The Liberal Walrus

As was reported earlier this month (for instance, in this New York Times story), Exxon Mobil made humongous profits in 2007, amounting to $40.6 billion. Higher prices for oil led to the increase, although Exxon has been making tons of money for a while. Two divergent responses to such news are possible. On the one hand, we might think that succes for an American business is a great thing, that Exxon Mobil clearly provides a desired commodity. On the other hand, we might feel anger that Exxon is profiting from the financial hardships of many Americans who are squeezed at the pump as well as the Iraq war, which has destabilized international markets and thus contributed to the increase in oil prices.

Predictably, Exxon has pointed out (in the story linked above) that they bear huge costs for exploration, which is, they say, crucial as the global demand for energy increases. Other defenders have brought up the taxes that such large corporate incomes generate. The argument, it seems, is that Exxon’s success is our success, because it will guarantee continued supply and also because Exxon pays a lot of money back to the government.

On the other side, critics point out that the success and wealth of Exxon, the government, and corporate America haven’t been trickling down to the rest of us. Robert Scheer writes:

The lifeline of Exxon is not its oil-drilling skills but rather the power of the US government, particularly the military, that can be marshaled to intimidate those nations that would dare challenge Exxon’s right to profit exorbitantly. Whether it’s about pushing for a pipeline crossing Afghanistan or tying up Venezuela’s foreign assets in international courts, as Exxon managed to do last week, the US-based oil giants strut with the full confidence that Uncle Sam will back them up.

All of this indicates a vicious cycle, wherein Exxon’s profits and taxes benefit the American government, which then acts around the world to protect Exxon’s interests. Making this observation doesn’t mean we are wandering into conspiracy theory territory at all.

On top of all of this, global climate change is a real and imminent problem. Carbon emissions from human-created sources are causing it. Given this, it isn’t necessarily a good thing that Exxon is exploring for more oil–we should spend money to find other energy sources, not more of the same.

The arguments of the defenders fail to engage with the reality of our situation. The fact of Exxon’s huge tax bill doesn’t make our government policies better, and the fact that they feel compelled to undertake expensive oil exploration doesn’t mean that such exploration is a good idea. The success of private companies must be contextualized before it can be thought good or bad. In the context of this nation, where people have no choice but to consume oil, where there is no way for them to find better prices from competitive sellers, and where the price of oil has been rising because of the actions of the government, the success of Exxon should be seen for what it is: the successful extraction of money from all Americans for the purpose of continuing our insane addiction to oil.

I love Frank Rich’s columns in the New York Times. I look forward to them. But this week I was a little surprised by his thoughts on the role of Bill Clinton in Hillary’s campaign for president. As I have written about, it seems weird to me how every time Bill disagrees with a reporter, he is described as angry, as lashing out, etc. Frank Rich echoes this theme:

In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?

I still haven’t seen any eruptions or rants from Bill, and the purported examples of such behavior have seemed to me more like intent–but calm–argument. In fact, the developing problem seems to me not to be Bill’s behavior but the media interpretation of his behavior.

Rich reasons that, since Bill has become so aggressively involved with his wife’s campaign, he is now back on the table as a target for full Republican attack. As he puts it,

For the Republicans, that means not just a double dose of the one steroid, Clinton hatred, that might yet restore their party’s unity but also two fat targets.

Again, though, there are really two levels of this discussion. There are, first, the things that actually happened, i.e. Bill Clinton’s actual statements, and things of that nature. On top of those things, there are the interpretations, spin, mischaracterizations, and representations of those things that come from various sources in the media and throughout the culture.

Of course, it does seem to be the case that the emerging problem of Bill’s role in Hillary’s campaign influenced voters against Hillary. To what extent, though, could that influence be based, not on Bill’s actions, but on the relentless characterization of his actions after the fact? The underlying problem, I think, is that our culture doesn’t quite know what to do with a female candidate for president, specifically in terms of the role of the spouse.

In fact, a psychological tool called the Implicit Associations Test (described here, and here, you can take the test here) shows us that, in our culture, it is more difficult for most of us to associate leadership with women. This is an unconscious bias, which would explain the gravitation of attention and importance away from Hillary to her husband. The effect is much more pronounced because of the charisma, fame, and previous associations with leadership that Bill possesses.

There is a dissonance, though, in our conscious thoughts about Hillary and Bill. Why, we wonder, is Bill trying to steal the spotlight from Hillary? In reality, he may not be–the spotlight of our cultural attention may be hunting him. After all, we could have more coverage of the day to day activities of Elizabeth Edwards or Michelle Obama, but we don’t.

Of course it is a particularly touchy problem, how a former president would act as a First Gentleman (or whatever his role would be titled). In fact, I think it was unwise of the Clinton campaign to continue to use Bill after it became clear that the narrative of Angry Bill Lashing Out At Reporters was established–tactically, they should have recognized that his effectiveness would be impaired. At the same time, it’s worth spending a little time thinking about the underlying cultural forces at work in this strange emerging dynamic.

Following on my recent post on biofuels, I want to mention this article from the Washington Post, which details a recent effort by the Bush administration to allow road-building and logging in pristine forest.

