Bush Dusts off Reagan's Energy Script, for McCain

After the American Century

In my last Blog I recalled the rhetoric of Ronald Reagan on energy in the 1980 campaign. No sooner had I published it than the Republicans began to talk just like Reagan did at that time. Back then the oil crisis apparently made it necessary to drill for Alaskan oil. The hue and cry was that the whole energy crisis was caused by over-zealous bureaucrats cheered on by environmentalists. It worked for the Republicans then. The public preferred to hear not that the shortages were real but that the US had lots of its own oil.

So the Republicans will try to blame the Democrats for the oil shortage! Not Detroit automakers who made inefficient cars and fought every attempt to raise the mandated minimum mpg (miles per gallon) for their fleets. Not campaign donors who run the oil corporations, who are reporting obscenely large profits. Not the Saudis and OPEC! Not rising demand in Asia. NO! Blame the Democrats.

Ronald Reagan, 1980: "The truth is America has an abundance of energy. But the policies of this administration [President Carter] consistently discouraged its discovery and production."

Until yesterday, McCain opposed off-shore drilling on environmental grounds. Now he is singing from the oil corporation song book. He said yesterday: "We must take control over our own energy future and become once again the master of our fate." Where? In Houston, Texas, the oil capital of the United States. He was talking to oil executives at Bush Family Central. This is the same McCain who last week wanted everyone to believe that he cares about global warming and is much different from G W Bush.

Meanwhile, Obama - correctly - told the press that off shore oil, even if found, drilled for and extracted, would not be available for more than ten years. "Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best, since America only has 3% of the world's oil. . . .It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil."

Drilling for off-shore oil will not solve the current problem of higher gas prices, but it will continue the US fixation on oil, and it will make corporate Republicans billions of dollars. Interestingly, a few Republicans from tidewater states, notably California's Arnold Schwartznegger, openly rejected the joint McCain-Bush call for off-shore drilling. Oil spills are bad for tourism, destroy wildlife, and threaten fishing. Oh, and burning oil creates greenhouse gases. But please don't tell Mr. McBush, as he thinks drilling for oil that will not be available for a decade is better than using less oil immediately or leading a determined drive to find alternatives.

Obama and McCain on Energy

After the American Century

John McCain and Barack Obama have both announced energy programs. McCain says that he is more "green" than Bush on the issue of global warming, but is this proclaimed difference really visible? To the casual observer, McCain and Obama might look similar on this issue. Both want to reduce US emissions of methane and CO2. By 2050 McCain says he will bring them down to just 40% of the 1990 level; Obama expects to reduce them ever further, to a mere 20%. These promises deal with the situation 42 years from now. Conceivably Obama might still be alive at that time, but such projections are not too meaningful by themselves.

A bit more concretely, both candidates like the idea of trading CO2 credits. This is not a new idea, and has been pushed by American representatives at climate meetings for years. The idea of turning pollution into a market, where the "right" to pollute is bought and sold appeals to US politicians because it makes the environment a part of business. Rather than set limits and then fine people for exceeding them, the notion is that corporations and cities will cut back on pollution if they get paid to do it. However, McCain wants to give away the initial quotas, at least the first time. Obama wants to sell pollution quotas and used the 150 billion dollars generated that way to support research into alternative energies and the like.

In line with this, Obama's goal is, by 2025, to produce 25% of all US electricity from wind, solar, biomass, and other sustainable sources. McCain has not set any definite goal, but claims that he supports alternative energies. In fact, he has a poor voting record in this regard.

With regard to ethanol, it is much the same story. Obama has a definite goal, while McCain "supports" the idea, but has no quota and in fact wants to stop subsidizing ethanol production. In other words, he says one thing but will do another.

Both candidates are realists, and can see that it is impossible to do away with coal-burning plants any time soon, but each wants to see "clean coal technology." Both also accept that atomic power can be an important source of electricity, but Obama is distinctly less enthusiastic about it. McCain sees atomic power as a good way to halt global warming, and admires the French for setting up such a comprehensive atomic power system, which supplies more than 75% of the nation needs.

