Insight into White House Reasoning on Offshore Drilling

President Obama's decision to expand offshore drilling is getting a lot of criticism, much of it deserved. We know that there isn't enough to make a dent and that expanding drilling risks environmental damage, so there are big potential costs for very little gain. That said, two emails give us insight into the White House's reasoning here.

First up, a note from Sen. Kerry's office to Greg Sargent (emphasis Sargent's):

Kerry spokesperson Whitney Smith emails:

“President Obama once again today reaffirmed his commitment to passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation.

“In the difficult work of putting together a 60 vote coalition to price carbon, Senator Kerry has put aside his own long-time policy objections and been willing to explore potential energy sources off our coasts as part of a suite of alternative solutions. He and his colleagues are committed to find acceptable compromises on onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration, conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner that protects the interests of the coastal states.

“They’ve met with Senators who oppose drilling and those who support it and they’ve worked for months to determine the best solutions.”

Kerry and Senator Lindsey Graham are developing climate change legislation that they hope will attract bipartisan support in the Senate. As the statement above suggests, Kerry believes that drilling could help win over some GOP support for this approach.

Next, an email from an unnamed "Hill staffer" to Steve Benen, which may be a bit more revealing (emphasis mine):

Obama preempts the other side's most resonant arguments, which forces them to come up with more and more extreme claims in order to differentiate themselves. In the end, he occupies the reasonable middle ground and his opponents are Palinized. It doesn't always work -- on the national security/gitmo/Miranda stuff, for example, it turns out the utter extreme positions the right is left with given the centrist ground Obama has staked out turns out to be fairly popular. But even there, the Administration has had reasonable success pushing back on the Miranda nonsense and, because they effectively occupy the tough, pragmatic middle ground, they routinely get cover from non-crazy Republican national security voices, which has helped blunt the force of these issues. (I understand that the term "middle ground" is very slippery and dangerous here, but I basically use it to mean policies that, before the great crazy of 2009 had broad consensus support from large portions of both parties and the Broder/Friedman/Brooks axis.)

At the same time, the policy is a tailored, measured version of what the Republicans have urged -- so, yes, the headline is, 'Obama Allows New Offshore Drilling/Presses For Energy Independence,' but at the same time, California/Oregon/Washington where opposition is strongest isn't included, and there are environmentally-friendly changes to Alaska leasing policy announced at the same time. And again, as we've seen before, Republicans are sort of forced to twist and parse, and even to oppose things they have long supported, just because the Administration hasn't gone far enough.

Finally, by announcing the drilling policy without seeking to extract concessions, the Administration makes clear that it is their policy and they are the centrist/flexible/pragmatic ones -- making it harder for Republicans to argue that they accomplished this or that they forced Obama to do it. [...]

[O]f course, if there was any reason to believe that Republicans would engage in normal negotiation/compromise, then I see why holding this back and trading it for support of a broader package would make sense. But does anyone really think there are Republicans to negotiate with on this stuff? And if Republicans do come to the table, Obama still has plenty of room to give, including by simply agreeing to sign a law that makes proposals like this a matter of statute, not executive discretion.

I find the second email sort of troubling, good political strategy aside. It reminds me of a sort of Clintonesque triangulation. The problem with Clinton was that what began as a political strategy to get things done ended up as an ideology that hinged on preemptive compromise. Yes, we do now have Republicans defending things like "don't ask, don't tell," where previously they'd argued that it would be the end of the world. But DADT sucks... So there's that.

Still, the climate bill is just so important that it's hard to find fault with any strategy that moves it forward. I guess we'll see how this pans out.