Where's the Change?

Another day, another blog post... *sigh*

Anyways, like most progressive and independent Americans, I was transfixed (not impaled, mind you, but held motionless) by Barack Obama, the young candidate from Illinois who preached on a platform of hope and change. He held the potential of being a dynamic player on the world stage who could return America to its former status as a nation to be taken seriously. After eight agonizing years of watching George W. Bush do more harm than good by enacting policies such as No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act, it was refreshing to see a candidate who was intelligent and articulate. So, we went out and campaigned for him. We donated money and we of course voted for him.

Like most progressive and independent Americans, I have been let down by the Obama administration.  The gay rights movement is disappointed that the discriminatory "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and "Defense of Marriage" acts have yet to be repealed.  Many liberal Americans are disappointed that the health care reform bill that was signed into law was watered down.  And of course, the green movement is disappointed that there has been very little impetus towards new environmental regulation that would reduce American oil consumption and reduce carbon emissions, as was promised in the Democratic platform released in 2008.  So we all sit here wondering, where's the change? We were promised effectual, meaty policy-making and instead got a bunch of fluff.



I believe Obama was sincere during his campaign when he promised America hope and change. So where did the administration go wrong in regards to environmental policy, and why did the lofty promises of reform turn into "politics as usual?"

While our system of government has a great number of strengths, there are several weaknesses that can severely hinder the ability of a policy-maker to draft and/or enact influential, hearty rules.

Our system is fast-paced and it is constantly evolving. Term limits force policy-makers to enact quick legislation that is salient to the public in order to get re-elected. For example, thanks to the conservative media, the health care reform bill endorsed by the Obama administration was incredibly unpopular. President Obama had to do something to raise his dismal approval rating. Instead of tackling environmental regulation reform the administration turned to financial policy reform, a more salient issue at the time. It was probably a wise political decision because it will help the President win back the approval of some moderate Americans, but it will also tarnish his reputation as a legitimate policy-maker for more liberal Americans.

Special interest groups, lobbyists, and corporate funding can sometimes add a negative element to the American political system. For instance, why would President Obama punish British Petroleum after it donated tens of thousands to the Obama campaign? This situation creates a conflict of interest that prevents good policy from being enacted. The same can be said for special interest groups and lobbyists. I believe they should have access to politicians who can address their needs and concerns, but campaign funding can oftentimes create a conflict of interest in which a politician is more concerned with the donors than his constituents. How can President Obama create effective environmental policy when dirty energy and industry donated to his campaign?

Another unfortunate aspect of the American system of government is that it is highly reactionary. I don't think Congress will pass an effective climate change bill until the oceans rise and flood the east and west coasts. Millions will have to die or be displaced before Congress will be spurred to action, and by that point it will be too late. However, I don't think the administration can really be blamed for trying to survive into a second term. These are just symptoms of our style of government, and to ignore them would be politically unwise.

I believe the executive branch does have the power to create environmental policy. It is the duty of the president to decide the agenda for Congress. So if environmental legislation is important to the president, he can exert his political will in order to get it on the agenda. The president is also in charge of implementing/executing policy. He sends out the directives and guidelines describing how a law will go into effect. More importantly, the president receives his power from his constituents. If they are unhappy with his agenda, then he is voted out of office. Unfortunately for advocates of stricter environmental policy, "green" issues are rarely salient issues. The American public pays little attention to the environment besides in a time of crisis e.g. Deepwater Horizon and Hurricane Katrina.

Let me go ahead and say that I am satisfied with the work the Obama Administration has accomplished concerning environmental policy. I am most pleased that he included funding for high speed rail and other alternative methods of transportation in the stimulus package. (On that note, if you haven't heard of it, you should check out the Indianapolis Cultural Trail. Very cool, groundbreaking stuff. Click here to go to the official website.) Compared to past presidents and especially the previous one, President Obama has done a lot to push the sustainability issue. I think by the end of the President's first term, the majority of properly informed Americans will be pleased with the Obama's environmental record. If that is the case, then he did the job right.