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.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

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.”

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x