Locke pick is a let-down
Former governor Gary Locke is surely qualified for Commerce Secretary, but his appointment is evidence that Obama's devotion to innovation doesn't extend to his cabinet.
I'm under no illusions: I knew that as inspirational as Obama was as a candidate, he'd likely disappoint as president. Dealing with reality and the politics of the possible does that. The struggle with the economy is one of those areas: he's having to embrace a deeply flawed system by asking us to boost things that have helped create our problems in the first place.
In his non-state-of-the-union speech last night, for example, he exhorted the nation that invented the car not to "walk away" from it. Poor word choice for those urbanites who tout walkability. Obama also repeatedly suggested that the end to our woes would come from people being able to take out loans to build and buy more houses, more cars, albeit slightly greener ones. Too much consumer restraint is a bad thing.
Some have suggested that Obama's tough-love on the economy is a teaching moment, but if so, the lesson he's teaching is how to maintain the status quo, though with more federal oversight and dollars. Instead of weaving a vision of moving us toward a less consumptive economy, Obama is definitively in the camp of those folks who believe in endless, corporate-driven growth, albeit where the spoils are shared a little more fairly.
Nothing reflects this better than his pick of former Washington governor Gary Locke as Commerce Secretary. Locke, who was known for his budget-cutting, his incrementalism, and his pandering to big business. It was Locke who negotiated a multi-billion dollar taxpayer giveaway to Boeing that set a new bar for extortionate demands as the price of doing business in Washington state.
As King County executive, Locke was known for streamlining the development process which helped to drive more growth and sprawl into the region. And it was Gov. Locke who declared a public "emergency" so that multi-billionaire Paul Allen could get a vote on building a new Seahawks stadium. Saving the Seahawks was deemed crucial to the "immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety." Too bad the Sonics didn't have Locke in office, he could have made their departure seem like the second-coming of Krakatoa.
Locke's view of government has been that of a wonkish efficiency expert who spent too much time fussing over paper-clip budgets and cutting FTEs in Olympia. He infuriated liberals who took to calling him "spineless." He may be qualified for Commerce secretary, he may even be qualified as head of the Chamber of Commerce, but he's not particularly imaginative.
No wonder Republican Dino Rossi has praised the pick as "positive" (does that give any Seattle liberals cause for pause?) The Washington congressional delegation is also excited. Rep. Norm Dicks enthuses: "In our state you've got Boeing, you've got Microsoft...you've got Starbucks. He's had a good working relationship with the business community, which I think should be a big consideration here." Locke, pal of corporate brand names; yes, we remember that Gary. Obama wants entrepreneurial innovation, but not in his own cabinet.
The president's promise to bring us "change you can believe in" cuts two ways. He's bringing change, all right, but he's still not willing to challenge some of our fundamental beliefs. He talks about the excess of the past (the perks of Wall Street fat cats, too-large mortgages), suggests we have to keep the kids focused on their school work (yes, it's always the other family's kids), but he still promotes a kind of consumerism that pushes us toward further excess: build more, buy more, and what about those shovel-ready road projects?
Talk about business as usual. If we continue to believe what we already believe, any recovery will be short-term, any change simply first-aid to fend off the truth that we live in a world, and have an economy, of limits.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Wed, Feb 25, 5:26 p.m. inappropriate
I had no illusions about Obama and was not carried away as some Democrats by his rhetoric. He is a Clintonian. Edwards by platform was really more of a solid progressive. But that said, Obama is extremely bright and he faces a situation that will require more than the status quo response even if intelligently applied. His time in office will age him. We should give him the benefit of the doubt for his first year while still holding him up to criticism.
That said, given his talk of having a politically diverse cabinet it is surprising that not one truly reform-minded progressive was nominated. Maybe he'll add a little more political 'diversity' in the coming years.
But you are right, Knute, we are truly living in a new 'era of limits' and I don't believe the old debt-driven high-consumption economy can be propped up again. Necessity more than altruism may define a more sustainable approach.
