Not to mention that whether we're 'independent' of Middle East oil or not, China and India will keep on keepin' on, and Middle Eastern governments won't be forced to reform.
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.
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.
!
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.