The Grasshopper and The Ant
You remember the fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant? The grasshopper spends the warm months--when food is abundant--singing, dancing, and generally enjoying himself while the ant works hard to store up food for the colder months, which he knows are coming. And sure enough, when winter comes, the ant is prepared and the grasshopper starves.
Well in the world of politics—and particularly when it comes to energy policy--there are a lot of grasshoppers and very few ants.
Almost three decades ago, on July 15, 1979, President Carter (one of the ants) delivered an important speech. Knowing that our nation's energy policy was unsustainable and that we were becoming increasingly dependent on oil from hostile foreign countries, he proposed a bold plan:
This speech was greeted by the grasshoppers—whose ranks included virtually every Republican politician in the country--with nothing but derision and mockery. They laughed and made fun of the cardigan Carter wore when he delivered the speech. And before long, that was all anyone remembered about the speech.
In the nearly thirty years since Carter delivered that speech, any politician that has ventured into similar territory has been similarly mocked and derided by Republicans. Barack Obama was mocked viciously just yesterday--and explicitly compared to Carter--because he pointed out that filling your tires with air reduces fuel consumption. Over the years, leaders of the Republican party—like Dick Cheney--have been openly hostile to the very concept of conservation and have allowed lobbyists for the oil companies to literally write our nation's energy policies. And during that time, almost three decades, we've become far more dependent on foreign oil and our government has made little if any effort to encourage the development of alternative energy sources or even to take simple steps to improve energy efficiency (such as raising CAFE standards for automobile makers).
In short, for the last three decades, the Republican party has been a party of grasshoppers, blissfully encouraging the consumption of ever greater amounts of food while doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the winter ahead. Indeed, they done everything in their power to marginalize those who have warned that the good times can't last and that we need to embrace conservation initiatives and develop alternative energy sources.
And now that the long-awaited winter has finally come and we're all suffering under the weight of sky-high oil prices, what is the Republican response? They seize upon an imaginary quick fix--off-shore oil drilling--and they all rally around it, accusing their opponents of being the obstacle to lower gas prices. They preen and pose, convening fake sessions of Congress to show that they are the ones who really care about gas prices. They ignore what their own government experts have acknowledged, that allowing further off-shore drilling won't produce a drop of new oil for at least a decade and, even then, will do little if anything to reduce gas prices.
Apparently in the Republican version of the fable, rather than admitting that he'd been short-sighted and reckless in not preparing for the winter, the grasshopper pretends that there's actually a winter's worth of food located just beneath his feet and that the only thing keeping him from digging it up is that damn ant.
Well in the world of politics—and particularly when it comes to energy policy--there are a lot of grasshoppers and very few ants.
Almost three decades ago, on July 15, 1979, President Carter (one of the ants) delivered an important speech. Knowing that our nation's energy policy was unsustainable and that we were becoming increasingly dependent on oil from hostile foreign countries, he proposed a bold plan:
In little more than two decades we've gone from a position of energy independence to one in which almost half the oil we use comes from foreign countries, at prices that are going through the roof. Our excessive dependence on OPEC has already taken a tremendous toll on our economy and our people. . . .He also called for a "bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle."
This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation. The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts and we simply must face them. . . .
To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel --from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun. . .
This speech was greeted by the grasshoppers—whose ranks included virtually every Republican politician in the country--with nothing but derision and mockery. They laughed and made fun of the cardigan Carter wore when he delivered the speech. And before long, that was all anyone remembered about the speech.
In the nearly thirty years since Carter delivered that speech, any politician that has ventured into similar territory has been similarly mocked and derided by Republicans. Barack Obama was mocked viciously just yesterday--and explicitly compared to Carter--because he pointed out that filling your tires with air reduces fuel consumption. Over the years, leaders of the Republican party—like Dick Cheney--have been openly hostile to the very concept of conservation and have allowed lobbyists for the oil companies to literally write our nation's energy policies. And during that time, almost three decades, we've become far more dependent on foreign oil and our government has made little if any effort to encourage the development of alternative energy sources or even to take simple steps to improve energy efficiency (such as raising CAFE standards for automobile makers).
