Friedman calls for a Third Party
Posted by Stuart Staniford on May 2, 2006 - 11:52pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: peak oil, plateau, thomas friedman [list all tags]
Seriously, there is something really disturbing about the utterly shameless, utterly over-the-top Republican pandering and Democratic point-scoring that have been masquerading as governing in response to this energy crisis. The Republicans are worse, because they control all the levers of power and could move the country if they proposed a serious energy policy -- but won't."We used to say the system is broken because it won't respond until there is a crisis," said David Rothkopf, author of "Running the World," a history of U.S. foreign policy. But now it's really broken, "because the system can't even respond to a crisis!"
What to do? I'm hoping for a third party. The situation is ripe for one: America is facing a challenge as big as the cold war -- how we satisfy our long-term energy needs, at reasonable prices, while decreasing our dependence on oil and the bad governments that export it -- and neither major party will offer a solution, because it requires sacrifice today for gain tomorrow.
"There is an opportunity here for someone who will seize it," said Micah Sifry, author of "Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party Politics in America." That someone would have to be a more emotionally stable and energy-focused Ross Perot type. Because, added Mr. Sifry, "if the issue of the day in 1991-1992 was the ballooning budget deficit that we were not dealing with, then the issue today we are not dealing with is the energy and environmental catastrophe that awaits the next generation. It is as much a mortgaging of our children's future as the deficit issue. It needs the right leader, though."Like someone who will tell the truth: The only way Americans are ever going to enjoy relatively cheap gasoline again is if we raise the price now with a gasoline tax-- and fix it at that higher level for several years -- so investors know that it is not coming down, and therefore it makes economic sense for them to make the long-term investments in alternative, renewable sources of energy. That is the only way to break our oil addiction and ultimately bring down the price.
Yes, our system is rigged against third parties. Still, my gut says that some politician, someday soon, just to be different, just for the fun of it, will take a flier on telling Americans the truth. The right candidate with the right message on energy might be able to drive a bus right up the middle of the U.S. political scene today -- lose the far left and the far right -- and still maybe, just maybe, win a three-way election.
Sounds like a better plan than we have now. Who should we draft?
is the site on the blink or is it my server/computer?
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/15/104340/306
and then I will also point readers, if you're new, to our press release of last week, which pretty much said the same damned thing TF said:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/121441/891
We have the first amendment. It guarantees the wealthy will control the country. More $$$ = more speech. Hence, there will be no political solutions to this problem (or any problem) that are not in the favor of the people who have the most $$$.
You're a uni prof, so my guess is you are not rolling in the cash. Which means the responses the people with the real $$$ come up with will (most likely) not be in your interests.
Best,
Matt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
What I will grant you is that most Americans (excepting those recent and illegal immigrants) are far too lazy to care about anything but their comforts, which are draining away anyways.
Personally, I find this money=power equation a touch too simplistic in any political system which allows for the change of government without revolution and blood in the streets. Unless you think FDR and his various approaches to government during the Great Depression were just another example of the rich retaining power (I may add, the rich of the time would not have agreed with you - it has taken them generations to roll back Roosevelt's reforms).
But as we all know, the most dominant voting block in American is the non-voter. I am not sure what that has to do with 1st Amendment rights, but it is certainly a sign of the sort of decay that anyone looking at democracy as a political system considers to be one of the incurable weaknesses which eventually destroys democracy. The founders of America read a lot of history, and the fact that the system they constructed has lasted a couple of centuries is proof that they understood much about democracy's fatal flaws - no one else at the time expected more than a few years.
But America has always been about the rich having power - didn't you learn that in history in school? Maybe coming from Virginia, these things are handled more honestly than other places - none of the Virginian Founding Fathers were of modest means - and their taste in plantations remains heads and shoulders above everyone else's, in my humble opinion.
In 1932 it was Roosevelt or Huey Long. Long would have stripped the rich of their wealth without blinking an eye.
