March 18, 2011, 10:00 a.m.
[March 19: Addition of new paragraph 5, "Predicting the Unpredictable," and, following the blog entry, responses to some blog readers' comments.]
Iowans' "Absolute Safety" from Nuclear Disaster Impossible to Achieve
["[W]e need to be willing to invest [in energy]. But if the investment is in nuclear energy, it must be absolutely safe." Editorial, "Nuclear Energy in Iowa Must be Used Safely," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 19, 2011, p. A13.]
What is, what should be, America's and Iowa's nuclear power plant future?
The blog essay I'd like to write on the subject will take more time, over time, than I have to devote to it this morning.
So here are some bullet points that, with luck, I'll be able to expand upon over time.
1. Conservation and Population. Our greatest source of the very cheapest energy is conservation. To focus solely on the energy supply side is like earning and borrowing ever more money each year in the futile effort to satisfy all of one's escalating wants, manipulated by a consumerist culture and economy, rather than budgeting and evaluating one's values and true needs. Conservation examples: encouraging more walking and use of bicycles, where feasible, rather than cars; relying proportionately more on urban and cross-country rail, rather than trucks and cars; transferring the tens of billions of dollars earmarked for the nuclear industry to an aggressive home insulation program.
Even less politically popular than conservation would be zero growth population policies. But, of course, the grim reality is that the world's population has gone from 300 million 2000 years ago, to one billion in 1800, 2 billion by 1927, 3 billion by 1960, 4 billion by 1974, 5 billion by 1987, 6 billion by 1999 -- on to a projected 9 billion by 2050. That's 1800 years to add 700 million, 127 years to add the second billion, 33 years to add the third, 14 years to add the fourth billion, 13 years to add the fifth, and 12 years to reach 6 billion.
There has been a three-fold increase in population just during my lifetime. But of course the increase in energy demand grows even faster than population. As a reader wrote me, "World population continues to increase at an alarming rate. Even if we could completely stop population growth tomorrow, people in India and China want our quality of life. They want cars, big houses, appliances, and lots of fancy electronic things. The need for energy will continue to skyrocket." Even if the world's people continued to use energy, per person, at the rates they do today, imagine the difference it would make if there were only half as many people to use (and waste) energy as there are now.
2. No Utopias. There is no single, perfect answer to our energy needs. No matter what we do, there will continue to be climate change, death and injury to civilian populations, and obviously the workers (e.g., the Japanese nuclear plant workers who are dying and will die as I write; those who died on BP's offshore drilling rig, and in the Massey coal mines, last year; those whose health is affected by polluted air and water; those who will suffer property damage, injury and death from exploding natural gas pipelines).
3. The Mix. We will undoubtedly continue to draw upon a mix of sources. Were we to put a multiple of present resources behind wind, solar, biomass, and hydro (which are not devoid of downsides) they could contribute a great deal more than they do now. But for the foreseeable future we are going to continue to have a significant reliance on coal, oil, natural gas -- and nuclear (now providing about 20% of our electric energy).
4. Risk Assessment. Assessing the risk of any event, from falling downstairs to a nuclear disaster, involves, among others, at least two factors: (a) What are the odds, the likelihood, that the event will occur? (b) If it does occur, how serious (i.e., costly in property damage and human life and health) would it be?
There are about 442 operating nuclear reactors in the world; four failed in the Fukushima Daiichi Plant. That is one percent of the world's reactors. Individuals will differ as to how likely a risk that is. But few would differ on the potential seriousness of the consequences should it occur. Coal mining and offshore oil drilling also pose risks to the environment and human life; the likelihood of their occurring are greater than for a nuclear disaster; but the quantity of the impact on human life and health is much less than a nuclear disaster when they do occur.
5. Predicting the Unpredictable. Whether dealing with possible terrorist threats to our airline industry, or the next big thing to threaten the safety of a nuclear reactor, it's much easier to respond to the last threat than to anticipate the next. One airline passenger puts a bomb in his shoe, and the next two million passengers have to take their shoes off before boarding. It's like the southern folktale, "The Story of Epaminondas and His Auntie." (E.g., Epaminondas brings home cake in his hand, turning it to crumbs, and is told he should have put it under his hat. The next day he's sent for butter, brings it home under his hat, where it melts down his face. The pattern continues.)