The greatest differences between them lie in the area of curbing demand and conservation. Obama wants to convert all federal buildings to zero emission facilities and to give homeowners incentives for better insulation. McCain has no plans in this area at all. Likewise, Obama would give credits to utilities that managed to reduce customer demand, so they could profit not form growing the market but from shrinking it. McCain has no such plans.

Overall, Obama has made a greater commitment to alternative energy and to reducing demand. McCain sees nuclear plants as alternative energy, and seems not to understand that the most effective way to reduce oil dependency and CO2 emissions is to reduce energy use itself.

Overall, Obama has the more ambitious plan. McCain apparently thinks the market will solve the problem of global warming with the right incentives and leadership. Obama wants the government to invest directly in alternative energy R&D and set definite goals for conversion from the old system to a new, less polluting one. Where the Bush Administration at first questioned the reality of global warming and never made many efforts to change US energy use, McCain would at least rhetorically change the party line.

The basic McCain program looks quite a bit like that of Gerald Ford in 1975 . He claimed that if the US only would build a lot more nuclear plants and burn more coal, the nation could achieve energy independence by 1986. Obama's plan is more like that of Jimmy Carter, who also stressed alternative energies and greater conservation. Note that the public did not like Carter's plans, as they called for self-sacrifice and "the moral equivalent of war."

In 1980 Ronald Reagan proved far more popular with his energy plans, which basically denied that there was any real shortage. As he put it then: "Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline, and natural gas a little more slowly. . . .But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy. The Republican program for solving economic problems is based on growth and productivity. Large amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas lie beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present Administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, more taxes, and more controls, than more energy." This was irresponsible nonsense, and yet the public embraced this message. Under Reagan the country denied that there ever had been an energy crisis or that it could ever come again. As he declared during a speech in Cleveland, "The truth is America has an abundance of energy. But the policies of this administration consistently discouraged its discovery and production." He promised to "get America producing again" and concluded, "Every available resource we have must be used to free us from OPEC's domination." 28 years later, the Reagan promises of energy abundance ring rather hollow. But don't be too surprised if McCain's rhetoric begins to shift toward the winning Reagan formula. [In fact, McCain and Bush both began to do this two days after this Blog was published. See my posting for 18 June.]

A World's Fair in Copenhagen?

After the American Century

To the uninitiated, it sounds like such a good idea. There has never been a world's fair in Copenhagen, so why not really put the city on the map? For that is what such fairs do. There was a time when the largest and most powerful cities held fairs, notably London(the first one in 1851, 1862), Paris (1855, 1867, 1878, 1889, 1900, 1937) Vienna (1873), and New York (1853, 1939, 1964). But beginning a century ago the more famous cities were less likely to host expositions, and the impulse to hold fairs became the hallmark of "wannabe" world cities. Typically, these were places that had grown rapidly and wanted attention, which in retrospect was appropriate for Sydney (1879) Chicago (1894) or San Francisco (1915). However, the aspirations for recognition now seem a bit laughable for such largely forgotten fairs as those held in Nizhny Novgorod (1896), Omaha (1898), Buffalo (1901), Liege (1905), or Knoxville (1982).

So as Danes begin to think about this proposal, they should ask themselves the following questions. What recent world's fairs are they aware of? Did they attend or take any interest in those held in Daejeon (1993), Lisbon (1998), Hanover (2000), or Aichi (2005)? Prior to this proposal, had they even heard that there is a world exposition taking place this summer in Zaragoza? I suspect that few Danes know much about these events, for the very good reason that such fairs simply do not attract as much attention, or financial investment, as the fabulous fairs of the nineteenth century.

As a historian, I love world's fairs, for they are rich cultural texts. But I would not recommend staging a fair just so future historians will have great material to work with. The economics of world expositions is daunting. They almost always lose money, and they always cost more than the original projections. Today's newspapers casually throw out the price tag of 20 billion kroner for a Copenhagen Exposition in 2020, which is the next open date. But just like the Olympics, in order to get the chance to hold a world's fair, cities and nations must spend large sums in competition for the honor. Denmark would need to spend several hundred million kroner to outshine potential rivals such as Brisbane, Houston, New York, and Manila, all of whom apparently may apply. The chances of success might be 25%, assuming the that a detailed plan, a theme, and lots of financial guarantees are in place by 2011, when the competition begins.

