The global warming debate and the various financial bailouts before Congress actually have a lot in common in terms of legislative strategy. In both cases, you have Serious People, experts in their fields, issuing warnings that seem amazingly dire to those of us that are fat, happy, and accustomed to the past two decades of stability in economics and climate. Now, I believe that the warnings in both of these situations should be heeded, but if I were a cynical political staffer, I would be advising my candidate or my officeholder about the benefits of opposing legislation regarding either measure.
Threats this serious to our (economy, environment) will necessarily require a drastic remedy, and this remedy will be painful. The paradox is that any successful remedy will by definition mean that we never feel the full effect of the threat. As a result, there’s a big strategic opening for those who demagogue against the painful action as overdone and unnecessary. We don’t get to do history over, so opponents of successful global warming or bailout legislation will never be proven wrong. They just get the benefit of opposing gas taxes or expensive financial industry legislation.
This isn’t to say that I think this strategy is good for our country, it’s a pretty nasty byproduct of our legislative system. It also isn’t to say that the current proposed remedies are the best, it’s become pretty clear that any plan that start with “let Henry Paulson mismanage this” should be DOA. But the next time you think to yourself “my Congressman can’t be that misinformed”, odds are, they aren’t.
Mine is.
(Sorry again.)