Can we turn drilling in ANWR into a populist movement for nationalization

[NAO]

I recently read an article by Robert Reich in "The American Prospect" that dealt with the Schiavo case. Reich suggested that the people who played up the Schiavo case never actually interned to prevail over the courts or keep Schiavo alive. Rather, they used the debacle to rally the troops of the Religious Right, to give them a sense of persecution, and to whip them into a frenzy of political activism.

Now it occurs to me that we might have just such an opportunity to energize a populist movement that would transcend traditional left/right issue politics and even if it did not succeed, it could bring nationalization into the mainstream discourse.

Suppose progressives said something like,

"It's too bad we have to give up the pristine wilderness, but it is for the greater good. The only problem I have is that that pristine wilderness belongs to the people of the United States, it belongs to our children and their children. and so does the oil that lies beneath that pristine wilderness."

"It's very sad to have to drill there, but it would be an outrage for private oil companies like Texaco/Mobil/Shell to sell our oil back to us. Why should we let them do that? Why not let all the profits from our oil go into our national treasury?"

"Why, we could use the proceeds from selling our oil to build schools, to buy armor for the troops, to reduce the deficit, to sustain social security, to reduce taxes. Whatever revenue was generated by the sale of our oil would be that much less that would have to be levied in taxes."

***

Now it's still conceivable that there will never be drilling in ANWR. And monkeys will fly out of my butt before the plutocratic oligarchic powers that be would allow nationalization of a major natural resource in the United States.

...But, those plutocrats would be exposed, the scam of giving away public wealth to private companies would be exposed, and alot of people, even those who think of themselves as conservative would be very excited at the prospect of more money in the treasury to buy bombs and lower defects and less taxes all at the same time. It's a 'have your cake and eat it too dream' for the people; it's been that sort of a dream for the corporations.

People do NOT like the idea that they are being screwed - it builds popular resentment and policital action like nothing else.

Conceivably, this type of populist rallying around an issue that would be more strongly opposed by Republicans than by Democrats, could become a wedge issue that would play a part in aligning the electorate with the Democratic Party and drving a populist movement againt the plutocratic corporatist powers.

[rodeodance]

1. people used to be passionate bout the enviroment but it is not even

hardly on the radar screen. even the news show barely spend a few moments on this fact. I think it is a grand idea-but where to start.


I recently read an article by Robert Reich in "The American Prospect" that dealt with the Schiavo case. Reich suggested that the people who played up the Schiavo case never actually interned to prevail over the courts or keep Schiavo alive. Rather, they used the debacle to rally the troops of the Religious Right, to give them a sense of persecution, and to whip them into a frenzy of political activism.

Now it occurs to me that we might have just such an opportunity to energize a populist movement that would transcend traditional left/right issue politics and even if it did not succeed, it could bring nationalization into the mainstream discourse.

[Disfronted]

2. Doesn't the government already get paid for oil rights on Federal land?

If the payment is too low, then just raise it. It would be much simpler than creating a nationalized energy company.

[TheFarseer]

3. You're 100% correct

I had never thought of that. That's my oil and your oil and all of ours oil. WE should be making money off of that and paying a small fee to Texaco to get it out of the ground for me. This could definitely be a populist issue, no doubt about it.

[alfredo]

4. The government admiteed that the oil will not be used to

lessen our dependency in foreign oil, it will be sold on the open market. Exposing a lie that is central to the republican case for ANWR is the way to go in my opinion.

How can Drilling ANWR reduce our dependency on foreign oil when that oil will be sold to the Chinese?

[rumpel]

5. Yes, we should! "8 Billion in Tax breaks, protection from lawsuits for

contaminating water with MTBE, 2 BIllion in royalty relief, override state and local officials where they will place liquefied natural gas import terminals", this is all a sham to steal from the people and put it in the pockets of the Bush and Cheney family and friends.

Let's make sure the energy bill dies in the Senate.

It is not only about drilling in a pristine area, it is about everyone's health, it is about the deficit, it is about wrestling power from local goverment and giving it to appointed federal officials, it is about protecting an unsustainable source of energy for a handful of profiteers.

[LevelB]

6. I think we should declare the oil up there a

"Strategic Reserve"

And, yes, dammit, when it is drilled let the government do it, with the funds going to something more useful than a CEO paycheck. Maybe fund environmental restoration programs. Repair National Parks.

That may delay things long enough for some sanity to creep back into our country.