Fortunately for Denmark, the nation is so rich and has so few social problems left to solve that it can easily afford to dedicate 20 billion kroner (well, probably a lot more) to this project. Nor is there any reason to worry that growing fuel shortages may make it far more expensive to reach such a fair than today, reducing attendance. Nor should anyone worry about the practical abilities of the Mayor of Copenhagen to carry out the project, even though she has conspicuously failed to build the 5000 inexpensive housing units she promised the city, when running for office. It is obviously far more difficult to build practical apartment units than it is to organize and build a world's fair that can later be transformed into a new urban region.

This project is also a great idea because Danish life, politics, and culture are so decentralized, that the nation needs to make further major investments in Copenhagen. An exposition would also put some automobiles and trucks on the half-empty highways. By comparison, it would be a waste of money to develop anything on Fyn or Jutland, much less those little islands.sprinkled around the edges of the country. Finally, this project would almost certainly drive up real estate prices in Copenhagen again, which is just what the nurses, police, teachers, social workers, and other ordinary people are clamoring for.

Yes, it is a marvelous idea to burden the next generation with a white elephant project like this, and it would be an appropriate crowning achievement for the Mayor. It is just possible, of course, that she might not still be in office in 2021, when the final bill comes due.

The Nurse's Strike and The Hypocritical Danish State

After the American Century
[The murses strike ended shortly after I wrote this column. I doubt there was any cause and effect! The nurses scracely got any more than the original offer.]

The nurses in Denmark have now been on strike for 8 weeks. That is a long time for a nation's health care to be cut to the bone. During this time a skeleton crew of nurses have always been on duty to deal with acute cases, but more than 325,000 treatments and operations have not taken place. The waiting list grows every day.

Why has no agreement been possible? The difference between the two parties is not so large: 2.2%, spread over three years. The Danish regions, who fund hospitals, have just saved one sixth of a year's wages, because they have not been paying the nurses all this time. Saving 16% of the wages already this year ought to make it possible, with ease, to give the nurses an 0.75% addition during each of the following three years. In fact, the regional governments would seem to be coming out so far ahead after not paying wages for two months, that the millions saved could be put into an account at 5% interest that would perpetually generate more than 0.75%. In other words, the strike itself has created a fund that can pay for one third of the funds required to meet the nurses demands. The real difference left, then, is only 1.5%. If the nurses stay on strike for four more months, then they will have saved the state so much money that their salary increase would cost nothing at all. Ah, but the patients would suffer.

There is one other demand that the nurses have, which seems obviously fair and reasonable. This is that a commission be set up by the state to investigate whether nurses (most of them women) are being discriminated against in their salaries. Do men with the same level of education, who have jobs with the same level of responsibility, receive the same pay? The state's refusal to grant this demand is tantamount to an admission that such a commission will "discover" what most people already know: women are being discriminated against. Of course, the state certainly would not want to find that out, officially, because then they would have to do something about it.

Watching this strike is like seeing a car crash in slow motion. It is painful, it will end badly for most of the citizens, and it is an accident that is not inevitable but due to bad driving. The economic road conditions are excellent, as Denmark has a budget surplus, low unemployment, and a strongly positive balance of payments. There is an acute shortage of nurses in Denmark, however, because the largely female nursing staff leave for other jobs, notably in private hospitals, but also in completely different sectors of employment. They leave because the level of stress is high and the wages are not competitive. They leave because of the pressure to do extra work, to cover for the unfilled positions. And at least some leave because they do not like the way hospitals are run.

The Danish government is hypocritical in this matter, and responsible for putting the health system in peril in at least four ways.

First, the Danish government is rhetorically committed to giving women equal pay for equal work. They are also legally obligated to end discrimination. Refusing to set up a commission to study the matter is at the least immoral. Economic justice delayed is justice denied.

Second, they are strongly in favor of limiting immigration into Denmark, but nevertheless actively recruit foreign doctors and nurses to move to Denmark. Entire groups of people have been flown in from India to work in hospitals in Jutland, and last week the Danish Embassy held a special event to recruit German health professionals. There is money for expensive recruitment campaigns abroad, but not for trying to hold on to the nurses at home.