Posted Wed, Feb 25, 7:03 p.m. inappropriate
Factual error: The United States is not the nation that invented the car. Depending on your definition, that was either Nicholas Cugnot (France) in 1787 (a steam-powered, self-propelled 3-wheeled cart), or Karl Benz in (a gasoline-fueled, internal-combustion engine-powered 3-wheeled carriage) in 1899.
The U.S. embraced automobiles after Henry Ford made them affordable by average people.
Posted Wed, Feb 25, 8:37 p.m. inappropriate
More bitching to balance out anything positive that could be, imaginedor real, by having somebody that knows something about Washington state going to Washington DC.
Posted Thu, Feb 26, 7:38 a.m. inappropriate
To rail against big business and the moderate Gary Locke after a month in which 600,000 Americans lost their jobs is ridiculous. Yes, corporate excesses created many of the problems we are experiencing now, but we need businesses to succeed and create jobs. In the current climate, a moderate voice like Gary Locke is an excellent choice.
Posted Thu, Feb 26, 9:53 a.m. inappropriate
Is it realistic to believe that any Commerce secretary, Democrat or Republican, is going to lead the charge to a post-consumer economy? Is it not principally the job of civil society -- proponents of voluntary simplicity, walkability, locovorism, slow food, and the rest -- to convince the vast majority? And even if there are such leaders, will they make sense when the economy and public revenue that depends on spending is in free-fall?
As to Gary Locke, can a person who fixed his own plumbing and bummed rides to Olympia when a legislator be all that bad?
Posted Thu, Feb 26, 9:58 a.m. inappropriate
We definitely need to do away with "endless, corporate-driven growth." Stifling, government-driven entropy will set us free.
Posted Thu, Feb 26, 10:20 a.m. inappropriate
I love the fact that everyone seems eager to pooh-pooh Obama's picks and the stimulus package, yet they seem unable to provide better alternatives. If you are going to suggest that Lock is a "let-down," and that a better, more "innovative" candidate is out there, then make your case. Ragging against someone is just that - ragging. Who would be a better candidate?
Posted Thu, Feb 26, 10:55 a.m. inappropriate
To refresh the body politic's memory, and especially Mr. Berger's, it was the "incremental, wonkish, pandering to big business" Governor Locke who spearheaded into law the strongest C02/Greenhouse Gas mitigation law in the nation. Not bad for someone so "spinless." Spiro Agnew, a crook and no role model of mine, coined the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativisim." I think the shoe fits, Mr. Berger.
Posted Thu, Feb 26, 1:44 p.m. inappropriate
Gary Locke is an OUTSTANDING choice for Commerce. It's a nuts and bolts Cabinet position: The Census, Economic Development, Minority Business Development, Patents and Trademarks, etc.
Gary is a moderate Democrat. He was a damn good Governor. His honesty and integrity are miles above average. He is outstanding at making certain he understands issues and what the alternatives may be.
He began his career as a fiscally conservative Seattle Liberal. The man knows how to add and subtract. Which is more than can be said for King Greg or any of the current members of the Seattle City Council.
I own a 1999 Camry ( 30+ mpg) and a 1997 Suburu (24+) both of which I will eventually need to replace. I would like to buy American. I will buy greener, with better mpg. Right now, that precludes "Made in the USA". But buying - and driving an automobile - is NOT optional. Because there are NO OTHER CHOICES!
I am a Democrat. I belong to a Union. I held office as a Democrat. You spoiled Seattle Liberals need to get real about the way 98% of the people in this State CHOOSE to live.
In closing, BRAVO OBAMA!! Outstanding choice.
Ross Kane, Warm Beach
Posted Thu, Feb 26, 11:07 p.m. inappropriate
Berger, take your clue from Joni Balter (ST 2.26.9) . You need to get into cheering on the home team! What's with this reflective thinking? Don't you see how much trouble it gets you into?
