Politicians and pundits often treat consistency as if it is equal to clarity. Voting records and past statements are scoured for any instance of diversion from current orthodoxy. Any change of course is looked on as a weakness, the slightest deviation pointed up with shouts of hypocrisy, if not heresy.
If the issue in question is one that speaks deeply to the character of the person involved, there may be good reason for this sort of scrutiny. Certainly it would be difficult to support a nominee for the judiciary if that nominee had previously expressed his disdain for the rule of law. It would be hard to see someone seated in a position of authority over some area of the government, if that person's past record reflected an opposition to the purpose behind that area. Many people would have difficulty accepting a former conscientious objector as Secretary of Defense, or someone who refused to pay their own taxes heading up the IRS. (Though we did recently have a UN representative who had expressed a wish to see that institution blown up, so perhaps there are exceptions.)
There are issues on which any change of views is looked on with a high degree of suspicion. Those on one side of the abortion debate see it as a struggle to prevent the death of a uniquely defenseless being, on the other side it is viewed as an attempt to grossly interfere in the life, actions and person of the woman involved. Those two views may be genuinely irreconcilable. It would be unreasonable to expect that this issue will be resolved any time soon, and it's not surprising that people who hurdle this void from one bank to the other are viewed at least a little warily.
Still, not every change of direction is cause for ridicule or suspicion. Changing your mind doesn't mean you are devious, inconsistent, or plain old wishy-washy. Many issues are subject to new information, new situations, or a new understanding of old ideas. A person who holds fast to principles in the face of opposition may be stalwart, but someone who refuses to change their position in the face of contrary facts is merely stubborn. Worse, they are an obstacle to those seeking workable, rational solutions.
When it comes to the production and use of petroleum in our nation, the facts are not in dispute. The rates of production and consumption are readily available from sources in both government and industry. What those numbers show is that the United States passed its peak production of petroleum forty years ago. Our production today is half what it was in 1970, while our dependence on imported oil is six times greater. Two thirds of our oil comes from outside the US. Every study of upcoming production (including those with the most optimistic view of our ability to discover and exploit offshore resources) sees these trends continuing into the future. That's just the way it is, and no amount of wishing or shouting will make it otherwise. Yes, there still remain large reserves of oil under the land and seas controlled by our nation, but they are not enough -- nowhere near enough -- to provide any potential for eliminating, or even significantly reducing, our dependence on imported oil.
These are the plain facts. To pretend otherwise does not signal patriotism, or an unflagging belief in the ingenuity of American industry, or chin-high shoulders-back square-jawed resolve. Drilling our way out of this issue is a fantasy; a dangerous fantasy that day by day makes our nation more dependent on, and more indebted to, sources of oil whose long term interests do not align with our own. Continuing on this course is guaranteed to weaken our nation.
The only way to reduce the dependency, debt, and strategic weakness caused by our need for imported oil, is to reduce the amount of oil we use for transportation. And no chant, no matter how catchy, will, make it otherwise.
Does this mean that we should stop offshore drilling? I don't know. In the short term, with the images and numbers of the Deepwater Horizon disaster front and center of our daily news, calls that we must continue drilling sound... not merely silly, but ignorant. Actively ignorant. And the pretense that without drilling we would face dire economic consequences is worse still.
Clearly, the risk involved in failure of a single well can be very high, much higher than most people would have believed just two weeks ago. Yes, there are jobs and money generated from offshore drilling, but there are also jobs and money lost when that drilling goes awry. We can hope that such disasters remain rare, but... If your family farm was situated next to a plant that (even occasionally) released poisons which killed your crops and emptied your family bank account, you would not be likely to look favorably on your neighbor. I imagine there are a lot of small fisherman, a lot of independent shrimpers, a lot of charter boat captains out there right now who feel the same way. They have every right to expect remuneration for their losses, and to expect a government where David can be heard as well as Goliath. Their industry should not exist only at the whim of another.
The danger of offshore drilling at the moment looks quite high. The benefits of this drilling look, and and have always looked, quite low. There are political reasons for shouting "drill, baby, drill." It's a feel-tough bounce for folks who want to give a kick to "tree hugger." A political position for those who want to foist over the idea that everything can go on just as it has, if only we poke a few more holes in the right places. Unfortunately -- and I say that sincerely -- it's not true. Things can't go on as they have, and this fantasy stands in the way of making strong, realistic moves to protect our nation and our future.
It's hard to find a rational scale on which this issue can be weighed and drilling found valuable enough to hold the risk it brings. Anyone wanting to defend offshore drilling at this point needs more than conviction of the soul, they need numbers and a plan. They need to be able to show that five years, ten years, twenty years down the line, offshore drilling will lead to a significant improvement in the availability of domestic energy in the United States. And they need to show that this improvement is large enough and valuable enough to offset the proven risk.
Otherwise, the chants need to end. Offshore drilling should not be one of those issues where purity patrols stand vigilante and minds are not allowed to change. Changing your mind on this issue doesn't mean changing your ideology. Offshore drilling was never an ideology to begin with, just a convenient place to channel anger.
In any case, if you're still out there chanting, you need to understand that the pep rally is over. The game is on, and it's a big one. There are consequences to shouting just because you like the noise. If you think there is legitimate good behind "drill, baby, drill" that goes beyond a string of platitudes and fact-free statements then put down the pom poms and explain your reasoning. Otherwise, get off the court.