The utter predictability of Obama's Keystone decision

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.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

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.

Sign up

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.