We're always working on the last threat, rather than preparing for the next. Was a nuclear power plant built to withstand a 7.2 magnitude earthquake "safe"? Sure -- until it's hit with a magnitude 9 earthquake, followed by a tsunami. We can build nuclear reactors to withstand the threats we have either dealt with before, or those we can imagine. But ironically, the very fact there have been so few nuclear reactor disasters means that it is even more difficult to predict what may trigger the next one. All we can know with certainty is that it will probably involve an event that no one predicted.
6. Decommissioning. Like natural gas pipelines that can corrode or otherwise increase the risk of ruinous explosions and fires with the passage of time, so do nuclear reactors. Among other things, the bombarding nuclear activity and heat can weaken the safety structures. Some engineers are suggesting the Fukushima reactors either were scheduled for decommissioning, or should have been, before now. Apparently, a forty-year operating life (which these had) is close to the outer reaches of safe operation. That would mean that the reactors in the U.S. that were constructed prior to 1971, which is a goodly number of them, are due to be decommissioned -- or, as in Germany, at least shut down and subjected to a very, very thorough stress and safety check (an approach rejected by the President and nuclear industry). Not incidentally, decommissioning is a lengthy and costly process, which is but one of the reasons the profit-driven nuclear and electric utility industries have a motive for pushing their luck.
7. Corruption and Capture. Warnings tend to be ignored. Massey's safety record was well known by government and within the industry. Ditto for BP. Ditto for nuclear. In the 1960s, GE's Mark I -- the reactor built at Daiichi -- was touted as a more economical source of nuclear power. Engineers inside and outside the company warned that the cost savings increased safety hazards. Some predicted years ago the precise scenario we have been witnessing over the last ten days in Japan.
In the case of BP, the "regulatory" agency employees were literally sleeping with the industry, while accepting on faith BP's representations regarding the safety of its operations. As a rough rule of thumb, major companies and industries get a return of 1000-to-one on their campaign contributions; give a million, get a billion. One form of that return is watered down, or non-existent, regulation as a result of Congressional, or Presidential intervention.
Unfortunately, this can also take the form of public officials essentially echoing industry propaganda. It was only days before the BP loss of life and ecological disaster that President Obama was assuring Americans that, because of technological improvements, any harm from offshore drilling was virtually impossible. More recently, the President and his Administration have been touting both the necessity and safety of his multi-billion-dollar push for more nuclear power plants. Not incidentally, he has recently appointed the CEO of GE -- the company that stands to gain the most from increased nuclear power plant construction (and whose officers were major Obama campaign contributors, not to mention the executives of MSNBC) -- to a top White House position, while essentially ignoring the ongoing, and unresolved, problems associated with nuclear waste disposal.
8. Increased Nuclear Safety Possible, but Unlikely. There is much that can be done to decrease -- not eliminate, but decrease -- the risk of nuclear disaster. Examples might include stronger containment vessels, removing (or at least not putting new) reactors that are close to major urban centers, drinking water supplies, or seismic fault lines. Unfortunately, for the reasons set forth above (7. "Corruption and Capture") such measures are unlikely to be as vigorously pursued as good science and rational policy would dictate.
9. Who pays? Not incidentally, it is we, as utility ratepayers and taxpayers, who pay for nuclear generated power plants. They are essentially a freebee for shareholders. Sometimes ratepayers must pay in advance of construction; always they will pay eventually in higher rates; and always they will pay as taxpayers following a major disaster. It's another example of "free private enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich."
Moreover, there's a lesson to be learned from the lack of "free market" response to the nuclear "opportunity," even with billions of dollars from Washington. The relatively low price of domestic natural gas, the enormous (multi-billion-dollar) cost per reactor, the unsolved problem of nuclear waste, and the enormous safety concerns (even if taxpayers pick up most of the economic costs of disasters) have discouraged potential investors from building nuclear power plants over the past couple decades. Sometimes, as citizens, we need to listen to the marketplace in shaping public policy -- even if, as ratepayers and taxpayers, we are willing to be snookered by the utilities and their kept public officials.
_____
[The author of an anonymous comment on this blog says, in part, "To verify my sincerity I can tell you that I live within 10 miles of a plant similar to the ones in Japan except for a few important facts. 1. It is not on a fault line. . . ."