Third. One of chief claims of the current government (once) was that that they were actively reducing the waiting lists for operations. In fact, even before the strike these lists were not all being reduced enough to reach the government's proclaimed goals. This was not surprising, since there were thousands of unfilled jobs. There are not enough doctors and nurses. Now, however, the failure to get a grip on the waiting list problem can be blamed on the nurses, because they have been on strike. But the root of the problem is that there are not enough health care professionals. And that is the government's own fault.

Fourth. This is a liberal/conservative government that trumpets free markets. It is hypocritical to pretend that free markets do not affect wage levels. There are not enough nurses because the wages are too low. An honest and ideologically consistent liberal government would recognize that hospital workers exist in a labor market. Instead, they are pretending that the market can be ignored, and they have now angered what nurses they do have. In the next few years they can expect more of them to leave for other employment. Denying that free markets govern the health sector will lead to more severe problems in the future. The population is aging and the demand for care will increase, even as nurses flee the hospitals.

In short, the current Danish government, both at the regional and the national level, has shown itself to be discriminatory against women, unwilling to create a commission to deal with that problem, hypocritical about immigration, dishonest about its intentions to reduce waiting lists, and disloyal to its own liberal principles. Until they recognize that health care is not a budget line they can play with but rather a service that must be paid for in the marketplace, just so long will the Danish people suffer.

It seems that gender discrimination is so deeply ingrained in this government that its representatives are willing to violate their free market principles and literally let the citizenry die, rather than pay nurses what the market demonstrates they deserve.

The only thing more painful than the government's behavior is the spineless inactivity of the opposition. The Danish parliament is about to go on vacation, without solving this problem. effectively leaving the population unprotected. The vaunted safety net is all but gone, and they waste time and try the nation's patience with idiotic discussions of whether Muslim women can wear head scarves. Some of these women wearing scarves are nurses, but apparently they should be fired to make the hypocritical pseudo-liberal government happy.

The nurses will also soon go on vacation. But patients cannot send their endangered hearts, weak lungs, and weakened bones on vacation. They will continue to suffer and increasingly to die because the hypocritical Danish government is deeply sexist and without moral principles.

Obama's Victory Train is Leaving the Station; Will Hillary Get on Board?

After the American Century

Its finally over. The person with the most pledged and "super" delegates is Senator Obama, with 2154. Senator Clinton has 1919. He gave a powerful speech in Minneapolis to a packed hall., not incidentally the same hall that the Republicans will be using to nominate McCain at the end of the summer. She spoke to a smaller crowd of supporters, close to her adopted home, in New York, and refused to concede. Can she swallow her pride and do what is best for the Party? Or will she become one of the bitter, defeated figures of history? She has lost, but will she choose to make losing part of her identity? Will she, in effect, help John McCain?

The New York Times estimated several hours before the polls closed that Obama only needed 12 votes to clinch his victory. Thus, on paper at least, the primaries in Montana and South Dakota put him over the top. The turnout was reported to be heavy. However, there were only 31 delegates at stake in these two physically large but sparsely populated states, and in fact that was not enough to make much of a difference. If Hillary had won them all, she would still be more than 200 behind. In any case, it was not possible to win them all, given the proportional system in use. While final delegate results are not yet in, apparently Obama won by a slight majority in these two states (taken together) on the last day of the primaries.

Obama needed so few of the last primary votes because he successfully won over the super delegates. Clinton once had the advantage with that constituency, but in the last month almost none of these political professionals have opted for her candidacy, and Obama now has about 107 more of them than she does. Indeed, a parade of new supporters appeared in the last few days, pushing him to the brink of success. Furthermore, as soon as the polls closed, a number of super delegates announced for him, most notably former president, Jimmy Carter, and the majority whip in the House of Representatives, James Clayburn. If the superdelegates put him over the top, in other words, they were careful to wait until the end of the voting, so that it coincided with it.

Clinton not only lost among both delegates and super delegates. She also lost financially- Hillary Clinton has lent millions of dollars to her own campaign, joining Mitt Romney as a rich candidate who failed, despite having deep pockets. It seems that a rich person cannot (yet?) buy the office of president. On the other side, Obama who has no personal fortune, out-fundraised Clinton. This is the real measure of popular support, as millions of Americans gave him relatively small amounts. In contrast, Clinton long relied on large donors and did accept money from lobbyists, which Obama did not.