The point I was trying to make was that essentially in the eyes of his rich social contemporaries, FDR was a class traitor who sold them out, and not someone acting in their interests, short or long term.
Of course, we can see how it played out - which is why that comment about taking generations to roll back many of FDR's reforms is there. The rich didn't suddenly develop a social conscience following WWII - they faced Stalin, and then their nightmare of 'Communism' - only after that threat seemed safely over could they get back to work doing the one thing the rich can always be counted on - increasing their wealth without concern for any human being but themselves.
There were two factions (oversimplified) of the rich back then. The FDR faction and the "Dupont" faction for lack of a better term.
The Dupont faction wanted no reforms. Had they gained power (they attempted a coup in '34) there would have been no reforms. The country would have seen a meltdown and probably turned to communism once the dust had settled.
The FDR faction was the smarter faction in my opinion. They knew that if they didn't help out the poor people a little bit (with the New Deal) the whole thing would go down the tube.
Imagine two brothers who co-own a plantation. FDR was the brother who figured we better give the slaves better working conditions or there going to burn down the plantation and hang the master's family. Smart move, in my opinion.
Best,
Matt
P.S.
For those of you wondering about the attempted coup, yes it really did happend. History channel even did a documentary about it and their not exactly known for being a radicalist media outlet. For more info, read the original House documents confirming the whole damn thing:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/other/HUAC1.pdf
http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/other/HUAC2.pdf
http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/other/HUAC3.pdf
A good summary here:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/amcoup.html
Yes.
Let's say the TOD editors organize an assembly to redress grievances surrounding our oil problmes.. Unless it is supported by the $$$ through the mass media it will not have any real effect.
Take a look at the letter they crafted. Guess what? Unless the mainstream media (NBC owned be General Electric, for instance) picks it up, some dumbass yelling "its the gays fault for high gas prices! God will bring down the prices once we get the gays!" over on Fox News will have 1000 times more influence then TOD, LATOC, FTW, combined etc.
Which "prophet-of-doom" has more influence in this country: yours truly or Tim Lahaye (sp?), the author of the "Left Behind" series and why?
It comes down to $$$.
Best,
Matt
Political solutions are always possible, given the will.
Their politics changed, but it was an exceedingly messy process.
I don't see the revolution of 1790 as going wrong, although it laid out the process for the first total war in Europe.
Revolutions are the extreme political actions, they should be left for when all else fails.
Narco-Dollars for Dummies
"Sam and Dave Do Boat Loads
of White Agricultural Substances
Okay, let's start at ground zero. It is 1947, and World War II is over. America is ready to go back to work to build the corporate economy. We are in New Orleans on the docks.
Two boats pull into the docks. The first boat is full of a white agricultural product grown in Latin America called sugar. The owner of the cargo, lets call him Sam, sells his boat load of white agricultural substance to the sugar wholesaler on the docks for how much money?
[...]
Back on the docks, the second boat---an exact replica of the boat carrying Sam's sugar---is a boat carrying Dave's white agricultural product called drugs. [...]
Dave the drug man has a much bigger "cash profit per boat" than Sam the sugar man. Part of that is, of course, once Dave has set up his money laundering schemes, even after a 4-10 percent take for the money laundering fees, it's fair to say his tax rate of 0 percent is lower than Sam's tax rate. While it is expensive to set up all the many schemes Dave might use to launder his money, once you do it you can save a lot avoiding some or all of the IRS's take.
Look at your estimate of Sam and Dave's sales and profits. Now answer for yourself the following questions.
Who is going to get laid more, Sam or Dave?
Who is going to be more popular with the local bankers, Sam or Dave?
Who is going to have a bigger stock market portfolio with a large investment house, Sam or Dave?
Who is going to donate more money to political campaigns, Sam or Dave?
Whose wife is going to be bigger in the local charities, Sam or Dave's?