In short, for the last three decades, the Republican party has been a party of grasshoppers, blissfully encouraging the consumption of ever greater amounts of food while doing absolutely nothing to prepare for the winter ahead. Indeed, they done everything in their power to marginalize those who have warned that the good times can't last and that we need to embrace conservation initiatives and develop alternative energy sources.
And now that the long-awaited winter has finally come and we're all suffering under the weight of sky-high oil prices, what is the Republican response? They seize upon an imaginary quick fix--off-shore oil drilling--and they all rally around it, accusing their opponents of being the obstacle to lower gas prices. They preen and pose, convening fake sessions of Congress to show that they are the ones who really care about gas prices. They ignore what their own government experts have acknowledged, that allowing further off-shore drilling won't produce a drop of new oil for at least a decade and, even then, will do little if anything to reduce gas prices.
Apparently in the Republican version of the fable, rather than admitting that he'd been short-sighted and reckless in not preparing for the winter, the grasshopper pretends that there's actually a winter's worth of food located just beneath his feet and that the only thing keeping him from digging it up is that damn ant.
posted by A.L. at 2:43 PM
26 Comments:
I take it from your “fable” that you think that it would have been a good idea if we had made “the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation’s history” to develop the energy sources Carter identified—coal, oil shale, “plant products for gasohol, “unconventional gas” (is that like natural gas?) and solar. What do you anticipate would have been accomplished by such a program beyond what has actually been accomplished over the last 30 years by (a) the free market, (b) actual US government subsidies and expenditures for research and development in these areas (eg, ethanol) and (c) foreign government research and development?
I would also note that Carter’s list did not include nuclear energy, which is, I believe, far and away the most significant current alternative to fossil fuels and is far more heavily relied upon by France and other countries than by the U.S. U.S. government policies have actively discouraged the development of this energy source, as well as some of the energy sources (eg, coal) identified by Carter. How do these facts fit into your fable?
MLS,
The free market has given us about a 25 percent increase in the average weight of vehicles (since 1980) and concomitant decrease in MPG.
It's odd you would speak of the free market in the same paragraph as ethanol, which is nothing but a gift from the government (which is to say our taxes) to agribusiness.
In any government program, there will be waste and misspent money, false trails followed beyond the point where they make sense -- that's the nature of government spending, whether it's on alternate fuels or military spending. However, if Carter's program had been carried out, we'd be a lot farther along with alternatives to coal and oil, and we might not have to get all our wind turbine technology from OUS, just to take one example.
The point of government investment is to move the goalposts, not to invent a particular profitable technology.
Also, remember, that large program would have been paid for in 1980-era dollars. It would have taken a lot fewer of them than it will take now.
c2h50h-"It's odd you would speak of the free market in the same paragraph as ethanol, which is nothing but a gift from the government (which is to say our taxes) to agribusiness."
Actually, that was precisely my point. Perhaps you should re-read the paragraph.
With regard to your other observations, I am sure that AL appreciates your intervening whenever I comment on his posts. However, I will wait and see if he has an answer to my questions before commenting further.
MLS,
I don't speak for A.L., nor does he speak for me, but I do tend to agree with him and find him generally insightful, while I tend to find your comments rather reactionary and pro-forma pro-business.
As for your comment about ethanol, your point was perhaps less clear than you may think, if you think it says the same as mine.
MLS,
Do you really think we wouldn't be better off now if we'd made a massive effort to ween ourselves off foreign oil and pursue alternative energy back in the 70s?
This is exactly the sort of effort that you need the government to get behind. The free market isn't a helpful driver of innovation when there is no demand. Why invest in expensive alternative energy research when oil supplies are cheap and plentiful? In these situations, you need a government to step in and provide proper incentives (such as increasing CAFE standards providing tax incentives to pursue alternative energy)and you need the government to help fund the research. It's the same way in the medical field. The major breakthroughs come from government-sponsored research where scientists are free to explore ideas without having to reassure investors of an immediate payoff.
