It is ironic, isn’t it? Many of the same people who decry governmental interference in the affairs of businesses are complaining that President Obama is not doing enough to fix the BP oil spill. Among them are some of the most activist voices against environmental legislation which would seek to prevent such disasters from happening. The political reasoning behind their complaint should be simple enough; once this crisis is over, they will return to their non-interventionist, non-environmentalist ways. Nonetheless, I agree with them — to a point. At this stage, the federal government should be more pro-active, sending in their experts and doing whatever they can to deal with the situation — on land and at sea. I am sure there is more they can do than they are doing, and the situation as it stands makes it necessary.
Some people are trying to compare Obama’s response to President G.W. Bush’s response to Katrina. I don’t think such comparison works. Bush had the opportunity to prepare for Katrina and that makes a world of difference. Plus, since the beginning of the crisis, Obama’s administration has been trying to help BP fix the problem, while it took several days before Bush’s administration did anything about Katrina. This does not mean Obama has done enough, nor that he is free from criticism — it only shows that we must make sure the criticism is of a valid kind.
What kind of blame do you think President Obama should have on the ongoing crisis? What do you think his administration could be doing but isn’t? What exactly should the role of government be in the clean up?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In