Now I'm not about to predict an earthquake in Iowa, or that if one were to occur Iowa's nuclear power plants would be at risk. After all, how could I know? Besides, the 1811 earthquake epicenter was somewhat south of Iowa, between Missouri and Illinois. But I do note that three months ago FEMA thought an earthquake in this region is "a significant risk today."The [1811] earthquake took place in the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ), which is the site of several of the largest historical earthquakes to ever strike the continental U.S. and remains a significant risk today. . . . The earthquake caused strong shaking throughout the central U.S. . . . its impacts were felt as far away as Washington and Ohio . . . [and] caused large areas to be uplifted or dropped down in elevation.
Since then, the regions along the NMSZ have experienced explosive growth in both population and infrastructure. Another series of earthquakes with the magnitude of the 1811 earthquakes could prove catastrophic to the region.
"On The 199th Anniversary of New Madrid Quake, FEMA Urges the Public To Be Prepared Today," FEMA/Department of Homeland Security, December 16, 2010.
The same comment author says, "The biggest difference [between the nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan, and the one in Palo, Iowa] is that in the U.S. we NEVER put 6 reactors in one place. When this is done you just end up with a problem waiting to happen." However, the March 19, 2011, Gazette reports that Palo, where there is already a 37-year-old reactor, is at least one of the possible sites for a second reactor. The story details some of the advantages of putting a new one there, but omits to mention the increased risks noted by the comment author. Rick Smith, "MidAmerican downplays mention of Palo as nuke site, but some say it makes good sense," The Gazette, March 19, 2011, p. A1.]
# # #
May 18, 2010, 5:45 a.m.
[See the related "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]
Whatever Happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Normally when a large and embarrassing institutional error is revealed by the media, the head of that institution, whether called chair, CEO, executive director -- or "President of the United States" -- steps forward to take responsibility.
President Harry Truman was associated with the constant reminder of that obligation he kept on his desk, the sign that read, "The Buck Stops Here" -- "buck" as in "passing the buck." [Photo credit: Harry S. Truman Library and Museum.]
It was not inappropriate for President Obama to chastise the BP, Transocean and Halliburton CEOs' performance before Congress -- seemingly passing responsibility for the Gulf disaster between themselves faster than the basketball at a college team's ball handling practice.
Fortunately for Obama, he went on to acknowledge, almost as an afterthought, "there is enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it. That includes, by the way, the federal government."
Unfortunately for Obama, the national finger-pointer-in-chief stopped there, unable to move his arm and hand into a position where he could point at himself.
You had executives of BP and Transocean and Halliburton falling over each other to point the finger of blame at somebody else. The American people could not have been impressed with that display, and I certainly wasn’t.
I understand that there are legal and financial issues involved, and a full investigation will tell us exactly what happened. But it is pretty clear that the system failed, and it failed badly. And for that, there is enough responsibility to go around. And all parties should be willing to accept it.
That includes, by the way, the federal government. For too long, for a decade or more, there has been a cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill. It seems as if permits were too often issued based on little more than assurances of safety from the oil companies.
"Remarks by the President on the Ongoing Oil Spill Response," WhiteHouse.gov, May 14, 2010; John M. Broder and Helene Cooper, "Obama Vows End to 'Cozy' Oversight of Oil Industry," New York Times, May 15, 2010, p. A13.
Top executives often take responsibility for their institution's failures in an almost formal, ritualistic, theoretical sense -- failures for which they played no direct role, failures of which they could not even have been expected to have had advance knowledge.
Alas, President Obama's responsibility for the BP oil pollution was not such a failure.
After all, it was not the CEO of the historically disaster-ridden BP, or the head of the ineffective and corrupt Minerals Management Service, who said that offshore drilling could be done in a way to "protect communities and protect coastlines," "protect America's natural resources -- tourism, the environment," and in ways that are today "technologically advanced" and "guided by scientific evidence," "environmentally sound and not risky" with a "low risk environmentally." It was neither of them who asserted that "oil rigs today don't cause spills."
Those cheerleading assertions sound as if they were written by a BP publicist. Hopefully, they were not -- but the result is just the same -- in fact, far more powerful and influential when delivered and carried worldwide from the "bully pulpit" of the President of the United States.
For they were all the words of President Obama, in his personal effort to boost the oil industry's profitable offshore drilling, days before the BP disaster.
So today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration, but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America’s natural resources. Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration. We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism, the environment, and our national security. And we’ll be guided not by political ideology, but by scientific evidence.
"Remarks by The President on Energy Security at Andrews Air Force Base," WhiteHouse.gov, March 21, 2010.
