Edwards Speech

Obama was a really hard act to follow, but John Edwards is doing a fantastic job of it. He's way stronger on foreign policy issues than I've seen him before. He's putting meat on the bones of the "exemplarism" concept and hitting, to me, a key point that's been all-too-absent from our politics, the need to think about how US foreign policy decisions look to the rest of the world. He directly made the contrast between the vast expenditures on Iraq and the good that kind of money could do -- both to the world and for America's image -- if that kind of commitment were made instead to real humanitarian causes.

Now he's moving on to global warming where he's always been good -- and, indeed, is just now getting huge applause -- so I'm gonna stop the post since I trust he'll be excellent again.

UPDATE: Okay, wait, now he's tacked back from climate change to the idea that major energy reform would create political reform in the Middle East. Then he links it up to a vision of development in Africa. You really need to hear it to believe it, because if I try to summarize it'll sound dumb, but Edwards talks about it very persuasively.

Comments

Matt,

You're such a smart kid. How long is it going to take for you to quit writing about nuances among Republocrat shill-whores...and start writing about Ron Paul?

Posted by Zagnut | June 19, 2007 1:05 PM

"Okay, wait, now he's tacked back from climate change to the idea that major energy reform would create political reform in the Middle East."

Matt,

I'd be interested to see you flesh this out later. If Edwards's position is that lower oil prices would lead to political reform (Friedman has alluded to this before), why didn't we see much reform during the post Gulf War, early 90's oil bust (when it was trading for less than $20 per barrel)?

Posted by Fred | June 19, 2007 1:15 PM

"major energy reform would create political reform in the Middle East"

Uh huh.

Posted by ostap | June 19, 2007 1:27 PM

You really need to hear it to believe it, because if I try to summarize it'll sound dumb, but Edwards talks about it very persuasively.

That sounds a lot like the acid test for dumbness, actually -- "I can't explain it, but it sounded great!"

Posted by Anderson | June 19, 2007 1:32 PM

Matt~

One thing you should consider is that when you try to summarize a politician's policy position and it sounds dumb, the odds are that it is dumb. Don't get wrapped up in the delivery.

Posted by Steven Donegal | June 19, 2007 1:32 PM

Re "major energy reform would create political reform in the Middle East."
-------
Why? Is it because Big Oil would no longer need to have the US government prop up totalitarian kleptocratic puppet dictators like the House of Saud? Or the tyrants of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan??

That countries like Iraq would no longer be plunged into long, bloody civil wars as we invade to seize the oil deposits?

That the CIA would no longer need to overthrow peaceful legitimate governments like Mossadagh's in Iran --just so Big Oil could get more favorable concessions?

That the people of the Islamic world might be less inclined to support Bin Laden and Al Qaeda extremists if they weren't be screwed over on a daily basis by brutal US military operations?

How about if we encourage the "free market" by posting the full price of Middle Eastern gasoline at the pump -- $41 per gallon when you tack on the cost of US military control of the Middle East. Let's start by taxing Big Oil for the full cost of protecting their ME investments -- $38/gal.

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 1:33 PM

The energy policy/mideast reform is a pretty interesting idea. I assume it has to do with both the role oil prices play in propping up the Iranians and the Saudis as well as some ideas from the curse of resources school of thought. Kevin Drum had a very interesting related post about the role of oil prices in the fall of the Soviet Union.

To Fred's point, I'd assume one difference in Saudi is the population boom their, the per capita petrol dollars don't go as far as they used to, and the suffering economy was one of the factors in Iran's flirtation with refrom in the 1990's.

Posted by AJ | June 19, 2007 1:38 PM

For a long time many Mideast monarchies propped themselves up with oil profits by essentially bribing their citizens with lavish social services. I think that's less true lately, though.

Posted by Antid Oto | June 19, 2007 1:46 PM

Bush's ideas about creating political reform in the Middle East also sounded pretty dumb to me, but apparently enough people found them persuasive.

Posted by blah | June 19, 2007 1:56 PM

Re "For a long time many Mideast monarchies propped themselves up with oil profits by essentially bribing their citizens with lavish social services"
--------
I think this has different aspects. Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait are among the few countries who REFUSE to provide the World Bank with income distribution data.

I read accounts of high unemployment in Saudi Arabia in the late 1990s because of the low price of oil led to fall in oil revenues. Dick Cheney was laying off around 10,000 Halliburton employees around that time as well.

Which might explain why 19 Saudi citizen agreed to kill themselves in order to carry out Bin Laden's Sept 11 strike. It was their oil --and what had Houston/the US government given them over the past 50 years?

The oil royalties trickle down to the whores and croupiers of Monte Carlo , not to the common citizens of Arabia and Yemen.

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 1:56 PM

I should have also mentioned the whores of Washington DC as well. They definitely get their cut.

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 1:59 PM

Re "major energy reform would create political reform in the Middle East."

Even if this is true (which I doubt)...who cares? Do I live in the Middle East? No. So, why should I care? And please, don't tell me its because "the world is flat".

