Write your comment in the form below. Be sure to 'Preview' your comment to make sure that it will appear as you want it to.
You Are Replying To This Comment:
False Hopes
By Pragmatic Progressive
Jun 20th 2007
at 2:27 pm EDT
Energy Independence?
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.
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.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
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.