[Photo credit: White House] [W]e’ve got to look at our traditional energy sources and figure out how can we use those most effectively and in the most environmentally sound way. . . .
The decision around drilling -- same approach. What we did was we said we’re not going to have drilling a mile off the North Carolina coast or two miles off. But 50 miles off, 100 miles off, where it is appropriate and environmentally sound and not risky, we should allow exploration to begin taking place to see if there’s certain reserves. . . .
But what we did was we tried to look at the scientific evidence and figure out where are areas where low risk environmentally and a high potential upside. . . .
I don’t agree with the notion that we shouldn’t do anything. It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.
"Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy," Charlotte, North Carolina, WhiteHouse.gov, April 2, 2010.
It was President Obama who encouraged the reversal of policy to permit offshore drilling. It was President Obama who nominated Ken Salazar as his Secretary of Interior. It was President Obama who, presumably aware of big oil's political influence, seemingly cared not at all about the "cozy relationship" between the industry and the Minerals Management Service -- until the oil hit the fan.
The finger pointing should not stop, the buck does not stop, at the MMS; it stops at President Obama's desk, just as it stopped at President Truman's.
President Obama is a bright, sophisticated, well-informed, student of government. Surely he is knowledgeable regarding the phenomenon called "agency capture," or "regulatory capture." That's when an agency created to regulate an industry "in the public interest" ultimately ends up becoming that industry's advocate, its cheerleader, and a partner in its public-be-damned, employee-safety-be-damned, race to ever-increasing profitability and stock prices.
How could it be that he only discovered what he called this "cozy relationship between the oil companies and the federal agency that permits them to drill" after the BP Gulf disaster?
Had he not connected the dots between the results of agency capture (the failure of the Mine Safety and Health Administration to close the mine) and the deaths of 29 coal miners in the Massey Upper Big Branch disaster on April 5, one month before his "cozy relationship" speech? Ian Urbina, "No Survivors Found After West Virginia Mine Disaster," New York Times, April 10, 2010, p. A1 ("The blast at Upper Big Branch comes four years after a pair of other West Virginia mine disasters — an explosion that killed 12 miners at the Sago mine and a fire that killed two at the Aracoma Alma coal mine. . . . In 2008, the Aracoma Coal Company, a subsidiary of Massey, agreed to pay $4.2 million in criminal fines [for] several safety violations related to that fire. . . . This week’s blast comes after a year in which the Upper Big Branch mine had repeated problems with methane buildups [and had been] cited . . . eight times for 'substantial' violations . . ..")
Was he unaware of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill?
Did he totally miss the 2008 story all over the media that, "Government officials in charge of collecting billions of dollars worth of royalties from oil and gas companies accepted gifts, steered contracts to favored clients and engaged in drug use and illicit sex with employees of the energy firms, federal investigators reported yesterday." Derek Kravitz and Mary Pat Flaherty, "Report Says Oil Agency Ran Amok; Interior Dept. Inquiry Finds Sex, Corruption," Washington Post, September 11, 2008; and see. Noelle Straub, "GAO Audit: MMS Withheld Offshore Drilling Data, Hindered Risk Analyses in Alaska," New York Times/Greenwire, April 7, 2010 -- roughly three weeks before the current disaster.
Had he not heard, specifically with regard to BP, of "the 2005 explosion at a refinery in Texas City" for which BP was fined "a record $87 million for neglecting to correct safety violations;" or that "only a year later, a leaky BP oil pipeline in Alaska" resulted in "$20 million in criminal penalties;" or that "last year, when the federal Minerals Management Service proposed a rule that would have required companies to have their safety and environmental management programs audited once every three years, BP and other companies objected"? Clifford Krauss, "Oil Spill’s Blow to BP’s Image May Eclipse Costs," New York Times, April 30, 2010; and see additional details and comparisons with other companies in Jad Mouawad, "BP Has a Record of Blasts and Oil Spills," New York Times, May 9, 2010, p. A22 ("BP, the nation’s biggest oil and gas producer, has a worse health, environment and safety record than many other major oil companies, according to Yulia Reuter, the head of the energy research team at RiskMetrics . . ..").
When I received my first presidential appointment (U.S. Maritime Administrator), I sat in the oval office with the president, one-on-one, while he provided me instructions in no uncertain terms as to what he wanted done with regard to the "agency capture" in the agency I was about to head. Indeed, I have always assumed that one of the reasons for my unlikely selection, for this job -- a job for which I had not applied, and for which I expressed disinterest to the President when it was offered -- was that I did not have any association with the shipping or ship building industries.