Posted by Jim W | June 19, 2007 2:01 PM

Jim W- You're a real liberal humanitarian, fuck Darfur while we're at it, unless, of course YOU happen to be commenting from there.

In which case, I am very concerned about it.

Posted by AJ | June 19, 2007 2:06 PM

There are lots of humanitarian causes that are important (such as Darfur, preventing disease in the third world, etc). I'm all for doing something about them. The main criterion is cost effectiveness.

Political reform in the Middle East is low on this list. My point is that there's a myth out there that one of the biggest problems in the world is the lack of political reform in the Middle East, which is supposed to be a direct cause (in some magical unspecified way) of a huge terrorist threat to us. The problem is, there is no direct link to terrorism, and the current terrorist threat to us isn't very big.

Energy reform is great for environmental reasons. As a means of ameliorating a mythical problem, on the other hand, its, well...., who cares?

Posted by Jim W | June 19, 2007 2:18 PM

There are lots of humanitarian causes that are important (such as Darfur, preventing disease in the third world, etc). I'm all for doing something about them.

No, you're not. You just said so fifteen minutes ago.

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 2:20 PM

I said I didn't care about political reform in the middle east. Darfur is in Africa (different places, you see).

Posted by Jim W | June 19, 2007 2:23 PM

How about if we encourage the "free market" by posting the full price of Middle Eastern gasoline at the pump -- $41 per gallon when you tack on the cost of US military control of the Middle East. Let's start by taxing Big Oil for the full cost of protecting their ME investments -- $38/gal.

From where do you get these figures?

Posted by dob | June 19, 2007 2:28 PM

[T]he need to think about how US foreign policy decisions look to the rest of the world.

Isn't this just the dreaded "global test"?

Posted by Chris Conway | June 19, 2007 2:35 PM

So, you don't care about the Middle East because you don't live there. But you care about Darfur because...?

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 2:39 PM

I haven't seen the Edwards speech, but maybe, just maybe, the idea that a "major energy reform would create political reform in the Middle East" sounds dumb in summary because it is kind of dumb.

Any idea of energy reform would have to tacle the big question of what fuel to use for transport, instead of oil products.The problem with biofuels is that it is impossible to scale these projects up to meet the demand - the world will run out arable of land before that.Coal-and-nuclear-to-electric sounds more promising but is still decades away as a practical solution (and has its own problems).Anything else is science fiction at this point.

Secondly, it is not clear (to me, anyway) that oil and gas revenues are the obstacles to political reform in the Middle East.Sure, the Saudis and Gadhafi's Libya (now, our friend again!) and Iran are examples of undemocratic regimes substantially propped up by oil and gas revenue, but Egypt and Syria and Pakistan are not (by much).

IMO,"the missing link" to political reform in most of the ME are the relatively-well-off, relatively-liberal middle classes.They have a tendency to tolerate, if not support, secular strongmen like Mubarak out of belief that the lower classes would just vote in the fundies if they could.(Not necessarily an unreasonable position to take, but toxic in the long run)

Posted by Ablo | June 19, 2007 2:45 PM

Re "From where do you get those figures?"
---------

I posted the arithmetic several times here:

1) 1 barrel of oil yields 19.6 gallons of gasoline.
(Ref: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp )

2) In 2006, we imported 806 Million barrels from the Middle East
(Ref: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mttimuspg1m.htm )

3) Our defense budget is approaching $900 BILLION/YEAR if you include all the "war on terror" supplementals (DOD and non-DOD),
DOD's Base spending,etc. If you include DOE's Nuclear programs,
Veteran's Benefits ($78 Bil/year and heading higher) plus INTEREST on all the debt run up with deficit spending to support bloated military
budgets, you're talking more about $1.2 TRILLION/YEAR! That's CONSUMPTION --not INVESTMENT. By my estimate, at least $600 BILLION PER Year of that is tied to keeping military control of the MIDDLE EAST
--including the "war on terror" flowing out of that policy.

4) Hence, we are spending roughly $600 BILLION / (19.6 x 806 Mil) = roughly $38 ! for every gallon of Middle Eastern gasoline we import.

5) That does not count, of course, the 6000+ lives lost so far and the $1 Trillion it will take to provide lifelong care for the 10,000+ soldiers crippled in this war.

6) The biggest resource we are squandering is TIME. We are close to Peak Oil and as oil declines it will become more expensive --as will military operations to seize it. We run the risk of a massive dieoff of the human population when the oil runs out.

If a fraction of the military expenditures wasted in the Middle East were diverted to research in advanced physics, we could develop alternative energy technologies before it is too late.

7) But the US government and Big Oil do everything they can to cripple such efforts.

We fund physics research at very low levels.

We strongly discourage our brightest students from becoming physicists by making it a shitty field in which to work.

We discourage any innovation in alternative energy by keeping gasoline at $3 /gal at the pump. To pay for the $38 in military operations to get that gallon, we collect huge sums via the income tax (and by stealing about $4 Trillion in payroll taxes from the Social Security Trust Fund).

We keep research in nuclear energy under the oppressive control of the DOE, DOD and NRC -- idiotic regulation that is calculated to drive
any intelligent person insane.

