed.
What bothers me besides the political posturing is that our president doesn’t appear to care. Yes, he is going through the motions but seems utterly aloof to the fact that Americans are suffering badly because of this. Instead he opts to talk about further restrictions and regulations.
I don’t expect the guy to cry on camera but you would think the president of the United States would at least try to act like he cared about the people this is affecting.
Writer Chick