Offshore Drilling–In Exchange for What?

Offshore Drilling–In Exchange for What?

Offshore Drilling–In Exchange for What?

Christopher Hayes discusses the political strategy behind Obama’s recent endorsement of offshore drilling.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

After Obama’s recent endorsement of offshore drilling, plenty of Republicans have challenged the very policy they strongly supported in the presidential election. Last night on her show, Rachel Maddow notes that though some Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham and John McCain, have come out with “mildly supportive” statements in favor of this “very Republican idea,” she can’t help but ask what the Democrats are getting out of their support for offshore drilling. Maddow puts the question to The Nation‘s Washington editor Christopher Hayes.

Hayes agrees with Maddow’s opinion that after healthcare, there is no reason to start out making concessions to win Republican support, but Hayes offers three reasons why Obama may be trying.

The first is that Obama is a true believer in negotiating, that “he’s going to try to will that to be the case…expecting that somehow the magical negotiating fairy will show up and prompt the Republicans to similarly act in good faith,” Hayes explains. The second is just poor politics. The third is that eventually the American people will realize that Obama is trying to be a fair and honest politician. “Politically, the idea is [that] you’re constantly extending an olive branch and you’re constantly getting slapped in the face and eventually you do that enough the American people will realize who’s the one operating in good faith,” Hayes explains. The problem with this strategy, Hayes says, is that it produces bad legislation and shifts the debate toward the center. “So all of a sudden…things that were kind of settled, centrist ideas, like we shouldn’t torture or we should close Guantánamo…in trying to move towards them you’ve shifted the parameters of the conversation over.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x