Thank goodness it was BP!

If the deep-water drilling accident that was bound to happen eventually had been caused by a smaller, less well-endowed oil company, the entire world would have been in a much greater mess.

As bad as the Gulf oil spill is, at least BP has the resources to commit to cleaning it up responsibly.

BP is taking a lot of the blame for what is really a systemic problem:  Sure BP took cost-cutting risks—as would every oil company in a competitive climate. That is why we need government regulators to ensure that reasonable risk management precautions are carried out by every company, to not only ensure safety but also to ensure them that they all operate in an even playing field where the same rules apply to all.

What happened in the Gulf is that not only did BP cut some corners, which we can assume every other company also cuts to one degree or another; but the government also cut some regulatory corners and did not enforce the risk management protocols it should have.

Presumably getting the regulatory system back into operating order is why President Obama called for the six-month halt on deep-water drilling. The government needs to get its act together! 

A disaster like this could happen again if the government does not do its job right, and we won’t be so lucky if next time the company involved is not as well-endowed as BP.

Thank goodness it happened to BP!

Do political moderates have a future?

Americans want their leaders to cooperate with each other and work together — that means being willing to make reasonable compromises. George Bush first got into office largely on the promise that he was a “uniter not a divider.” Barack Obama followed with the similar theme to “bring everyone to the table.”

We all know how polarization has developed over the past decade or so. The assumption that the middle ground — political centrism — would appeal to the majority of voters is now being questioned.  Perhaps there are just too many issues which people hold with idiosyncratic individuality as our pluralism becomes more deeply entrenched.

The Current Situation

David Brooks warns --

“…these days, the political center is a feckless shell. It has no governing philosophy. Its paragons are either nakedly opportunistic, like Arlen Specter, or caught in some wishy-washy middle, like Blanche Lincoln. The right and left have organized, but the center hasn't bothered to. The right and left have media outlets and think tanks, but the centrists are content to complain about polarization and go home. By their genteel passivity, moderates have ceded power to the extremes.”  (Read more)

For a further discussion of this issue, you can view or read the weekly analysis of Shields & Brooks on the PBS NEWSHOUR for May 21, 2010:  Shields and Brooks on Rand Paul Comments, Dangers of Centrism.

The way I read the situation however, borrowing David Brooks’ spectacles to view it, is that many of the true libertarians may be in the middle. They don’t organize into groups since their views are unique to themselves and perhaps their immediate subgroups. They vote according to their own principles as they understand them to best apply at the time of an election. They are not going to let political affiliation obligate them to a given party. But they may well have their own political philosophies.

The declining economy and shifts in the national political agenda have also left many voters angry and discontent. The way I see it, many of these independent swing voters may be uncommitted people whose beliefs will still be emerging and open to being influenced by those who take the time to engage them.  They will likely be even more open to rational discourse if economic conditions improve. Whatever their individual situations, however, as more and more people disengage from formal affiliations with religious and political groups, in the long run, the undefined middle might be up for grabs.

When we think of this broader social context, we are reminded of the need to distinguish between what people believe constitutes a good society and want they expect from their political leaders.  There may not always be a direct connection between these two factors any more.

Obama’s Centrist Leadership Style

I do think that President Obama has a somewhat defined centrist political philosophy, and that David Brooks has helped identify this. Brooks, however, seems to emphasize belief systems that might underlie centrism; but I think the leadership approach that produces the results that centrists seek is more important in focusing on centrism. Obama’s centrist style is easy to overlook.  He has come onto the national scene so quickly in his political career that his approach has not had time to be properly introduced, nurtured to maturity, or fully appreciated by the public; and it may well be rejected before even its preliminary results are evaluated or it is fully articulated and rationally considered. But it may well be an approach with a future, especially if those on the extremes continue to fail to do anything but beat each other up and knock each other down time after time if we keep electing one extreme and then the other.

The president’s centrist approach was most clearly explained in the context of religious conflicts in his Call to Renewal speech in 2006; but in reality his leadership style throughout his life has exemplified this philosophy.

In this speech he presented his approach to political leadership under what I have summarized as three “rules” or principles as described below in a condensed form.  I believe we see the president and his team regularly referring to these same concepts as they lead the country in every sphere of our national life — not only as they touch on religious concerns, although these principles were articulated in that context.  These are not special principles for treating religion. This speech just elucidates how the religious area should be integrated into these broad principles which guide in governing the entire society.  Remove the religious references and you have the basic principles of a centrist leadership philosophy.

• Principle # 1 — FREE EXPRESSION: When people participate in public discussion and debate, they should be free to fully express their beliefs.  Believers should be free to express their religious concerns.  Likewise, those who do not identify themselves as religious should be free to express their beliefs as they see them.  
• Principle # 2  — COMPROMISE: Although both religious and non-religious viewpoints should be heard and discussed, the goal of public discussion is to establish common agreement on value judgments in order to obtain the broadest possible base for legal action in a pluralistic, democratic society.
• Principle # 3 — GOOD WILL: Recognize the limits of the political process:  accept that significant change comes slowly; speak fair-mindedly about the issues; presume the best from each other.

As David Brooks has noted, Obama has towed the line tenaciously in pursuing his centrist approach to political leadership, drawing attacks from both left and right.

As already noted, it is important to distinguish between a centrist leadership style and centrist political beliefs, though ultimately the lines between them may become blurry as compromises are defended. Obviously a politician’s beliefs will vary somewhere along a scale from left to right. Obama is generally recognized as being left of center, although a careful reading of these principles will have to acknowledge that they are actually quite conservative since they allow for the rate of social change to occur at a pace set by the level of participation by the members of society. If people push back at proposed changes, they will not occur because there will be compromises.

If enough people want to slow down a given agenda item, then they can do so by getting involved.  But likewise, others can push back if they are so inclined to support proposed changes.  Only by getting involved will the democratic leadership style envisioned by President Obama really work; and when it is working best it might well appear to be most stagnant at times because of all the involvement of people making their voices heard. 

Angry involvement is not necessarily a bad thing; but it needs to be transformed by congressional leaders into compromises that will work for the benefit of their constituencies.  If they have been delivering unrealistic messages to them, they will not be able to deliver.  This is where the real Congressional gridlock begins, in the implied promises made by Congressional leaders to their constituencies, especially when they buy into the party line of the left and right think tanks that provide them with handy talking points.  If they have left themselves no room for compromise, they are in no position to lead for the good of America.

There needs to be a lot more attention given to how congressional leaders are communicating with their constituencies.  This may actually be where congressional gridlock begins!

Forecasting Future Trends

It is very difficult for social scientists to assess movements that are not organized in some way, and the desire of Americans to see a centrist politics operating for the good of America certainly has to rate as some kind of a movement even if it does ebb and flow, perhaps due to factors not directly related to politics.  Despite all the anger and fear currently displayed in polls, I do not see any evidence that centrism in political leadership is dead.  In fact, much of American anger is directed at Congress for not getting more accomplished. Congress is expected to lead, and this will entail compromise, even if it is done quietly so as not to offend too many sensibilities. 

One has to wonder whether researchers have yet figured out a way to assess centrist voters to see what kind of sense they really do make.  They might be surprised if they started to dig a little deeper!

Analyzing political leadership styles of political leaders and making them more widely known might lead us in a more profitable direction than we are currently heading. America has never clamored for leaders with moderate beliefs. We want leaders who are willing to forge workable compromises for the American people.