Whose companies will have more prestigous law firms on retainer, Sam or Dave's?
Who is going to buy the other's company first, Sam or Dave? Is Dave the drug man going to buy Sam the sugar man's company, or is Sam the sugar man going to buy Dave the drug man's company?
When they want to buy the other's company, will the bankers, lawyers and investment houses and politicians back Sam the sugar man or Dave the drug man?
Whose son or grandson has a better chance of getting into Harvard or getting a job offer at Goldman Sachs, Sam or Dave's?
[...]
Let's say that every year from 1947 through 2001, that the cash flow sales available for reinvestment from drug profits grew by $3 billion a year, throwing off that number times BIG PERCENT. Okay, assume that the reinvested profit grew at the compound growth rate of the Standard & Poor's 500 as it got reinvested along the way.
That amount is an estimate for the equity owned and controlled by those who have profited in the drug trade. Total narco dollars. How much money is that? I made an Excel spread-sheet once to estimate total narco capital in the economy.
My numbers showed` that Dave the drug man had bought up not only Sam's companies, but ---if you throw in other organized crime cash flows----a controlling position in about most everything on the New York Stock Exchange."
I already knew a lot about the drug war when I first read that articlea bout 2.5 years ago. It kept me up all night contemplating the implications.
Best,
Matt
I heartily agree. Our institutions are working against our best interests when it comes to dealing with Peak Oil. I just want to add a few things.
Just to strengthen your argument, Americans are VERY attached to our institutions. The Constitution has become almost a sacred document in the the collective American conscience. We will not give them up easily.
Second, in Collapse, Jared Diamond identifies this as one of the reasons societies may be vulnerable to collapse - an inability to recognize that cherished institutions, which may well have served a society well in the past, can be inadequate in dealing with new crises.
Third, the large (and accelerating) inequalities of wealth in the US tend to exacerbate our vulnerabilities to crises like PO, since the wealthy are largely insulated from the hardships high oil prices impose on the rest of us. Since the wealthy by and large run the show, if they don't perceive a problem, they will be less inclined to find a solution.
Fourth, dealing with PO will require a significant degree of national unity. Unfortunately, our political landscape has been significantly polarized over the last decade or two. There is a level of animosity between the R's and D's which is greater now than any I've seen in my lifetime (I'm 36).
I blame the Republicans for this. The GOP in particular has grown increasingly ideological. They have been frighteningly successful in promoted their sound bite politics and enforcing the party line. Low taxes and free markets good, big gov't and gay marriage bad, you know the routine.
Furthermore, they have turned mean. Some of the attacks they engage in are remarkable. I hear them say the D's are fascist, treasonous, racist, etc. It won't be easy to get people to trust and respect each other again.
zero7,
You are correct to point the finger of blame at "cherished institutions". It is not the US Constitution at work here, but rather Adam Smith's Invisible hand, our undaunted belief in the American Dream and our blind chase after personal profit.
Peak Oil is an example of market failure. The Market says keep using oil until something more effective and cheaper comes along. There is nothing more effective. Therefore the tunnel vision formula reduces to "keep using oil". We will keep using it until we can no longer extract it economically from the ground and then that will be that.
When the markets fail, government must step in to take corrective action. Our current administration is in deep denial that Markets can ever fail. That is why they refuse to step in.
Nixon was an uber-capitalist and ultra-commie basher. Yet Nixon imposed price controls. Nixon made buddy buddy with Red China. He realized that the dogma he had been worshipping all his life was a pack of bullsh*t and he changed. Maybe he was a crook, but he was not a stupid crook.
The new Republicans, on the other hand, will never change. They are too dug into their extremist views to change. It is too much against their "free markets" religion to change. They are too stupid to see that the "free markets" movement is heading us straight over the cliff to that Wal-Mart in the sky, and SUV-in-every-garage, after life.
Speaking of Republicans, did anyone catch the latest Roscoe Bartlett show on CSPAN tonight?
