The utter predictability of Obama's Keystone decision
Of course he rejected it. He was always going to reject it. It was only a matter of when.
Has there ever been a less surprising announcement than Barack Obama's opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline? Despite the years of delays and anticipation, the president has long dropped not-so-subtle hints that he opposed the pipeline.
In a 2013 New York Times interview, for example, Obama downplayed the number of jobs created by the proposed pipeline, which would have transported oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. He described the employment gains as a "blip" in the context of the U.S. economy.
"Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator. There is no evidence that that's true," Obama maintained. "Any reporter who is looking at the facts would take the time to confirm that the most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline — which might take a year or two — and then after that we're talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in a[n] economy of 150 million working people."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Fact-checkers didn't agree with Obama's jobs estimates, but the point is that he clearly signaled that he saw minimal economic benefits offsetting any environmental costs. He practically ridiculed the idea that Keystone would create jobs.
Obama continued to repeat these claims about how few jobs Keystone would actually create. In an interview early last year with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, the president disputed his own State Department's analysis and reiterated that precious few jobs would be created, mostly temporary ones during the building of the pipeline. As recently as this year, he said Keystone would result in maybe 250 to 300 permanent jobs.
So let's be honest: The odds were always very, very low that Obama was going to sign off on a project opposed by environmentalists when he didn't see much economic upside.
Obama vetoed legislation advancing the Keystone pipeline. Combined with his veto message, his public arguments suggested skepticism about Keystone's benefits. Obama even declined to support a pro-Keystone bill when it might have helped Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu keep her seat in the Democratic column.
So why the long King Solomon routine about Keystone if Obama was always against it? "If foot-dragging were a competitive sport," The Washington Post editorialized, "President Obama and his administration would be world champions for their performance in delaying the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline." The president even let Hillary Clinton come out against the project first.
The issue divides Obama's party. Energy-state Democrats tend to support Keystone. So does the dwindling band of moderate Democrats on Capitol Hill. Both camps are disproportionately located in places where they could lose their seats to Republicans. There were two midterm elections in which these Democrats needed to be protected.
Perhaps more importantly, labor unions like the pipeline as part of a broader jobs agenda. They don't buy Obama's argument that Keystone will create few jobs. The AFL-CIO supported Keystone. This is a generally liberal constituency that provides money and important organizational muscle for electing Democrats.
Obama probably wouldn't have paid serious political consequences for disagreeing with the unions on Keystone. But why risk alienating them before elections? And why accentuate a rift in the Democratic coalition between organized labor and environmental organizations?
Most Democrats oppose Keystone, including big donors like billionaire Tom Steyer, but the support for the project is genuinely bipartisan.
All of these concerns are now less pressing. Obama is entering the home stretch of his presidency. He faces no more elections. Clinton has already taken a stand against Keystone, so nothing he does will have much political impact on his preferred successor.
Obama can now cement his environmental legacy while minimizing the cost to his party. The White House said just days ago that the president didn't want to politicize Keystone. But such decisions are inherently, unavoidably political.
Now is the time for Obama to do what he has always pretty clearly wanted to do anyway. He saw the opportunity and he took it.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
W. James Antle III is the politics editor of the Washington Examiner, the former editor of The American Conservative, and author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?.
-
The hunt for Planet Nine
Under The Radar Researchers seeking the elusive Earth-like planet beyond Neptune are narrowing down their search
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
Magazine interactive crossword - April 26, 2024
Puzzles and Quizzes Issue - April 26, 2024
By The Week US Published
-
Magazine solutions - April 26, 2024
Puzzles and Quizzes Issue - April 26, 2024
By The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published