Xlog

Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times today on energy policy, economic leadership and the upcoming Presidential election.  He starts off with the following:

Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St.
Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were
observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute
what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the
delegates in a chant of “drill, baby, drill!”

I’ll tell you what they would have been doing: the Russian, Iranian and
Venezuelan observers would have been up out of their seats, exchanging
high-fives and joining in the chant louder than anyone in the hall —
“Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!” — because an America that is focused
first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on
feeding its oil habit than kicking it.

A silly notion.  Of course they were watching, but their reactions to the resolve of those cheering “drill, baby, drill” was nothing like Mr. Friedman’s imagines.  He goes on to say,

“Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.”

Well let’s agree on the end goal.  The question now becomes, how best to get there.

Contrary to Mr. Friedman’s assertions, Republicans are not interested in maintaining the status quo vis-a-vis energy.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.  It is clear we differ on how to get there.  Mr. Friedman supports a heavy-handed government approach which simply won’t work.  With the possible exception of landing on the moon, it never has.  What is needed is exactly what McCain and Republicans are calling for–get government out of the way by removing archaic and ineffective regulations which prevent the market from working effectively.  Why do liberals fear free markets?

There is no silver bullet solution to energy.  Renewables (wind, solar, bio) are not ready (by ready, I mean economically viable) and won’t be for some time.  Economic viability is something Republicans inherently understand and liberals like Friedman do not.  Regardless, none of these technologies can completely replace oil–in the short or medium term.  Mr. Friedman waxes on about political/military power and economic leverage.  I reject his notion that our standing in the world will erode if we open up new domestic sources of energy. The notion that our position in the world has recently eroded seems to be a favorite of the left.

Securing new sources of domestic energy is not only logical, but will give us the political/military leverage Friedman desires.  One wonders not only if, but how Friedman might use that leverage if he held power.

In typical liberal fashion, Mr. Friedman introduces a red herring by asserting we cannot drill, build nuclear and invest in renewables simultaneously.  Nonsense!  We can and must do them all.

Mr. Friedman, contrary to his usual thoughtful style, asks a series of assenine questions about how to fund the building of more nuclear (nucular) power plants. He asks,

Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From
banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah
Palin “reform” Washington..

Disappointing partisan dogma from an author I once held in high regard.