I'd encourage you to go back and read Carter's speech in its entirety and then tell me that you really think we wouldn't be better off today if we had implemented his ideas.
I think we would be better off if we had allowed the construction of more nuclear power plants and oil refineries, and had not limited the ability of the private sector to exploit domestic sources of oil, natural gas and coal. I also strongly suspect that we would be better off if we had not wasted massive taxpayer resources on ethanol.
I really don’t know how to respond to your suggestion that we would be better off if we had made unspecified (but presumably very large) investments in unspecified research or other efforts to develop unspecified energy alternatives. You seem to take it on faith that these investments would not only produce significant benefits, but (and this is the important part) that those benefits would be greater than the benefits that would have resulted from other uses of those financial resources. I just have no idea how you reach that conclusion.
You note that the private sector has little incentive to develop energy alternatives when oil is cheap and (apparently) plentiful. True, but neither does the public sector. At the time that Carter proposed his energy plan oil was “going through the roof” and (appeared) scarce. The fact that we are in the same situation 30 years later does not make Carter some sort of genius. BTW, the director of the US Geological Survey warned in 1920 that we were running out of oil and spoke of the need for “a countrywide thrift campaign looking to the saving of this essential resource.” Now he was really prescient.
Whether you are right that the major breakthroughs in medical research have come from government funded programs rather than private research I do not know. But this begs the question. Do we need to increase the amount that the government spends on medical research? By how much? Is this a better use of government money than spending it on alternative energy? What about education, health care, global warming, infrastructure, etc? (I won't even mention missile defense. But remember if we are hit by nukes from North Korea or Iran you will have to write a post about how Reagan was an ant and all the liberals were grasshoppers).
No matter how high you are willing to raise taxes (and putting aside all that supply-side nonsense about high taxes being counterproductive), you still have to prioritize among the many possible uses of public funds. So far you haven’t given me any reason why alternative energy should receive a greater portion of limited taxpayer resources.
Well now Obama is in favor of off-shore drilling so I guess this debate is over. The Democrats are so spineless it sickens me. First a party with majorities in both houses caves to a hugely unpopular lame duck president over FISA now the party's nominee yields to McCain's idiotic offshore plan.
This is exactly the sort of political pandering that Obama rejected during the primaries. This isn't a shift to the center, it's a capitulation to stupidity. What exactly are this man's convictions? I couldn't be more sorry that I donated to his campaign.
We often complain about the sad state of American politics but we tend to forget that the Democrats are half the problem. With Republicans only pretending to be true conservatives and the Democrats afraid to even use the word "liberal" to describe themselves, I would vote for any candidate who has an idea he or she actually BELIEVES in, even if I don't.
MLS,
Not to tread on A.L.'s turf, but your inability to understand that research programs sponsored by the government can produce benefits -- often in areas unforeseen by those who sponsored them -- seems a tad ironic, since you are making these comments on a computer (product, largely, of the space program) using the internet (product, largely, of a government research program.)
Anonymous, did you get your ideas about what Obama said from right-wing talking points? Because what he actually said was that he was open to compromise on off-shore drilling. One of the things that separates liberals from conservatives is that, when situations change, such as in the support of the electorate for off-shore drilling going to 80 percent, a liberal will take notice of that change.
If the American public is overwhelmingly willing to throw away our environment in order to continue to drive our SUV's, a liberal just has to shrug and try to limit the damage.
"If the American public is overwhelmingly willing to throw away our environment in order to continue to drive our SUV's, a liberal just has to shrug and try to limit the damage."
And who says Democrats are spineless?
That is the same line of thinking that excused the Democrats to enable the Bush administration before the Iraq war. The American people wanted it, so the liberals just shrugged. God help us.
Anonymous,
You do understand that we live in a democracy, don't you? I only ask because it seems you think 20 percent of the population should rule the rest.
Actually, this is a republic. We elect leaders to make decisions on our behalf. Our leaders are obliged to use their judgment rather than bend to popular will. That is why we elect them, that is their job.