That's a part of what concerns me about the number of former Goldman Sachs employees brought into the Obama Administration, including Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner, and the wisdom of appointing Ken Salazar Secretary of Interior given his ties to the energy industries.
(Goldman Sachs alums have infiltrated the government, from the Fed to the Treasury to the White House itself, and also influence Congress. See, e.g., the summary in Alex Floum, "Goldman Sachs alumni hold many of the top government positions," Economic Policy Examiner, May 6, 2010; Albert R. Hunt, "Scarlet Letter for the Greed Generation," New York Times, April 25, 2010 ("Goldman’s political action committee gave $290,500 to congressional candidates last month as Congress weighed the financial-regulation overhaul. Mr. Obama shook the Goldman Sachs money tree for almost $1 million in his presidential campaign.").)
Surely he has appointed someone, to head an agency somewhere in Washington, who is a true consumer advocate, someone who is challenging corporate abuses. But offhand, I must confess, no name immediately comes to mind.
Does President Obama provide explicit directions to his appointees regarding agency capture, like those President Johnson provided me? Or, from his behavior, and the absence of any instructions to the contrary, do agency heads' sensitive antennae pick up the sense that corporate interests should be accommodated rather than challenged?
Public relations firms' libraries are full of playbooks for handling an institution's screw ups after they reach the media. The top guy should issue a statement saying his thoughts and prayers are with the families of those killed (killed needlessly as a result of the institution's negligence and lack of management oversight). (E.g., "President Obama earlier on Friday [April 9] expressed his condolences to the families of those [29 coal miners] killed or injured in the [inadequately regulated Massey Upper Big Branch coal] mine explosion." Ian Urbina, "No Survivors Found After West Virginia Mine Disaster," New York Times, April 10, 2010, p. A1.)
A statement is issued reaffirming the institution's commitment to the highest standards of ethics and quality control. A commission is appointed to investigate the totally unpredictable disaster that occurred, "so that this will never happen again." We're all familiar with that process.
Indeed, many institutions leave one with the impression it is only the failures that make their way into the mainstream media that are of any concern at all. Employees' expressions of concern are at best ignored, and at worst lead to the complaining employee's dismissal. This seems to have been the case at the Minerals Management Service. Ian Urbina, "U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits," May 14, 2010, p. A1 ("The . . . M.M.S. . . . routinely overruled its staff biologists and engineers who raised concerns about the safety and the environmental impact of certain drilling proposals in the gulf and in Alaska, according to a half-dozen current and former agency scientists.").
We need to judge the heads of major institutions -- including our presidents -- not on the basis of how they respond to the institutional public relations disasters after they reach the media and public, but how they hopefully prevent and respond to those that fall well below the media's radar.
When you choose foxes to protect the public's chickens you cannot fairly express surprise when the size of the flock begins to dwindle. Nor can you expect much from the report of a commission of foxes that does little to prevent future losses, and concludes that those losses are not the fault of the foxes. Nor does it solve the foxes' inherent conflicts of interest to ask the head fox to separate the single group of foxes into two groups of foxes -- or even to replace the head fox with a different fox. Juliet Eilperin, "Obama to create commission to investigate gulf oil spill," Washington Post, May 18, 2010; Juliet Eilperin, "Salazar to split MMS into two agencies," Washington Post, May 11, 2010 ("Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced Tuesday he had commissioned an independent review of the BP oil spill and will split the Minerals Management Service into two parts"); Juliet Eilperin, "Interior Dept. official at MMS resigns," Washington Post, ("Chris Oynes, the top Interior Department official who oversees offshore oil and gas drilling for the Minerals Management Service, announced Monday that he will retire on May 31 . . ..").
I'm not suggesting that the Administration of President George Bush was better in terms of agency capture. If anything, it was probably worse. But the BP Gulf disaster can't be blamed on George Bush. Obama has been president for well over a year, and was planning his presidency at least since the election in November 2008.
We know he voted as a senator to grant immunity to the phone companies that had turned the private records of their customers over to the government in violation of law. We saw his early direction of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to banks and other businesses -- rather than genuine jobs creation programs like the CCC and WPA that worked for President Roosevelt and would have been the quickest and cheapest way to actually create jobs. We watched as he refused to even consider universal single-payer health care, and then took a public option off the table. We know he held secret closed door meetings at the White House with representatives of Big Pharma that undercut patients' rights to more pharmaceutical options at lower prices. We recently witnessed the consequences of his failure to reform federal oversight of coal mine safety.