This is essentially a similar problem: we have gotten used to acting as if the earth contains infinite supplies for our needs. The truth is, it does not–we have been living off of millions of years of savings. In addition, though, when it comes to logging, it is possible to manage forestland to produce timber in an ecologically feasible way, but it is not a good idea to manage all available forestland. There are ecological benefits to leaving large areas of forest untouched. They create species diversity and trap carbon dioxide.

This passage captures the problem nicely:

Alaska Regional Forester Denny Bschor said the plan would provide livelihoods for state residents while protecting the health of the forest and ensuring opportunities for recreation and solitude.

Logging creates jobs for people, and people want jobs. Recreation here means road access–another instance of putting ourselves first. It is necessary for us to realize that, in terms of our ability to impact the earth’s environment, we have grow up. It is no longer possible to treat the earth as our playground, because there will be consequences that will hurt us.

Cut down forests and build networks of roads, and you increase carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and increase the possibilities of flooding and mudslides. These tradeoffs happen whether we take them into account or not. The Republican party seems to be completely ignorant of this fact.

The economic stimulus package that Pelosi and Boehner agreed on recently has one flaw that I just can’t get past. You’ll find it, for example, tucked at the bottom of the first page of this Washington Post story, for example:

The money would be borrowed and would increase the federal deficit.

Given this, the plan is really adding to the problem that underlies the current situation. The economy is faltering, I’m sure, for a variety of reasons, but one of those reasons is worldwide suspicion about the long-term economic viability of the United States. We are in staggering debt, the savings rate is negative, and we are continuing to hemorrhage money in Iraq.

Given all this, the current plan is like burning your furniture to stay warm: it might help in the short term, but from a broader perspective it will only make things worse.

According to a Washington Post article, House Democrats are laying out a “legislative agenda” as part of their “midterm election push.” Of course, that is not unusual–it is Congress’ job to make laws, after all, and any party that wants to control the House should have an agenda.

The treatment the plan receives in the article is interesting on two counts. First, the plan itself is quite ambitious and, to my mind, slightly flawed but overall a good idea. Second, the balance imperative rears its ugly head in some impressive ways.

To summarize the plan, let me quote from the article:

The plan would allocate billions of dollars to build up the military, subsidize student loans and bolster port security. It would raise the minimum wage, make college tuition payments tax-deductible, repeal oil-company tax breaks and expand incentives for personal savings accounts, among many other provisions.

The program would prohibit the House from approving new spending or tax measures that widen the budget deficit. It would do that by restoring budget rules requiring that all future spending increases and tax cuts be offset by equivalent tax hikes or spending cuts.

This is certainly bold. My favorite part is the restoration of rules that require new spending to be offset by cuts. Anyone who has run a household budget knows that you can’t start spending more money on something unless you spend less on something else. This provision alone makes the whole plan worth it.

As for the other parts of the plan, one would need to see more specifics to know for sure, but the general priorities seem good. Increasing military and security spending seems to be a necessity of the moment. Increasing the minimum wage and helping kids pay for college are good, reliable, progressive moves. I don’t like the support for personal savings accounts (assuming they’re talking about the ones Republicans propose to supplement Social Security or the ones for replacing health insurance; I’m all in favor of banks offering savings accounts) because I don’t think that it makes sense to shift risk to individuals.

All in all, a bold plan. I would like to turn now to the treatment the plan receives in the article. For example, the article states that “Republicans and budget experts doubt that Democrats could do both [enact their plan and keep the deficit under control] simultaneously.” First, the contruction implies that Republicans and budget experts are on the same page, thus implying that Republicans’ criticisms are not politically motivated. Who are these budget experts, and why do they doubt that Democrats could enact their plan? The article is silent.

The piece contains an amazing example of he-said she-said journalism:

This week, President Bush blistered Democratic policies and argued that voters would be better off if they kept Republicans in charge of Congress. He charged in a series of speeches that the Democrats would undermine America’s fight against terrorism and would raise taxes if they won congressional majorities on Nov. 7.

Democratic leaders dispute the accusation and have been talking up Six for ‘06.

President Bush makes an accusation. The Democrats disagree. The article says nothing more, but there is much more that should be said. For example, why would increasing military and port security spending “undermine America’s fight against terrorism?” That makes no sense to me. As for raising taxes, it is true that the Democratic plan leaves that possibility open, but only to offset increased spending.

In fact, one incredible omission occurs throughout the article: any mention of the current state of the budget deficit, or of the budget management practiced by the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. I think that information would be relevant in a story about Democrats offering an alternative plan. Yet the article never mentions anything about the budget situation as it stands now.

As a matter of fact, it stands directly in the toilet. The U.S. Treasury website provides information about the debt. As the Clinton presidency was drawing to a close (9/30/2000), the deficit was:

$5,674,178,209,886.86

The deficit is now:

$8,562,455,433,495.19

Of course, for fairness I should mention that the deficit did increase during Clinton’s eight years, from $4,064,620,655,521.66 to the above figure, or an increase of $1,609,557,554,365.20, or 39.6%.

Under Bush, the deficit has increased by $2,888,277,223,608.33, or 50.9%.

Keep that in mind as I present my favorite unintentionally ironic part of the article:

“It’s schizophrenia in ‘06 is what it is,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), a member of the Budget Committee. “You cannot balance the budget by vastly increasing spending.”

Indeed.