Yet even with all the warning signs flashing, Hillary Clinton refused to admit that defeat was coming, as she kept on campaigning vigorously in South Dakota, where polls suggested that the race was close. and where she indeed won. She virtually conceded Montana to Obama. Afterwards, she refused to make a concession speech, denying the party closure and cementing her image as a defiant fighter. But now she is not fighting against the odds, because it is statistically over. Hillary can either help unite the Democratic Party or she can increase the divisions in it. She has to decide how much she wants to get the Republicans out of the White House.

The longer she waits, the more unrealistic and petty she looks. Obama has been gracious, he has praised her a good deal of late, and he has offered to sit down privately with her to talk. But he will not give her the power to decide anything for him. Clinton needs to realize that she has a small window in time before the campaign train leaves the station. History will move on, and she can either board the train as a passenger or stay on the platform. She must abandon the fantasy that she will be the engineer driving the train. If she cannot concede defeat and begin to support the party's choice, then she may quickly become a minor figure shrinking in the distance.

Danish Embassy Bombed

After the American Century

Last week, I heard a seminar lecture given by Harvard Professor and foreign policy expert Mark Kramer on the Cold War. During the question and discussion period, he also discussed the current world situation. He said that the greatest danger to world security was to be found not in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or Palestine, but most definitely in Pakistan. The nation has whole provinces dominated by terrorists. It also has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Yesterday, the Danish Embassy in Pakistan was car-bombed by an as yet unknown group. The attack killed at least six persons and wounded 23. None of the victims were Danish citizens working at the Embassy. As is so often the case, people who just are in the wrong place at the time of an explosion, and who have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter, are the victims.

Press speculation, probably correct, is that the bombings are related at least in part to cartoons published by one of the Danish newspapers, a right-of-center rag that takes an intemperate view of most things Muslim called Jyllands Posten. For those who have not seen these cartoons, one can say that they depict Moslems and their prophet in an unflattering light. They were not published as commentary on current events, but rather were intended as a provocation and as a declaration of freedom of the press. I should say that I have no respect for that newspaper, because it attacked me inaccurately by name on a quite another matter. I refuse to give interviews to its journalists, and I must hold my nose as I declare that of course they have the right to free speech. I also have the right to say that I no longer respect and certainly will never purchase that newspaper, which deserves to go out of business because other readers also stop buying it. Yet while I have been insulted, I have no desire for bloody revenge, and I think it madness to declare a fatwa on its cartoonists, some of whom now must hide in "safe houses."

For many Danes, Jyllands-Posten and its cartoons are all about freedom of speech and not giving in to intimidation. For many Moslems, they are about being gratuitously insulted, about respect for their religion and about defending the prophet Mohammed. It is one of those confrontations that may last a long time, because neither side has any intention of backing down. And so, a small country of 5.2 million people, the size of Massachusetts, has become the focus of international terror. A country that has only a small military and that has instead used its money to contribute a great deal to foreign aid programs, a country that has defined itself as a mediator, a listener and a champion of human rights, finds itself an object of hatred. A Danish expert on the Middle East whom I have spoken with worries that a terrorist attack on a target inside Denmark is only a matter of time. I hope he is wrong, though fear he is right.

Has the Danish government understood the dangers and the consequences? Perhaps not. The embassy in Pakistan was not particularly well-located. Yesterday, the Danish radio news repeatedly emphasized how secure the building was, with video cameras and only one entrance. Located on a dead-end street, it was reportedly hard to approach. But the BBC stated that "the Danish embassy was an easy target because it is located in a residential area outside of the high-security diplomatic enclave." Danes were mislead by their own news media into thinking their embassy was particularly safe. Perhaps it is, when compared to other Dansh embassies around the world. [Update: the Danish newspaper Politiken reports today (4.6.08) that many Danish embassies in the Moslem world are potentially easy targets, notably that in Egypt. The right-wing Danish government simply has not understood that having such a high profile in the war on terror entails far more security and has real economic costs.]

