Nothing happens in isolation, and in politics even unanticipated "natural" disasters -- such as blizzards -- have brought down many a politician past. Perception is everything in politics, and in concert with other current events, including the economic peril we still face, this unfolding catastrophe in the Gulf has the potential to significantly damage Barack Obama's, and the Democratic Party's, political fortunes.
It a long way to the 2010 and 2012 elections, but this is a disaster that will keep on giving for the next 10 years or more. In a volatile, dangerous context of anti-incumbent resentment and continued joblessness, it is time for far more urgent action by the White House, both to better inoculate it and the Democratic Party from the growing political fallout, and to actually improve the inadequate disaster response up to now.
UPDATE: To be clear, I believe that this is a serious Homeland Security disaster, and an "Incident of National Significance" (which can include "Oil and Hazardous Materials Incidents") under ESF-10 of the National Response Framework. This is clearly a developing catastrophe requiring more than business as usual, and the public will not be pleased when they find out that the WH did not take it more seriously. By not being more forceful and transparent about what has been going on (e.g., the bullshit 5000 barrels/day "estimate," just to name one) they will be seen as in collusion with whatever cover-ups BP is currently perpetrating.
UPDATE II: Thanks to Kossack realtime for this link, in which James Carville says much the same thing about Obama's naive trust of BP's managment of this disaster: "Carville Slams Obama Response To Oil Spill, Warns: BP Is 'Going to Take You Down!'"
*****
This argument is simple, and perhaps obvious to some of you, despite the complexities of the situation in the Gulf and around the country (and the world). But the political implications are clearly potentially catastrophic.
1) The Deepwater Horizon disaster is rapidly becoming the worst environmental disaster in world history. BP has done a good job of hiding the extent of the calamity until now, in part because of its monopoly on information and refusal -- with U.S. gov't assent -- to allow any independent or academic assessment teams in to test its (and the Coast Guard's) assertions.
Nevertheless, as some of the veil of secrecy is being lifted (e.g., live spillcam, thanks to pressure from Edward Markey and Barbara Boxer), it's apparent now that this event may ultimately run into hundreds of billions of dollars and leave an economic impact that will be felt for a generation. As you all know, some expert estimates are now running up to 25x the bullshit dubious figures of 5000 barrels/day the Coast Guard and BP were dishing out up to now (as Jed L. noted earlier this afternoon on the front page).
For example, David R. Kotok, of Cumberland Advisors, writes recently in a commentary titled "Oil Slickonomics":
[O]ther experts who have responded to the new estimate have now called on the federal government to intervene massively and to stop leaving this issue to the oil company. They allege BP is purposefully covering up or excluding information and keeping professionals from participating in a coordinated national effort to deal with this catastrophe.
...
In addition there is now risk to shipping lanes, because ships and barges cannot safely navigate through oil spills and slicks. The fire hazard has also greatly intensified. There are insurance requirements to prevent the transiting of ships. In sum, it is not wise to sail through a dangerous stretch of oil-contaminated ocean.
...
The other issue has to do with the 30,000 existing drilling rigs in the Gulf. They too must be cognizant of the risk of operating with an oil slick underneath them that is spread widely on the surface. Fire hazard again emerges as one of the considerations. We are told by petroleum engineers that these rigs may have to be evacuated if the slick reaches the sort of proportions to be dangerous to them. This is true for both drilling rigs and production platforms.
And if the worst case scenarios come to pass on this oilpocalypse, it could help contribute to a double-dip recession that would befoul the Democrat's political prospects as much as it will the deep ocean, reefs, beaches, marshes and sea-dependent animals (including humans) of the Gulf region and beyond. Economic analysts are increasingly pessimistic about the long-term impact of this disaster, and estimates of the potential direct and indirect costs are rising into the many $100s of billions.
2) The overall national and global economies are still very fragile. As Paul Krugman notes today, we are in increasingly in danger of experiencing a Japan-like "lost decade" of deflation and economic stagnation in this country.
And what about near-record unemployment, with long-term unemployment worse than at any time since the 1930s? What about the fact that the employment gains of the past few months, although welcome, have, so far, brought back fewer than 500,000 of the more than 8 million jobs lost in the wake of the financial crisis? Hey, worrying about the unemployed is just so 2009.
But the truth is that policy makers aren’t doing too much; they’re doing too little. Recent data don’t suggest that America is heading for a Greece-style collapse of investor confidence. Instead, they suggest that we may be heading for a Japan-style lost decade, trapped in a prolonged era of high unemployment and slow growth.
