6/12/10

The Financial Times is losing some of its infatuation with Barack Obama because of the Gulf oil spill (US Must Hit Reset Button With BP). The editorial writers object to the harsh language used, and the demand for a blank check from BP to clean up the mess.

The FT says there has been far too much posturing by the Obama administration. The constant reference to British Petroleum even though the company has been BP since 1998 is “faintly xenophobic.” Obama is entitled to ask for a large check from BP, but not a blank one. The observation Obama wants to find an ‘ass to kick”will not appease public anger, and instead sets off’ a dangerous feed-back loop in which anger and frustration is magnified.” The consequent ratching up of pressure is subjecting BP to financial stress.

The FT is pleased that Obama is finally ready to talk with BP’s management. What is needed now is a cooling of the temperature and a focus on the objective of cleaning up the spill. Blame can be apportioned later. BP has no incentive to be uncooperative, and Obama should stop treating BP as a hostile and alien entity, the FT writes.

Philip Stephens, who writes regularly for the FT, agrees that the disaster “has shown Obama at his worst” (Some Home Truths on Oil for a President Showing the Strain). Stephens says it does not bother him that Obama is going after BP. He writes:

“I do not carry any candles for BP. Nor am I terribly fussed if a US president thinks there are votes to be garnered by stirring up anti-British feeling. The Brits will get over it.”

What Stephens objects to is Obama’s seeming inability to walk and chew gum at the same time. He should use this crisis to draw a clear link between oil production and climate change. Deepwater drilling is occurring because America uses too much oil. The world will not take global warming seriously until the US does something about its enormous appetite for oil. With only a twentieth of the world’s population the US consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil. Stephens concludes that Obama could “use the disaster to shape a new conversation about the unavoidable links between oil spills, climate change and sustainable economic growth.”

Stephens is clearly much more committed to postmodernism than the FT editorial writers. The FT worries about what the crisis could do to a prime British asset and how it could affect people living on pensions if the company goes under. Stephens thinks about how the crisis can be used to save the globe. The editors are also thinking about the rule of law, whereas a true postmodernist is more concerned about how the law affects people. Obama says BP should be required to pay the salaries of people who are out of work because of the moratorium he has placed on offshore drilling. After all, these people are suffering and empathy counts for more than the language of the law.

Obama is, in fact, using this crisis to implement his broader agenda, which is to help the victims and punish the victimizers. Capitalism is exploiting ordinary people and BP is just one more example of this. The FT is showing its ambiguity when it defends a capitalist enterprise such as BP and embraces Obama because of his postmodernism. In Obama’s world British is more useful than BP, because it was British colonialism that turned a large part of the world’s population into victims.

During his election campaign Obama said he was open to direct discussions with our supposed adversaries without preconditions, and that included the president of Iran. However, when asked why he had not spoken directly with Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, he answered:

“I have not spoken to him directly and here’s the reason. Because my experience is when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s going to say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in action.”

Suddenly, the Harvard intellectual who is noted for his extraordinary oratorical ability now wants to be seen as a man of action. After preaching to us about the importance of tolerance and the need to avoid stereotypes he is telling us that corporate CEO’s are all alike.

When Obama’s press secretary (Gibbs) was asked if it was not time to tone down the rhetoric he said : No, that can’t be right. The people out there say we are not angry enough. This only adds to our confusion, because progressives are supposed to guide people in the right direction. Gibbs is suggesting the president is a populist who wants to be one step ahead of where public opinion is taking us.