At least McCain is willing to make unpopular choices. Although he has also taken to pandering as of late, one gets the impression that he does it for things that he doesn't really care about (gas prices, economics, etc.) He does, however, have some core beliefs that he won't give up, as demonstrated by his unpopular stance in Iraq.
Here is the distinction:
McCain: We need to stay in Iraq, I'll make the case for why and if you don't want to do this, don't vote for me.
That is how a republic should work.
Obama: Offshore drilling is a poor idea, it gives people the false belief that they don't need to make sacrifices and it's a cheap pander. But if you vote for me, I'll do it anyway!
I was happy with the choice between McCain and Obama a few months ago. Now it seems like we have to choose between one man who is usually wrong and another who is too gutless to tell people why he is right.
Think about it: Republicans got America to believe Kerry was a flip-flopper because he changed his mind due to evolving circumstances. People bought that and it was nonsense.
Now Obama is openly capitulating to right-wing stupidity with FISA and offshore drilling when we KNOW he doesn't believe in it. I voted for him, I gave money to him and I badly want him to be president but for the first time he is showing himself to not be up for the job.
I just want to clarify that I know McCain's policies are all over the place too but I think that's because he truly has no ideas on most policies. I think when McCain believes in something he sticks with it.
We know Obama has ideas but he won't stand by them.
Shrug our shoulder, I suppose....
Anonymous,
Let's see, things that McCain really feels strongly about -- you mean, like state-sponsored torture? I'd imagine he might feel strongly about that, and his position wouldn't waiver -- except that it did.
You mean, like global warming, which, supposedly was the issue on which he differed with Bush? Oh, wait, by supporting off-shore drilling, rather than conservation, he must not feel so strongly about it.
Or perhaps you meant campaign finance reform, about which he felt so strongly that he sponsored a law about it, which he violated, and continues to violate today?
Spare us, please. McCain is plain and simply a panderer who will blithely support any position for a few more votes. Obama appears to at least think about it before changing his position.
Well I'm not here to defend McCain though you do misrepresent his position on every single one of your examples. That's beside the point.
If all the Democrats can do in this argument is attack McCain rather than defend Obama then they've already stooped to the GOP level and therefore lost the argument.
Anonymous,
You say I misrepresent McCain's positions. I say I do not, and I also say that's not beside the point.
I defended Obama just a bit ago (you can scroll up and look) but, rather than discuss that, you prefer to try a cheap shot.
Either argue your point -- and to tell the truth, I'm not sure what that is anymore -- honestly and with facts and logic, or go away.
The moral ambiguity of LaFontaine's fable is usually overlooked. The grasshopper is not the selfish idler he is made out to be through the Protestant lenses we tend to see him through but a contributor to society, as are the art world and the entertainment business. He is a singer. He is an alleviating factor during the hot summer labor season. The ants, having benefitted from his art, meanly deny him a share of food in the off-season. The ants create a food supply only for themselves, and are thus a kind of labor-intensive bunch of Republicans, while the only contribution to the quality of life is mocked and unrewarded. Also, the grasshopper never mocks the ants or their labor. He merely discovers the effects of working without a contract.
All of which only goes to say that without consideration of the substance of the arguments in Anomymous's article, it's based on a flawed analogy unflattering to the grasshopper, who would likely be distressed to be placed in the same field as the heavy-footed McCain.
Let me make the argument you should be making because I wouldn't want you repeating what you've been saying to someone else.
You're argument so far has been that Obama is willing to "compromise" on something he opposes because it is what the electorate favors (ie pandering for votes).
What you should be saying is that for practical purposes, this doesn't matter. If to push real environmental reforms and alternative energy investments through Congress, he needs to compromise on offshore drilling, that's fine. He can through republicans a bone to keep up appearances for the voters and get important changes through. Besides, he can punt to the states and many will reject drilling off their shores. Principles are nice but results would be better. No point in sitting on principles while John McCain takes the White House.
That's what you should be saying and probably something similar to what AL will say if he ways in. (Most likely he will blame republicans too.)
