Soapbox Post

The former FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) director under George W. Bush’s administration in times of the Katrina crisis, Michael Brown, claimed a few days ago in an interview he granted to the TV channel Fox News that President Obama is using BP’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as an excuse to take political advantage of the disaster. In his own words:

First of all, you have a disaster occur, and the Coast Guard shows up immediately. That’s their job. (…). The president is off in San Diego strumming the guitar. Obama is back East going to the White House Correspondents Dinner. You’re now nine days into the storm – into the disaster, and actually now, only now is the president appearing to be engaged.  And I think the delay was this: It’s pure politics. This president has never supported big oil. He has never supported offshore drilling. And now he has an excuse to shut it back down.

For the sake of simplicity, let’s first forget the fact that last March the Obama administration agreed to open more of the U.S. coastline to offshore drilling. Second, the argument on the lack of engagement of President Obama is really a matter of opinion and, in that sense, I am not interested in handling it (actually, I am not qualified to handle it). What I am really interested in is the fact that Mr. Brown is arguing that the administration – and we are assuming here that it is true that Obama really wants to shut down offshore drilling – should not use the crisis to its advantage. And why should the administration not do that? I mean, if I am against the expansion of the use of the car and in favor of other transportation means, it is pretty clear to me that I should appeal to – among other information that supports my arguments – the number of people that die and are injured in car accidents. Besides this, to ask politicians that they should not do politics with the bad – and good – things that happen is the equivalent of saying “please, do not do politics.”

But he went even further when he affirmed that the White House is deep down wishing that things get even worse:

(…) now you’re looking at this oil slick approaching, you know, the Louisiana shore, according to certain — NOAA and other places, if the winds are right, it will go up the East Coast. This is exactly what they want, because now he can pander to the environmentalists and say, “I’m going to shut it down because it’s too dangerous,” (…). We’re going to get shut down.(…) I would not be surprised if the White House said, you know, we might be able to, guess what, do what? Use this crisis to our advantage. Let this crisis get really bad, and then we will step in. We will be able to shut down offshore drilling. We will be able to turn to all these alternate fuels.

And what if they wish that? Unless there is a clear connection between their wishes and the way in which things are being done or are being planned to be done in order to temper the catastrophe – i.e., unless Mr. Brown can prove that the Obama administration is actually letting the “crisis get really bad” (that is, doing the things bad on purpose) – wishes are wishes. To wish to rob a bank does not mean that the one who is wishing to do that is a robber. I could wish, for example, to conquer Russia. All on my own. But thoughts and wishes, without evidence of actions – even plans, do not commit crimes.

It seems to me that these kinds of references to the hidden desires of political adversaries serves only one purpose: to stigmatize the “other.” But this is not a discovery. For me, it is more an ascertainment or a mere reminder. The one who only sees cynical attitudes behind the actions of those he criticizes is the most cynical of all. The sad thing is that this does not seem to be an isolated phenomenon (i.e., Mr. Brown and his opinions on President Obama and the oil spill), but one that sadly (it is the real world, stupid!) characterizes discourse in the political arena, overall.