At least his charts are getting better.
Now he has to work on delivery.
There was no emotion.
He still doesn't get it that his fellow creatures (a.k.a. humans) are emotion-driven, irrational animals who will stampede in response to an impassioned speech about God and Country --even if there is no rationale to it-- but will yawn in the face of dry didactics --even if our very lives depend on our paying attention.
good though that he could get it out there while people are fretting about gas prices.
A third party will never play a truly important part in American politics - the other two would never allow it.
In a nutshell, they can both try to preclude other parties, but they are increasingly Paper Tigers.. in a Burning House. Do they really have the power to block out new movements much longer?
Even if, by some miracle, a third-party managed to get a candidate into the presidential race who actually polled strongly on a national basis, the congress is full of nothing but democrats and republicans - a hypothetical third-party president could never get his or her programs implemented given the gridlock that would be thrown against them.
In short, the system is solidly stacked against any third party emerging as a major political force. I don't see it happening.
Boone Pickens for president!
"To force demand down, Pickens recommends taxing gasoline so it costs about $5 per gallon."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HBTJKO6.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db
Whatever political party is formed, it will be controlled by whoever has the $$$ and that ain't anybody posting at or editing or contributing to TOD. Does anybody here have the type of money Pickens has? He donated $500,000 to one of the Governator's causes recently as reported by the SF Chronicle last week.
What do you think taxing gas to $5 will do? For one thing all the academics who edit TOD could be facing job cuts or salary cuts cause people will be sending there kids to junior colleges instead of more expensive research institutions. From a purely selfish standpoint, I guess that would be a good thing since it would mean they'd have more time to post here at TOD. (Muahahahahahah!!!!) More to the point, it will expand the poverty draft so chickenhawks like Friedman can go on cheering for war like his dumbass did prior to the war in Iraq.
As far as the letter, it's great. Send it to some rich folks. They will make sure thier paid bitches (the elected oficials) do something in their best interest. Which may or may not be in the interests of people like us.
Best,
Matt
In any case, from what I have heard him say, and from what I have read, Mr. Pickens is advocating a higher gasoline tax, offset by a cut in the Payroll Tax.
(I tried to get Richard Rainwater to also publicly support the Energy Tax idea. He wished me luck with the proposal, but he replied that he is seeking less, and not more, publicity.)
If I was Rainwater, I'd be seeking less publicity also. What does he have to gain by becoming more visible on these issues? I mean the man already has $2 billion sitting around. Heck if I was him I'd sit around all day counting my money and laughing out loud ala Dr. Evil. "One million dollars!!!!"
Best,
Matt
Best,
Matt
Best,
Matt
So you have $2 billion. The next day Olduvai unfolds. What will you do with those $2 billion? Eat it? Use it as fertilizer in your garden?
Not to say there arent rich philanthropists, its just that the drive for inclusive fitness runs deep at that level.
The sweet smell of behavioral ecology.
thelastsasquatch = gets it
Best,
Matt
I'm sympathetic to the suggesions most folks post here - slap a tax on gasoline, improve CAFE standard, etc. And I'm all in favor of fighting for them, contacting members of Congress and so forth.
But ultimately, I think it's a losing battle. Just look at the proposals coming out of Washington, the ones that might have a chance of passage:
I) A $100 rebate check to everyone
II) A windfall profits tax on the oil companies
III) drilling in ANWR
IV) An investigation into price gouging
My heart wants to believe we'll get people to recognize the problem we face and to take rational corrective action, but my head says we're doomed.
After listening to all the talking heads last weekend, I would say we still have a major problem making our so called leaders take issue with peak oil and its ramifications.. Hell, I cannot even get my local or national legislator to respond to any of my emails about peak oil or energy issues.
I'm afraid that we will have to wait for a disaster far bigger than Katrina, to get people to change their ways and thinking about energy issues..