A tough climate
The life and obligations of Lindsey Graham
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) has been considered a key player in the development of a Senate energy and climate bill designed to move the country towards reduced carbon emissions and lessened dependence on foreign oil. On Saturday, Graham withdrew his support for the bill, a move that he annouced in a letter to supporters:
Recent press reports indicating that immigration – not energy – is their priority have not been repudiated. This has destroyed my confidence that there will be a serious commitment and focus to move energy legislation this year.
Why is Graham so upset that immigration will take precedence over action on the climate? He explains:
Moving forward on immigration – in this hurried, panicked manner – is nothing more than a cynical political ploy. I know from my own personal experience the tremendous amounts of time, energy, and effort that must be devoted to this issue to make even limited progress.
There’s no question that hardcore politics are at work here, but is there something else, too?
The possibility of bipartisan compromise on a particular issue cannot guarantee – or require – the same cooperation on another issue, or vice versa. But when should partisan rancor necessarily derail bipartisan compromise?
Graham’s letter seems to indicate that moving forward on immigration – a notoriously partisan issue – suggests that politics are afoot in Washington, enough to erode his confidence in real action on the climate. But decrying incipient politics in the wake of among the most contentious debates in recent history over health care seems like an odd accusation.
The more likely circumstance is that Graham cannot abide the potential Democratic approach to the immigration issue. This raises the question of whether Graham – if believes the Democratic view on immigration is wrong – should withhold action on an issue he himself believes is important.
Legislators famously engage in quid pro quo with their votes, but they often do this to force fairly specific concessions (for example, Bart Stupak of Michigan agreeing to vote for health care reform as long as the White House issued an Executive Order clarifying that federal money could not be used to fund abortions). But Graham in this case is threatening to sink a climate bill that he himself counts as a priority.
In this case, the only reasonable calculation would be that either (a) the harm that would result from movement on immigration outweighs the possible good of a climate bill or (b) that Graham really believes he can block immigration reform, which will put the climate bill back on the table.
This is an instructive case because it shows that doing the right thing is Washington is rarely a simple proposition. The agenda has limited space, and one’s obligation to block movement on one issue can be just as strong as that to champion another.
-Sam
Related posts:
- Sometimes its just about the politics
- An uncertain climate
- The military makes a non-moral case for responding to climate change
- The Obama paradox
- Healthcare reform raises tough moral questions
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