B.

[tex-wyo-dem]

7. I like your idea!

Everything about this bill reeks for everyone and really benefits no one except for those in the oil cartel. In fact, I'm surprised that this hasn't created more of an uproar, even among conservatives.

On top of the big corporate tax breaks, the lawsuit protections and the blatant lying about "drilling in ANWR is needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," the Rethugs successfully blocked measures the Dems proposed to add for reduced consumption...

Pure and simple, this is big oil robbing the rest of us with their tax breaks, killing us with their ground water polluting substances without any fear of litigation, crapping on any idea of reducing our energy consumption for the long term and taking away one of the last great wildernesses on earth.

Fighting this is a populist idea if I ever heard one.

[NAO]

9. How do we give this idea legs?

How do we get this idea going? It might be too far out for some Democrats, although I'd hope they would see the strategic potential of the idea as a populist wedge - extremely powerful in moving the body politic - even if it never actually came to pass?

Now I would love to see this actually come to pass, but I don't think it has to in order to be effective. On similar lines, I don't think many GOP strategists REALLY want Roe vs. Wade to be repealed - they actually want it to stay in force because the minute it is overturned it loses it's power as a wedge issue.

So what do we do? Start a petition? Send a letter to Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi? Call in the idea to Air America Radio? Send it to Jim Hightower or Michael Moore? or ??

I would hope that progressives who genuinely care about the environment would not be hindered from apprehending and using this idea. The way I see it, ANWR is (very nearly) a lost cause. Fighting it tooth and nail and losing will only demoralize the progressive community and put a smirk on *'s face.

Any amount of public discourse about nationalization of the ANWR oil reserves will wipe that smirk off *'s face and send him and his cronies reeling in horror. I'd wager it's the surest way to get Republicans behind the preservation of ANWR.

[dcfirefighter]

8. This is a great idea

The state of Alaska already does something with oil royalties from state lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

I'm of the opinion that all mineral rights should be the property of the people, and rented by auction to the highest bidder.

Once extracted, I think that the oil becomes the property of those doing the extraction, if they compensated the rest of us for the right to extract. Allowing it to be so, and to be sold on the open market, maximises the revenue from the extraction auction.

Making requirements about who the oil may be sold to is irrelevant: if the oil is sold to the chinese that is less oil they'll buy from someone else, leaving more for us to buy. Putting in such requirements just adds economic innefficiency, and doesn't increase the overall supply, or affect the overall demand, and can only raise prices.

I'm still working on researching it, but I believe that the Federal Government gives away more than enough rights that, if rented at fair market value, could pay for Social Security.

Including only fairly straightforward items, such as rights involving public lands, and public airwaves, should be enough: ~$500-600 Billion. Including more esoteric property rights, such as patents, corporate charters, and mineral rights associated with 'private' lands, should more than double that amount.

Imagine what a grand thing Social Security would be, if provided to every retired person, from an appreciating source (no pyramid scheme here), without a regressive payroll tax. Imagine how many more people would be employed, if the cost of their labor were 6.2% cheaper. Imagine how many new jobs would be created if most people got a 6.2% raise?

Interestingly, if airwaves were periodically auctioned, new broadcasting companies would have a greater opportunity to obtain broadcast rights, breaking up the oligopoly on broadcast media.

This is very good thinking, and would make a great platform for a populist candidate, as a contra to SS privatization, a contra to Corporate Welfare, and a contra to some forms of tax reform.

[NAO]

10. kick

Just want to give a few more people a chance to see this and think about it...

[ClassWarrior]

13. .

[ClassWarrior]

11. Yesss... Some DUers last week ridiculed the idea of a Dept. of Peace...

...but issues like this provide triple blessings. They're rallying points for the base, they give a clear picture of our values, and with any luck and hard work they just might succeed in the process.

NGU.

[NAO]

12. The right has been using trial balloons for years to move the discourse

to the right.

They propose something that is doomed to fail but in the process of talking about it and shooting it down the idea gets exposure. The discourse is shifted to the right, and the base is rallied.

This particular idea is extremely powerful because it will cross party lines - only the wealthy Republicans would oppose it - the great mass of ordinary citizens would think it was a great idea.

All over the world people love nationalization of resources. They of course end up being made to pay dearly by the proponents of globalization. They are lucky if the IMF and the World Bank dangle them over oblivion. If they are not lucky, 'democracy' (read: global capitalism) comes to their country, neo-con style.