Instead you have argued that Obama needs to compromise because it's what the people want. You couldn't be more wrong and such a position betrays a strong lack of understanding of the way our system works. The electorate selects leaders to use discretion to exercise power. If a candidate believes something to be right, he or she should stick by that belief unless facts change. Opinion polls must not shape policy.
"If the American public is overwhelmingly willing to throw away our environment in order to continue to drive our SUV's, a liberal just has to shrug and try to limit the damage."
How ridiculous. And you wonder why the democrats have been presidential election losing machines for the past 40 years. To quote Tony Blair. "Weak. Weak. Weak."
Anonymous,
Who are you trying to convince to vote for Obama with that argument? It seems geared to appeal to a number of the twenty percent of Americans who are opposed to off-shore drilling, but -- they're already going to vote for Obama, in all likelihood.
In my view, Obama needs to appeal to the people who aren't already going to vote for him -- and my defense of him is that he's doing just what he needs to do.
But hey, if you are opposed to Obama because he's said he's now open to compromise, well, that's your choice. Good luck finding a politician who won't compromise in the face of 80 percent of the populace. Even the Deciderer has proven susceptible to that, and he isn't running for anything.
"Who are you trying to convince to vote for Obama with that argument? It seems geared to appeal to a number of the twenty percent of Americans who are opposed to off-shore drilling, but -- they're already going to vote for Obama, in all likelihood."
I stand corrected, you are right about that. However, it's the 20 percent of Americans who are opposed to offshore drilling that would need to hear that argument. The rest would presumably welcome this flip-flop but then hold it against him when it appears in attack adds. The same way most Americans opposed the Iraq war by Nov. 2004 but still held it against Kerry that he changed positions.
"But hey, if you are opposed to Obama because he's said he's now open to compromise, well, that's your choice."
Here's where you're wrong. There is political compromise that legislators must engage in for the sake of getting things done and then there is capitulation. This brings me back to the argument I think you should be making.
If you are saying Obama is willing to compromise on off-shore drilling as a necessary evil to get real things done - fine. But what you've been saying is that 80% of the populace wants it so even though it's wrong, Obama should just shrug and fold like an unprincipled tent. That's the same group-think, weak-kneed nonsense that got us into Iraq and has led to the Democrats winning a presidential election with a majority just ONCE in the past 40 years.
Anonymous,
What I said -- and you can scroll up and see -- is that, if this is the will of the vast majority of the people, then a candidate -- even a liberal candidate -- needs to accept that and try to minimize the damage -- which is what Obama is doing.
Please note that I didn't say that Obama should simply fold, and I'd appreciate it if you would be more careful in "rephrasing" what I said.
And what I said is that such a lack of conviction is why the democratic party has been an election losing machine for 40 years. The Republicans were just as buried from 1932-1968 as the democrats are now, this country is more liberal than many think. The difference is that liberal leaders from the New Deal to the Great Society had ideas that they stuck with.
Again, the nature of our system is that leaders use their discretion and judgment. If we don't like it, we vote against them. What McCain and Obama are doing are changing what they believe to get votes.
Anonymous,
On the first part of your last comment, I can agree completely.
I would suggest that Obama's modification of his position on off-short drilling seems to me a thoughtful, measured response (which is unlike his cave on FISA.) McCain seems to simply say whatever the people he's talking to want to hear, which can contradict what his published positions (on his web page) are.
I think Obama's responses to FISA and off-shore drilling were both political sell-outs. I wouldn't suggest that Obama is nearly as bad as McCain but at least we have seen McCain take a stand on SOMETHING no matter how misguided I may think it.
I'd like to posit that the free market could solve the energy crisis. However, the government has heavily subsidized the oil industry, making it very hard for alternative energy companies to compete in the market.
http://www.seia.org/solarnews.php?id=194
Isn't there a reason that Carter didn't support nuclear energy proliferation? Maybe we should leave it to the NUCLEAR SCIENTIST to have better judgment on that issue?
Plus as A.L. has clearly and eloquently stated, if we had followed his recommendations then, we would NOT be in the boat we are in now.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home