It is beyond dispute that the nation has entered something of a new political period. There are so many strange features that people who were used to the old one seem positively disoriented.
Among the most stunning characters in the new order is Barack Obama, whose answer to every criticism is that petty complaints about him are a sign that the old politics are out of step with the new politics, which is what the nation so clearly wants.
It’s an argument that seems to be working. This new style of politics, it is said, has no place in it for lobbyists who are seen as little more than slaves to “special interests,” a slippery term that is itself susceptible to multiple definitions.
If there is a single theme to the Obama presidential campaign, it is this: Big problems can be solved if traditional political concerns like “who wins and who loses” can be set aside in favor of a bipartisan focus on the common good.
Alluring as that prospect might be, it’s unrealistic because national unity of that sort is always short-lived and accompanied by unhappy events. It grossly underestimates the difficulty of resolving any of the major policy disputes facing the country.
The nation needs lobbyists just as it needs the so-called special interests they represent.
There really are no good and bad special interests. They are just, well, “special.” They are the teachers union, the trial lawyers, the gay rights lobby and the “open borders” crowd. They are also the ethanol lobby and the drum-beaters for more regulation of greenhouse gases.
These are, of course, some of the groups blessed by the Obama campaign. Clearly not blessed are those groups that favor more domestic drilling of oil or, heaven forbid, the construction of nuclear power plants.
So how is the nation going to solve the “energy crisis” without resorting to the rough and tumble style of politics that is characterized by the clash of “special interests?”
The short answer is that we won’t.
In 2005, when Republicans still controlled Congress, a law was passed that bestowed generous tax credits on utility companies willing to file permits for new nuclear power plants. Under the terms of the act, the permits must be filed no later than this year and construction on the plants must begin no later than 2013.
The fruit of this law is about to become evident. It could be that by Dec. 31, as many of 30 permits will be filed for plants that can cost up to $7 billion each.
Nuclear plants now provide 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, but no new plant has been permitted in this country in 30 years. The window of opportunity for building new plants is a very narrow one. It is highly unlikely that the 2005 law will be extended by a Democratic Congress, and it is virtually certain that the construction of every proposed plant will now be vigorously opposed.
Similar dramas will be played out on a host of other issues, including health care, immigration, Social Security reform and trade policy.
It is simply childish to pretend that these and other policy conflicts can be approached, let alone resolved, without the clash of interests.
Lobbyists, whether one likes it or not, are needed. The idea that drug policy should be set without giving an audience to the drug companies, or that nuclear policy should be fashioned in an informational vacuum, is frightening.
If there are any special interests more special than others these days, it is surely not the drug or oil companies. It is the ethanol lobby, the global warming interests and, yes, the labor unions.
When one hears these folks maligned as often as “big oil,” we will know we have actually entered a new political era.
Al Knight of Buena Vista (alknight@ ) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff. His column appears twice a month.