The security problem, and the perception of high-security, is inseparable from the major shift in Danish foreign policy that occurred when the current right-wing government came into power in late 2001. During the last century, although a member of NATO, Denmark had generally not been a belligerent. Rather, it often was part of UN peacekeeping forces. The nation was known for its willingness to take on the difficult job of patrolling boundaries and dampening regional tensions. It did such a good job of it that the Danish national flag at times was confused with the Red Cross flag. Until 2001.

Once the foreign policy changed, however, the government clearly should have moved its embassy in Pakistan to a highly secured area inside the diplomatic enclave. Now that a car bomb has exploded, it is time to move into the safest area. The time when Denmark could put its embassy in any nice residential area is over.

Denmark is no longer seen as a peacekeeper, but as part of the American-led effort to drive the Talliban out of Afghanistan. Danish troops are fighting every day there. They were also part of the occupation of Iraq until last year. The happy days when a Danish passport was one of the best ones to have if taken hostage also are well and truly over.

Hillary's Hubris

After the American Century

One of the ancient Greek playrights might have worked up the events of the Democratic Party primaries into a dramatic production: "Hillary's Hubris" - a brilliant politician's unsuccessful drive for power threatens to tear her world apart . . . . a new work by the author of Oedipus Rex.

Shakespere might have rolled out "Hillary Hamlet," - being the tale of a princess who expected to inherit the throne and became convinced that only a foul conspiracy against her person could explain the sudden rise of a handsome young prince.

But seriously, there is a curious idea, or proto-narrative, floating around that goes something like this: Hillary Clinton is losing to Barack Obama because discrimination against women is stronger and more pernicious than discrimination against African-Americans. Such talk is deeply unfair to both candidates. It assumes that race and gender are more important than anything else. It overlooks the rather obvious fact that an attractive, experienced, and well-spoken white man, John Edwards, lost to both Clinton and Obama. In fact, so did every other white man in the race. So, the idea that voters are deeply preoccupied with gender and race, and that they are particularly prejudiced against women, is not a convincing position to begin with. But when the argument is raised by the Clinton camp, it is self-serving nonsense. Trying to make Hillary look like a victim just doesn't fly. She was the front-runner until early February, and when you are in front, the journalists go after you. The same thing happened to Obama when he took the lead.

For Hillary's supportrs to claim she is a victim of sexism does not fly for other reasons that are also obvious. Recall that she was leading in the polls for months during 2007. Recall that the press annointed her as the virtual candidate. Recall that she had the enormous advantage of drawing on Bill Clinton's political network. During all this time one did not hear many complaints from her camp about her treatment in the press, because she was getting good press.

Why did she fall behind Obama? Because she ran a lousy campaign in January and especially in February, when she had prepared almost nothing for the primaries after "Super Tuesday." Instead, she had to fire her campaign manager and reorganize. Despite her huge early advantage, Hillary lost in the trenches. She did it too herself. Obama won because he managed his campaign more effectively in those crucial first two months. She has been trying, and failing, to catch up ever since.

When a politician falls behind, or an athelete or anyone else for that matter, one possibility is to gain some respect for the opponent, admit mistakes, exhibit some grace under pressure, and try to win back the lost ground. To some extent, Clinton has done that. But she has also whined, complained of discrimination, played the race card and most unpleasantly of all, hinted that she remains available just in case her opponent gets shot. It was a disgrace when she said that she was the candidate of white people, of "hard-working white people." As a white person, I am angry that she spoke that way. It is especially offensive if you happen not to be white.

Is she a victim, as some of her supporters claim? She beat every white male opponent, and every male opponent but one. She is a powerful US Senator. She has accumulated a large personal fortune. For such a person to complain about gender discrimination is deeply dishonest. The Clinton camp should have learned from Obama that most voters are not looking to elect a victim as president. They do not want that sort of self-dramatization combined with a sense of entitlement. What voters want is a positive message. Bill Clinton knew that in 1992, but she seems to have forgotten.

Worst of all, she and Bill Clinton have to some extent succeeded in making the primary race into a contest where race and gender are central, rather than the very serious issues. The African-American voters in New York are angry at her pattern of behavior. History may not forgive the Clintons, but in the meantime get ready for an exciting fall production, "Who's Afraid of Hillary's Hubris?"