We Do Green Things: Followups on the Speech

Responses to President Obama's State of the Union by professional commentators and online bloviators were mostly predictable. If Obama didn't talk at length or at least prominently mention the issue they consider absolutely the most important (or are paid to represent it that way), they call the speech disappointing or a failure.

That would include Joseph Romm at Climate Progress who has already boxed himself in by declaring this a failed presidency months ago. Hard to up the rhetoric from there, but he tried. He's upset because Obama didn't talk about the Climate Crisis. And it's true that he didn't. One can guess by this and other evidence that the Obama White House has concluded that talking directly about global heating does no good, but that promoting policies that address the Climate Crisis--especially green energy--is the better approach. Indeed his speech pinned major economic hopes on America being a leader in green energy, and he followed that up today with a visit to a plant in Wisconsin that makes solar and other clean energy technology.

So green energy advocates are fairly happy, and at least one commentator saw the Climate Crisis connection. There may yet be a moment when Obama can effectively make the kind of call to arms that Romm demands and the situation merits. I have to guess that he doesn't see this moment as allowing for effectiveness by directly confronting the issue. In terms of congressional votes for cap and trade and so on, he's certainly right--they aren't there, and the Rabid Right is spoiling for a fight on the Climate Crisis. Obama may believe that his combination of optimistic "we do big things" American can-do spirit and economically-inspired fear of losing out to China etc. in clean energy tech will have a better chance of motivating actual change. With money behind it.

This really is the heart of the speech, and I'm a little surprised that few today seemed even to see it, or understand it, especially since it was so effective--with such clear approval among those who watched it. The need to act is wrapped in a strong argument for government action as well as business innovation, and that I still believe is the message that will resonate: "We do big things."

Three additional points centered on the energy/education/infrastructure emphasis of the speech. Obama going to a green energy manufacturer today is getting some media attention, but it's hardly the first time he's done this. He's followed up other speeches with such a visit. They've just been ignored. But as Obama said at his most recent press conference, he is persistent.

Second, after noting the media and blogosphere responses today, I admire even more Obama's ability to block out the insider noise and see things from other points of view--of people out in the country, of people in the world, and of history and the future. That he apparently pays more attention to those ten letters from citizens he reads every night than the nonsense on Daily Kos is all to his credit, but it can't be easy. Well, on the other hand, maybe it can.

Third point, and I may be the first to make this one: I see in this address the influence already of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who he appointed head of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness last week. Apart from whatever the facts are concerning his stewardship at GE, a lot of the points President Obama made are the kind of points that I heard Immelt make, for example in a conversation with Charlie Rose. He's an advocate for clean energy, more attention to research and innovation, manufacturing rather than just services, more American exports, fixing health care, and infrastructure. He claims (though critics dispute this) that he's bringing jobs back to America. Immelt has been a member of that Council for the past two years, so it's not like he's a sudden new voice being heard in the White House. But he's a bigger voice now, and I think we heard it--or echoes of it--in the State of the Union.

To return for a moment to the Climate Crisis, I would prefer that President Obama address this issue with all the rhetorical power at his command. He may need an occasion, or he may need to seize one. I wonder if he has fully appreciated or accepted the implications of recent science, and I am troubled by the resignation of his chief climate advisor Carol Browner. But it's not clear to me--and apparently not clear to the President--what practical effect this would have right now, given the politics. Cap and trade may be dead as the preferred mechanism to deal with that aspect. There may have to be another.

Instead of alienating supporters of the best hope you've got in Washington, Bill McKibben is a strong voice for building citizen and community advocacy, the way Martin Luther King, Jr. and others built the Civil Rights movement and both forced it onto the national agenda, and made it politically possible for JFK to address it and propose legislation with some chance of passage, even though he didn't live to see it pass. It's unfortunately still hearts and minds time on this issue. Why that may be will be the subject of future posts.