And now we're looking at what has been characterized as the most devastating environmental disaster in the history of America as a result of the "cozy relationship" between his MMS and the oil industry.
Barack Obama was my candidate. He is my only U.S. President. There is still a great deal about him that I like and admire. I want him to succeed.
But I don't think it helps him to succeed for his supporters to turn a blind eye to his turning a blind eye to corporations turning a blind eye to the public interest.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
June 27, 2007, 6:00, 8:30 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]
Richardson and "The Question"
As predicted yesterday, John Deeth the blogger was at the Governor Bill Richardson event (Iowa City Public Library, June 26), and thus there's very little to add to his report. 
Because he never travels without his laptop he figures it's entitled to its own bumper sticker, which says: "REBOOT AMERICA." It's one Richardson could have used as his theme yesterday.
Local papers covered the event, but -- even covering politics as horse race -- didn't think Richardson's rapid rise in the polls (from 1% to 13-18%) worth page one display. Leah Dorzweller, "Dem Presidential Hopeful Shares Executive Vision; Richardson Speaks to Packed Crowd at Public Library," Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 27, 2007, p. 3A; James Q. Lynch, "Richardson Draws I.C. Crowd," The Gazette, June 27, 2007, p. 3B; Erika Binegar, "Richardson Would Hit Ground Running," The Daily Iowan, June 27, 2007.
These days, with online newspapers, it's not enough that the paper's photographer provides one or two shots for the next day's edition. They're expected to prepare a "gallery" of pictures -- and virtually immediately. Here's the Press-Citizen's this morning. 
I can't compete with a professional camera and photographer with the eye of the P-C's Matthew Holst, but here is one from a selection of 13 pictures I took at that event and posted on my Picassa site.
So what is "The Question"? It's one I've put to most of the candidates for president since the early 1970s. It goes to the heart of what politics in a democratic society ought to be about. It's something we know how to do, and insist on in other countries. And yet few candidates have ever even thought about it -- let alone come up with a plan for implementation. What is the question, and how and why did I come up with it? And how did Richardson do with it?
The answers will come later this morning, after I've interrupted my blogging with a little bit of "life."
I'm back. But before addressing "The Question" I should note that, while I'm not endorsing anyone -- a lot can happen in the six months between now and the January caucus -- I thought Richardson did a great job yesterday. He was relaxed, engaging, funny, warm, and willing to stay a half hour or more beyond the 11:30 "deadline." I found his "the first six days in office" an effective way to package quite an array of what he proposes to do for us. And most of what he was proposing was very well received by the overflow and often enthusiastic crowd (as you'll see from one of my pictures -- which doesn't even show those in the hall outside Meeting Room A) -- and by me. (Much of the content of his remarks is provided in the stories and Deeth Blog linked above.)
The Question
So why was I questioning presidential candidates over 30 years ago? I had been asked to host a TV show on which they appeared, one each show. Frankly, I don't remember the details, except for what led to "The Question."
I quickly discovered that it was difficult to get anything very new or different from a candidate who had already been asked the standard questions dozens if not hundreds of times. It was as if they had little audio cassette tapes that they plugged into their brains and played back, one for each question.
What to do? I considered having someone throw them a baseball, or tip over their chair -- anything to throw them off guard a little, something that would provoke something more spontaneous than their polished performances. The producer said I couldn't do it.
So I finally came up with a question they hadn't confronted before, and I have been using variations of it ever since.
"The Question" on those early shows, and later in some Iowa living rooms, took the following form: "Senator," because it usually was a senator, "let's make two assumptions: one, you are 'right on the issues,' whatever that means to the audience; they like your platform and proposals. Two, you are elected president. Please tell us, why are the coal mine operators going to have less control over coal mine safety than they do now?" (Of course this can be, and often was, expanded with examples from many industries and agencies.)
Most candidates over the years have fallen mute. The best one could hope for was some feeble, "Well, I'm going to appoint good people to office." That was one answer clearly revealed they didn't understand the problem.