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 3:00 PM

Re: "So, you don't care about the Middle East because you don't live there. But you care about Darfur because...?"

As I said previously, the major criterion when considering humanitarian causes is cost effectiveness. Preventing disease in the third world and intervening in Darfur are probably cost effective ways to intervene.

Trying to effect political reform in other countries, including in the Middle East, is probably not a cost effective way to do this. I believe that most of the prople who profess concern about middle eastern politics are not motivated by humanitarian concerns, but rather by a bizarre ideology that has its roots in neoconservative "thought", or by their desire to protect Israel.

Political reform is typically advanced by people who actually live in the place country where the politics take place. Why should the Middle East be any different?

And, anyone who thinks that a major motivation for energy reform is to effect political reform in the middle east is an idiot.

Posted by Jim W | June 19, 2007 3:13 PM

Re "he's [Edwards] moving on to global warming where he's always been good "
--------
Bull. The quickest way to affect global warming is to halt rapid population growth in the biggest, most wasteful polluter -- the United States.

And the quickest way to do that is to halt immigration into the USA. Most of our 60 Million+ population growth in the past 20 years has come from immigration and from births of immigrants.

What with the NAFTA/globalization of Bill Clinton/Democrats and the "free trade" of the Republicans, many American citizens can't afford to raise children any more.

But I kinda doubt we will be hearing that solution from John Edwards -- or from the two-faced leaders of the Sierra Club.

The environmentalists can climb all over a small businessman trying to meet a payroll but they've always been totally silent about the massive environmental degradation resulting from deals cut by the Democratic leadership.

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 3:16 PM

As I said previously, the major criterion when considering humanitarian causes is cost effectiveness. Preventing disease in the third world and intervening in Darfur are probably cost effective ways to intervene.

That isn't what you said the first time. That's what you changed your story to after you were called on what you said the first time.

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 3:36 PM

I also didn't say what my favorite food is the first time. Mexican. Sorry for leaving that out.

Posted by Jim W | June 19, 2007 3:39 PM

I also didn't say what my favorite food is the first time. Mexican. Sorry for leaving that out.

So you don't like falafel, tabouli and hummus? You heartless bastard.

Posted by blah | June 19, 2007 3:57 PM

Don Williams:

China and India more than 3 billion people between the two of them; their economies are growing at torrid paces; they are rapidly industrializing; and hundreds of millions of their peasants are hoping to make the progression from walking, to biking, to riding a motorbike, to driving a car. They are also eager to enjoy such novelties as electricity, heat, and air conditioning. No whining by First World Greens is going to change that.

Why do you lefty greens worry about the future anyway? Between the abortions, women waiting until their late 30's to get serious about having a kid, etc., you folks are in a demographic death spiral.

Posted by Don Williams's Daemon | June 19, 2007 5:03 PM

Friedman has alluded to this before

Not just alluded, but flat out argued it:

if we put all our focus on reducing the price of oil - by conservation, by developing renewable and alternative energies and by expanding nuclear power - we will force more reform than by any other strategy. You give me $18-a-barrel oil and I will give you political and economic reform from Algeria to Iran. All these regimes have huge population bubbles and too few jobs. They make up the gap with oil revenues. Shrink the oil revenue and they will have to open up their economies and their schools and liberate their women so that their people can compete. It is that simple.

Or maybe it was a cab driver in Algiers.

Posted by McG | June 19, 2007 5:10 PM

"Shrink the oil revenue and they will have to open up their economies and their schools and liberate their women so that their people can compete. It is that simple."

I think I remember this Friedman column now. It's the sort of writing that makes me wonder how Friedman ended up being considered such a genius.

Posted by Fred | June 19, 2007 5:40 PM

Here's a link to a Salon/Friedman interview (which in turn links to the column I excerpted).

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/07/friedman/index.html

In Friedman's defense, there are tons of historical examples of dictatorial nation's responding to economic stress by becoming more progressive.

Posted by McG | June 19, 2007 5:46 PM

Re "hundreds of millions of their peasants are hoping to make the progression from walking, to biking, to riding a motorbike, to driving a car. They are also eager to enjoy such novelties as electricity, heat, and air conditioning. No whining by First World Greens is going to change that. "
--------
Right. And their demand will drain the oil reservoirs even more rapidly than the USA alone.
China is already gearing up to fight us over the Caspian Sea deposits -- and guess which country is the shortest route from the Caspian Sea to terminals on the Indian Ocean?

Whereas if we developed new advanced energy technology, we will have an INVESTMENT which pays dividends for a century -- versus the $600 BILLION we are pouring down the Middle East rathole EVERY year.

We could SELL those energy products to CHina and India -- and hopefully reverse our unsustainable trade deficits and buy back some of the $1 TRILLION in US Treasuries held by foreign investors.

Posted by Don Williams | June 19, 2007 5:58 PM

I also didn't say what my favorite food is the first time. Mexican. Sorry for leaving that out.

What you said the first time was logically inconsistent with what you changed your story to later. You know this and are dodging.

Posted by JP | June 19, 2007 6:30 PM