By Sean Paige
Thursday, January 10, 2013
President Obama’s reelection has the climate cult
chomping at the bit to get a long wish list of policies put in place, from
energy taxes to cap-and-trade to a possible blockade on coal and natural-gas
exports. And most of these activists are in no mood to let that messy little
obstacle called the democratic process slow the juggernaut.
Some, like the Natural Resources Defense Council, are
encouraging the president to bypass Congress and shutter more coal-fired power
plants through executive action. A pair of law professors are among the
co-authors of a book promoting seven executive orders they hope Obama will use
to protect “people and the environment by the stroke of a pen.” A coalition of
70 green groups has written Obama demanding that he make more aggressive use of
executive power. And the green-leaning media muppets are chiming in, lending
the whole push a troubling air of legitimacy.
People become dangerous when they begin believing that
their chosen cause outweighs any other consideration. And when your cause is as
arrogantly grandiose as “saving the planet,” you might come to believe that any
means are justified, even if you have to dodge Congress and trample the
Constitution along the way. That more Americans don’t seem to find this line of
thinking alarming is itself alarming.
Thus you have the two law professors mentioned above,
Rena Steinzor and Amy Sinden, of the University of Maryland and Temple
University respectively, arguing in a recent Baltimore Sun op-ed (“Obama Should
Sidestep Congress”) that the supposedly obstructionist tactics of congressional
Republicans, combined with the “spanking” they suffered in November, license
President Obama to “use every bit of executive power he can marshal, by
directing the regulatory agencies of his administration to move with dispatch
to regulate and enforce in a number of vital areas.”
That meddlesome mob called Congress can’t be completely
ignored, the professors concede. There will be “budgets to pass, an education
reauthorization bill to craft, battles aplenty over spending, and much more,”
say the two. “But it’s hard to imagine anything of consequence coming from
Capitol Hill that isn’t the product of brutal fighting and bitter compromise.
By contrast, if [Obama] directs his regulatory agencies to move with dispatch,
the president can make huge advances on health, safety and environmental
issues, along the way crafting a lasting legacy on these issues that will stand
beside many of his first-term accomplishments.”
The two are big Obama fans, obviously. But one can’t help
wondering what they would say about the propriety and constitutionality of what
they are urging if a conservative Republican were president. I’m guessing, at
the risk of putting words into their mouths, that a Republican president who
embarked on a concerted effort to ram an agenda through without even consulting
Congress would stand accused by the two professors of having undemocratic,
perhaps even dictatorial, tendencies.
That “brutal fighting and bitter compromise” are built
into the process by design, through the system of checks and balances codified
in the Constitution, is immaterial to our law professors. All that matters to
them is that Obama scores touchdown after touchdown during his second term,
running roughshod over whatever token opposition members of Congress, also duly
elected, are able to mount. The constitutionality, the correctness, the wisdom
of this approach are not even of passing interest. The ends justify the means.
Abuses of power by the White House used to freak liberals
out. Now they cheer them. You thus have a growing cadre of liberal pundits,
many of whom cut their teeth decrying “abuses of power” by the Nixon White
House, urging the current president to ram, slam, and cram his agenda through.
Damn Congress! Damn legitimate voices of dissent! Damn the Constitution too!
There is a strong authoritarian streak running through
the environmental movement that should be alarming even to fellow progressives
who still believe in working within the rules to put their policies in place.
We first saw this on display during President Clinton’s time in office, when
much of his green agenda — creation of new national monuments, for instance,
which closes designated scenic areas to multiple use, and approval of the
so-called roadless rule, which was designed to establish de facto wilderness
over roughly a third of our national forests — was put in place via executive
actions that sidestepped congressional approval.
Nothing came of complaints, voiced at the time, that
Clinton was misusing or abusing the Antiquities Act when he created the
controversial national monuments, sometimes in direct defiance of what
representatives of the affected states thought. But even if the designations
were constitutional, technically speaking, it would seem prudent for a chief
executive to walk this path cautiously and not try to grab for more power than
our system allots.
Clinton, as we know, was a rogue, who casually discarded
such considerations (if they even flitted through his mind) in favor of
political self-interest. He needed green votes to win reelection, and later to build
a second-term “legacy,” and this was a quick, if typically slick, way to secure
them. But more high-minded, less narcissistic presidents might exercise a
little more self-restraint, putting what’s best for the country and, yes, the
Constitution above political expediency. At least I hope we’ll have presidents
of that character in the future.
Unlike his veep, Clinton was no eco-Calvinist. The only
green he really cared about is found on a golf course. He was just a shrewd
politician, who leaned green when his “triangulation” calculations called for
it. But the precedent set by his go-it-alone, screw-Congress approach to green
legacy-building could invite even greater temptations to eco-authoritarianism
when the president is a committed ideologue, as our current president is.
Of course, going through Congress slows things down.
That’s the point. It acts as a snare for nutty carbon-control schemes like
cap-and-trade. But rather than take no for an answer on that issue, President
Obama has instructed the EPA to pursue his ends through regulatory means. The
“trading” part may be missing, but the “caps” are being put in place, whether
Congress wants them or not, thanks to a spate of new federal rules — some
executed, some still coming — that will make it nearly impossible to construct
new coal-fired power plants, and could hasten the closure of existing plants
across the United States.
And that’s undoubtedly just a preview of coming
attractions in Obama’s second term.
This isn’t a president who retreats, or tacks to the
center (“triangulates,” in Clinton’s term), when facing political headwinds.
This president isn’t capable of admitting error. This is a president who
doubles down on disastrous policies — whether on failed stimulus or failed
green-energy “investments” like Solyndra — and defies somebody to stop him. We
could thus see a major challenge to our system of checks and balances if this
already-headstrong chief executive heeds the advice of those who are saying he
should throw off constitutional shackles in order to take decisive action on
climate change.
We’ll hear no squawks of protest about this from his
fellow eco-authoritarians. It’s telling, for instance, that a number of
prominent environmental groups have endorsed a plan to “reform” — meaning negate
— Senate filibuster rules that give the minority a fighting chance.
Might this new wave of eco-authoritarianism rise to the
level of a constitutional crisis in Obama’s second term? That depends on
whether the other branches of government, along with the “watchdog” press, dare
to precipitate a crisis by challenging presidential abuses of power. Such a
crisis can materialize only when a power-grabber encounters determined
resistance, from rival branches, from the press, or from the public at large. And
that’s hard to envision under present circumstances.
A divided Congress doesn’t appear to have enough unity of
purpose to confront an eco-authoritarian White House. And the lapdog media have
shown no inclination to growl, or even bark, when this president crosses a
line. If Obama remains as Teflon-coated as he has been, I’m guessing he could
push the envelope much, much further than even Clinton did. And because he’s an
ideologue, rather than just a political opportunist, this could take on an
ominous aspect that was missing in the Bubba years.
No cause is so great that it justifies subversion of the
democratic process. Those who argue otherwise are reckless people who ought to
be treated with bipartisan suspicion and scorn. The health of the planet is in
much less danger than the health of this republic, when people begin to
seriously contemplate such acts of subversion. The rising tide we should fear
is not an ocean tide swollen by ice melt, but a tide of tyranny that travels
under the green banner.
No comments:
Post a Comment