Posted Fri, Feb 27, 7:44 a.m. inappropriate
Adam Vogt writes: "To rail against big business and the moderate Gary Locke after a month in which 600,000 Americans lost their jobs is ridiculous."
Whatever happened to freedom of speech Adam? Knute's article is dead on. If you're a big business like Boeing or Microsoft or Nordstrom or a Billionaire, you get to blackmail the government (as well as 'the people') to get whatever you want. Locke's declaration of an 'emergency' to get a Seahawks vote was blatantly unconstitutional. Nordstrom threatened to move out of the city if the city didn't open up Pine Street, the only pedestrian gathering place in downtown.
Contrast this with the economic reality that small businesses create the majority of jobs. Yet big businesses get the tax breaks, and the tax burden gets shifted to small business and ordinary people. All of this is just a matter of public record and I think Knute made his case quite well.
His article is certainly more well-defended than Joni Balter tripping over herself with glee simply because someone from Washington State got noticed in D.C.
Posted Fri, Feb 27, 10:11 a.m. inappropriate
Ross, so which is it? You assert driving a car is "NOT an option"--apparently a lifestyle forced upon you--yet demand "Seattle Liberals get real about the way...people...CHOOSE to live." The fact is there are plenty of "OTHER CHOICES." They just happen to require sacrifices your unwilling to make--like making due with one car.
The fact is it's far more efficient in terms of energy to maintain and re-purpose the current stock of automobiles than to spit out new automobiles at a higher cost. And elements of an alternative auto industry have been germinating in the well-stocked garages of hobbyist and tinkers across the nation. A friend gutted a Jeep Wrangler and converted it into an electric jeep--a battery box on wheels in his words--with off-the-shelf parts and some one-off machine work for much less than any new model. He's had requests across the country for conversions, conversion kits, or to buy the jeep out-right. Is it perfect? No. But I'm talking about reality, not fantasy.
This all goes to say that the new financial landscape will increasingly allow small scale, local, independent producers to undercut debt-burdened, top-heavy, centralized organizations--such as the auto companies. Those who rave about the efficiencies of scale ignore the copious amounts of cheap finance and energy required to maintain those efficiencies. The inevitable decline in petroleum imports will work to compound financial matters by making sprawling, just-in-time, supply chains unreliable, if not untenable. Imports have already begun to decline. One does not have to do much research--though one must seriously ask the question--to realize that a Nation that imports 2/3 of its petroleum is in for a rude awakening; particularly when petroleum is becoming both geologically and geopolitically more difficult to obtain--a ruthless and unstoppable trend.
The transition to a productive economy--let's dispense with nonsense such as "post-consumer economy--will be painful. But it will be profitable for those who overcome the urge to horde, and successfully put their wealth to work. It will be a challenging environment with the losses that will be incurred. BTW, Unions won't provide altogether much security. I had a buddy locked-out for 13 months back east; his income dropped 80%; I'd expect more of the same in the future. I also suspect a lot of activity will become informal--as in who you know--as the burdens continue to be piled on small-businesses and home-owners. A fact that will doom the President's social agenda. As long as differences in ability exist between individuals, society will not realize the material equality that some claim as a birthright.
Posted Sat, Feb 28, 7:55 a.m. inappropriate
Knute--
Certainly Locke won't set the world on fire but he was the third choice. I never envied the difficult tightrope act Locke had to walk with Boeing. He gave up a lot of our money for very few jobs. Maybe there was a better deal to hatch but there is no governor who would not have made a deal. He lacked vision in the delivery of social services, healthcare and education. He failed to exploit his advantages in Olympia and he left a lot of dirty work to be done by the Gregoire administration. As Commerce Secretary he won't have to face those things. And Obama may find his ability to build bridges to the business community useful, especially as he asks business to contribute more to the common wealth. Obama took two big swings and whiffed trying to get a big-time, imaginative Commerce Secretary. But with two strike on him, Obama choked up and just put the ball in play. And that's Gary Locke.