The "good people" they appoint to office (if such can be found, given industry pressure to appoint their people to the regulatory agencies they will have to deal with) will find themselves pretty isolated. It may be one of those agencies where employees come from, and return to, the industry. It may be one where they are wined and dined by industry representatives. These "good people" will be reporting to congressional committees made up of elected officials whose primary source of campaign funds is the very industry being "regulated." And the media? The mainstream media will largely ignore the agency. Media coverage will be primarily from the trade press covering -- and being funded with advertising dollars from -- the industry in question.
(Let me also note, for balance, that I have known a number of civil servants who are among the brightest and most public spirited, independent and courageous people anywhere.)
So much for "good people" heading agencies -- however much they may be an improvement over "bad people."
What is needed (as I privately explained to Governor Richardson yesterday) is the kind of citizen participation in agency process that -- when the decision goes for the industry, as it almost always will -- provides a "party," someone with "standing," to appeal the decision to the relevant U.S. Court of Appeals.
Such groups (primarily, if not exclusively, representing the interests of citizens and consumers rather than those with direct and substantial economic interests in the outcome) -- and, yes, I know they will represent far right conservative individuals as well as the lefties and libertarians -- can also use their access to the mainstream media, and the political process, to get the story out of the trade press and into the public consciousness. But their most effective leverage is through the judicial process when agencies are engaged in clear violations of law, as they sometimes are. Note that, without their participation there is simply no one who can appeal. The agency's pro-industry decision stands.
I didn't have notes yesterday, and I don't know if anyone has a recording of his presentation, so I don't know exactly how I phrased "The Question" to him. But it was somewhat along these lines:
"As you can tell from the response you've received there are a lot of folks here who seem to appreciate and support what you say you will do for us. What I'd like to know is what you propose to do to enable us to help you get those things accomplished in the face of special interest opposition? How can we better accomplish what we, as individuals and members of numerous citizens' groups, would like to accomplish in addition? Even with total public financing of campaigns we would still be up against overwhelming odds from the special interests with their well-paid thousands of lawyers, lobbyists and publicists, their advertising and public relations budgets -- and today their campaign contributions in the millions of dollars. What things do you have in mind along the line of the Legal Services Corporation, agency reimbursement of intervenors' expenses, treble-damage antitrust remedies, class action suits, private attorneys general actions, and so forth?"
Much as I like Richardson, I have to say he cast his lot with the majority of candidates who have either never thought about such things or don't think them very important. His was kind of an AmeriCorps-type response -- things the government could sponsor that would invoke the "ask what you can do for your country" response. Great ideas, but not likely to curb special interest control of the Congress and the agencies.
I've never known the details of the following story. It may be apocryphal. A citizens' group gained an appointment with President Roosevelt. After their presentation he said to them, "I agree with you absolutely. We must introduce that legislation. Now you go out there and make me do it." That is another thing we can do as citizens -- indeed, we are the only ones who can -- in addition to the litigation to keep the agencies honest. We can provide the political, grass roots support that enables elected officials who would like to do the right thing an argument to use with the special interests that oppose what they, and we, want to accomplish.
Over the years there have only been three who grasped the question, and two who understood the answers. Hubert Humphrey acknowledged it was a great question and that the next time I came to his office we should talk about it. Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader knew how to proceed.
This year Barack Obama came closest, reminding me that he had worked as a community organizer. But he didn't carry his response beyond that.
It's not like this stuff is unknown in Washington. Even President George Bush has a rhetoric about "democracy" in other countries, though he doesn't always reflect the prerequisites to creating it. Those prerequisites involve something we call "civil (or civic) society" or "social capital." I've participated in some of these efforts abroad. This can involve everything from trade unions to Rotary Clubs to community media outlets; building citizen experience in coming together for public policy or programmatic purposes and then working to accomplish the stated goals.
We know how to do it -- and Obama's "community organizing" is a major component of the training. We just don't.
We know how to train our K-12 students to get out of the school house and into the court house, city council chambers and legislative halls to practice citizen power in a democracy. But we don't do much of that, either. (See, e.g., Center for Civic Education and National Council for the Social Studies and its "Creating Effective Citizens.")
We're not talking more "book learning" and classroom lectures here -- however important both may be -- we're talking "experiential learning" and performance -- political, policy, legal and media accomplishments.
A president could do a lot to build a "civic society" here in America -- but only after he or she begins to grasp why it is a need, and mounts the courage to take on the thousands of those in Washington who rather enjoy and find quite acceptable the rule by self-proclaimed elite that has served them so well.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.
The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
# # #
