Up until a couple of months ago, John McCain was strongly opposed to expansive coastal drilling, arguing that it was a bad idea that would do nothing to help consumers. Then, as the political winds shifted, McCain shifted with them, and exploited public frustration for all its worth. He effectively told voters, “Wait, did I say coastal drilling wouldn’t help? I meant coastal drilling is great!”
Barack Obama, meanwhile, has stood firmly behind a reality-based policy, trying to explain to the public that drilling won’t help. To date, his efforts haven’t exactly paid off — polls show Americans endorsing this dumb idea in huge numbers, and Obama’s policy has become the McCain campaign’s biggest and most frequent target.
With that in mind, yesterday, Obama shifted a bit. It’s probably not quite fair to characterize this as a complete reversal — Obama thought coastal drilling was a bad policy before, and he thinks it’s a bad policy now — but just yesterday, I praised Obama for sticking to his guns on this. A few hours later, he became considerably more flexible.
Barack Obama Friday dropped his opposition to offshore oil drilling, saying he could go along with the idea if it was part of a broader energy package.
Obama made his comments in St. Petersburg during an interview with the Palm Beach Post. “My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” he said.
“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage — I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done,” the paper quoted Obama as saying.
“The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling,” Obama added. “And so we don’t want gridlock. We want to get something done.”
McCain’s reversal on this was more of a shameless, cynical ploy — he thought coastal drilling wouldn’t work, and then he said it would. Obama’s reversal is more nuanced — he’s effectively saying, “If some expanded drilling is the price of getting an otherwise good bill through Congress, it’s still a bad idea, but so be it.”
I would have much preferred to see Obama continue to reject this obvious and transparent nonsense out of hand. He’s been treating voters like grown-ups, telling them the truth.
But it hasn’t been working.
I looked at this week’s CNN poll with some amazement. A combined 83% of Americans believe “federal laws that prohibit increased drilling for oil offshore or in wilderness areas” are contributing to high gas prices. A combined 69% support “increased offshore drilling,” which is similar to the numbers in other polls.
Republicans have been screaming about drilling at the top of their lungs, the media has been treating the GOP position has a legitimate policy, and voters are so filled with anxiety, the desperation has clouded their judgment. It’s a difficult environment for a presidential candidate to say, “You’re all completely wrong.”
I was talking to a friend this week who does focus-group work, and he told me that even Dems and self-described environmentalists have been hedging on this issue — saying things like, “Maybe we should invest in more alternative energies and expand drilling. You know, best of both worlds.”
Obama’s line, while disappointing, concedes the political point, but it also reflects a pragmatic characteristic we’ve seen before with him. He has a vision and wants to advance his policy, but Obama is also willing to give a little, just so long as he moves the ball forward. Whether one finds that trait endearing or disappointing is a matter of personal perspective.
That said, there’s a small part of me that wonders if Obama is playing a little game with Republicans here. Obama surely knows that it takes at least two years to process new drilling leases, and three to five years for new drilling ships and other equipment become available. Is it at least possible that Obama is offering Republicans a sucker’s bet? Obama endorses a “comprehensive” energy policy in the short term, knowing full well that coastal drilling, even if approved tomorrow, wouldn’t even begin until the end of what would be his first term? Possibly even giving him time to fix the policy later and/or educate the public better?
Just a thought.