|
|
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
I too was at Take Back America yesterday, wowed and moved by both Obama and Edwards' speeches. But I find it strange that Matt and Ezra found Edwards so "persuasive," "direct," and "plausible" on foreign policy. Edwards laid out a wildly optimistic vision in which:
1. American energy independence (hence, no more oil cash) forces Middle Eastern nations to invest in education, economic development, and good government.
2.The United States starts to rely on homegrown energy sources (ethanol).
3. Europe doesn't have enough empty space to compete, so it invests heavily in African agriculture and energy.
4. African poverty lifts.
These would all be excellent accomplishments. But the causality here is far from assured. I agree with Brian Beutler that this seems "incredibly difficult to pull off." And more disturbingly, the notion that we can "remake the Middle East" politically just by decreasing our dependence on their oil -- as Edwards suggested today -- is, I fear, as ignorant of entrenched ethnic and religious tensions as the neo-conservatism of George W. Bush. Both theories over-reach and rely upon a grandiose rhetoric in which the United States is not a helpmate to the world's disenfranchised but a direct architect of ideal societies. (To be fair, Edwards' words on aid to alleviate global poverty had an entirely different tone.)
The exceptionalist (and exemplarist) impulse in American history is well-covered, and has of course led to both triumphs and tragedies. Call me a realist, but I'm hoping for a newer, humbler tone to a progressive foreign policy.
- cross-posted at TAPPED
I am not exactly sure what that means. I suspect, also, that most people who use it fail to fully comprehend its implications. Thus, allow me to refer some more credible, expert opinions:
Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "A sensible policy goal would be not independence, but diversification: a portfolio of energy technologies and global supplies that minimizes the economic and political risk of disruptions from any particular region or energy source."
Link
General Charles Wald, former Deputy Commander of USEUCOM: Energy Independence would be "the worst thing for America."
Link
Bernard Munk, a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute: "The Siren Song of Energy Independence is as dangerous to us as the Sirens were to Ulysses. His trick should be ours! Bind up your ears, America, and pay attention to international security."
Link
Here's what I can surmise: Energy independence makes for good rhetoric, but bad policy. It is an impractical, impossible chimera. Instead of turning our backs on the global economy, we should treat energy like any other commodity: Promote efficient and stable trade by competition and diversification.
How about Energy Interdependence?
Sorry, but it's not as pretty on a bumper sticker.
What foreign policies are energy independence supposed to open up, exactly, that we can't currently pursue because of our oil connections in the Middle East? Wouldn't energy independence mean we have *less* vested interest in the stability of the Middle East, and thus any given American administration might be more tempted to try risky policies that may destabilize the region further?
Energy independence, or at least the gradual move *toward* independence, may very well make sense for other reasons - but I'm not sure it makes sense as a pillar of our foreign policy.
Also, energy prices are set on global markets, war in the Middle east will send oil prices sky high regardless of where the energy is coming from.
I was really shocked and offended by his statement that children aren't educated in the Middle East (the lead in to his grand plan for getting off of oil). First off, the Middle East is comprised of many people and cultures, to make an assumption that NONE of them provide children with education is simply false and ignorant. This type of statement simply reinforces and reinscribes the Bush Administration's propensity to point fingers, lay blame and perpetuate a hegemonic discourse which only serves to alienate us from the rest of the world--something we do not need more of from the next president and which ignores the reality that every nation is doing some things well and others not so well (including the US).
How about we get off of oil because it's the right thing to do, rather than as a plan to reshape foreign nations. Let's start with saving the planet and go from there.
That said, normally I really like what Edwards has to say. I wonder if he has a new foreign policy adviser? Or if he's trying to show that he is tough on terrorism?