Cumberland Advisers asserts, as the punchline to its "worst-case" scenario:
We expect to see the deterioration of the economic statistics for the US to reveal the onset of this oil-slick crisis in May, and the negative impact will intensify during the summer months. A "double-dip" recession probably has been made more likely by this tragedy.
3) There is evidence, and growing perception, that the federal response has been inadequate . No, no ponies here, just an expectation that the most robust response possible should have been marshaled. Yet there is increasing criticism from experts that that has not been occurring. One example among many out there right now:
Scientists Fault Lack of Studies Over Gulf Oil Spill
The scientists assert that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other agencies have been slow to investigate the magnitude of the spill and the damage it is causing in the deep ocean. They are especially concerned about getting a better handle on problems that may be occurring from large plumes of oil droplets that appear to be spreading beneath the ocean surface.
The scientists point out that in the month since the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, the government has failed to make public a single test result on water from the deep ocean. And the scientists say the administration has been too reluctant to demand an accurate analysis of how many gallons of oil are flowing into the sea from the gushing oil well.
"It seems baffling that we don’t know how much oil is being spilled," Sylvia Earle, a famed oceanographer, said Wednesday on Capitol Hill. "It seems baffling that we don’t know where the oil is in the water column."
Just to name one area, the environmental impact of the oil dispersants had not been properly assessed or monitored over the last month, and BP left to determine what and how much of these poisons should be pumped into the Gulf.
Perception in Politics Is (Almost) Everything:
Whether or not it is "true" (i.e., regardless of what outraged net critics or enthusiastic WH supporters think) that the Obama administration is excessively deferring to British Petroleum in this catastrophe, it is the public perception -- and related MSM framing -- that counts in the end for the political fortunes of this president and his Party.
You and I know that the Republicans are heavily to blame for getting us to this point, as other Kossacks have noted, but the public does not. And all it sees is a White House that has largely, up to now, been encouraging of the "drill, baby, drill" mentality.
Whether you believe the WH is doing the best it can, that it's hands are tied, etc., etc., or you believe they are committing a grave error is ceding so much control over to BP, the fact remains that this event appears to be turning into not just a disaster, but a calamity.
The American public (on average, of course) is in a comparatively foul, anti-incumbent, anti-corporatist mood -- as Arlen Specter and Blanche Lincoln can attest, and it's not likely to get much better anytime soon. This oilmageddon is only going to further inflame that mood in the near to medium term.
Collective Angst: Where Goldman meets the Oilmen
It ain't gonna be pretty unless there's much more evidence of aggressive White House intervention -- and less perception of kid gloves treatment for yet another major corporate sector. Yes, some things are starting to change in the White House approach -- a month later, but not nearly enough, and this is not a time for incrementalism. President Obama is seriously in danger of bearing some heavy political fallout from this, up to and including the possibility that the spill-related economic damage may cause a double dip recession in this country.
What To Do?
ANYTHING that will show the public that it is the administration, in the public's interest, and not BP that is running the show. BP is criminally liable here, and is going to come out of this looking like shit, so the WH needs to appoint someone such as VP Biden to oversee operations and lead the charge. BP must not be seen as having control over press access, or keeping legitimate scientists from monitoring the undersea events. This is a "public good" that's at stake, not a private commercial operation gone bad.
The sooner the White House takes full control of the operation and stops giving the impression of deferring to BP, a clear corporate villain, the better for Barack Obama's political future -- and ours. Between the continued, desperate jobs situation, and the perception of Democratic pandering to Wall St. (yes, more by Repugs, but we're talking about public perceptions, again, whether you disagree or not) and the Banks, we can't let this be an additional albatross around our electoral necks in November and beyond.
So call them and put the pressure on. (Or, I suppose, if you think they're doing a bang-up job of it, call and pat them on the back.)
White House Comments: 202-456-1111. Switchboard: 202-456-1414
And/or call Markey's and Boxer's offices, and/or your Congresscritters, and get THEM to put the pressure on the WH to appoint a czar or kick it to Homeland Security -- anybody but the rascals themselves and the disappointingly indulgent and ineffectual Coast Guard and NOAA.
Congressional Directory of phone contacts
p.s. Again: This is a CONTEXT issue. For those of you who think that things are steadily improving economically, and that come election time (either year) the public will be in a much improved mood, then there is far less to worry about politically regarding this disaster and the administration response.
Update II: For a slightly different, though related, rant, see stevelungrin's take.