Obama the Wilsonian demagogue

The backstory: I did not hear all of Obama's speech. I heard most of it, off and on. I intended to post my impression before reading other opinions. I slipped up and visited Power Line.

Woodrow Wilson is notable among presidents for helping strengthen what had hitherto been a notably weak office. It's tough to name notable presidents between Lincoln and Wilson. Wilson saw the presidency as a role which could serve to institute public policy by working through the populace to pressure Congress to implement presidential policy. Though Wilson feared the ills a demagogue could cause, he grabbed the demagogue's mantle and wore it with aplomb while he served as president.

Wilson set the stage for Roosevelt, who did more than any other president (I'll even count George W. Bush among the also-rans even if some liberals might disagree) to strengthen the office of the president.

Last night's speech I found profoundly within the paradigm of Wilsonian demagoguery.

Obama let on that he wants big changes. If we don't make those changes then bad things (such as recession without end) will happen. Are the American people uncertain about nationalized healthcare? Tough. Obama says we need to do the reform. Now. And the speech was a short laundry list of big issues like health care.

The Republicans are invited to help out. Aside from the fact that nearly everything Obama wants to do is historically against their principles, why not?

I found Tuesday's Obama unlikeable. I saw him in a type of (Bill) Clinton mode, spinning facts and bashing his opponents. I found him less sincere and more calculating, almost as if he took stock of his political position and decided "now or never"--time to shade the truth for the greater good.

The policies don't add up. We had this "emergency" stimulus and the Democrats used the urgency to implement liberal wish-lists. Now the president admits that shoring up banks' ability to lend is the critical element in our economy, and the "stimulus" package turns out to be a long-term plan to establish an economy molded in a more liberal, government controlled, image.

We'll "invest" in unproven "green" or renewable energy, apparently hoping to reap huge profits by selling our breakthroughs to other nations. I heard no admission that the course will hurt the U.S. economy as we force ourselves to use more expensive and less efficient energy sources during the transition to we-know-not-what.

This is bad, folks.

Obama on his energy plan: Prices will "skyrocket"

In his own words, Barack Obama's energy plan will cause the price of electricity to "skyrocket." But Obama is not particularly vulnerable on this issue, as I'll point out at the end.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
(Hot Air)

The drawback about hitting Obama with this one lies in the fact that John McCain also favors the cap and trade system for controlling carbon emissions, though Obama avers that his version of cap and trade will be as aggressive as any.

The issue ought to still hurt Obama with anyone not convinced the world is on the brink of a wholesale anthropogenic global warming disaster (rest easy, Al Gore) since McCain is not only likely to use a less aggressive version of cap and trade, but is also more likely to employ policies that will otherwise lower the cost of energy (such as drilling for domestic oil and gas resources).

As for nuclear power, that route will also cause prices to rise short-term because of the initial capital outlay required to get a nuclear plant up and going. In Florida, the state government is set to allow the electric company to start charging for construction of its next nuclear plant.

If the mainstream media knows about the economic pain lying in wait with the implementation of cap and trade, I haven't seen the evidence of it.

Took those words right out of my head ...

John Hinderaker over at Power Line live-blogged last night's presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. I wish to highlight one nugget that elegantly expresses what I was thinking during the discussion on energy--particularly when Obama was decrying McCain's failure to support bills that provided tax breaks for alternative energy sources.

9:44--I suppose there is no point in trying to explain to a television debate audience that you don't create wealth by subsidizing inefficient production of energy.

That sums up the whole problem with Obama's energy plan. His plan is built on a pie in the sky.

As Hinderaker points out, inefficient energy production does not assist the economy. Let's say we figure out how to get electricity from rocks, but each rock involved in the process needs to be massaged by hand in order to produce electricity. It takes 100,000 such rocks to power a medium-sized city. On the bright side, one can claim that this system can create at least 100,000 jobs (full time rock masseurs and masseuses). Economically, however, the system simply cannot work. The cost of producing the electricity will hamstring the economy. At $1 per hour, the payroll costs without any overtime for the 100,000 employees would amount to $1 million dollars. The company would need to bring in $1 million in receipts just to break even on energy costs. And on $1 per hour, how much electricity do you think employees of Electrolith Inc. can afford to fit in the budget?

Relative to the costs of other businesses, this energy delivery system would be unworkable. The whole key is cost efficiency, and aside from nuclear power the world currently has no ready substitute of comparable efficiency to fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. Until that occurs, alternative energy sources are an economic loser.

Obama's claims of adding jobs through his alternative energy plans, I suspect, are comparable to rock masseur jobs, except that he will subsidize the new less efficient system. Everyone in the city will be taxed in order to pay for rock masseurs and the electricity they produce--at least enough for the business to operate.

The pie in the sky is the techological breakthrough required to produce energy more efficiently (or at least comparably so) than we currently do using fossil fuels. Without that breakthrough, and it isn't on the drawing board, Obama's plan is a guaranteed failure.

For that reason, exploiting nuclear and fossil fuel energy must be done until the breakthrough occurs. The direction the Democrats are taking on this will probably be disastrous.

"You can't figure people ..."

"... not with pencil and paper
na-na-na-na na-na-na."
-Bourgeois Tagg

I like having conversations with people who disagree with me. You could even say that I like to argue. But I'd qualify that by insisting that I prefer a reasonable opponent with a good argument.

That's where atheists/agnostics/skeptics come in. I have quite a few disagreements with that segment of the population. And some of them do a wonderful job of arguing their side even if I happen to think. Others fall astoundingly short of the type of clarity of thought for which those groups tend to pride themselves.

I ran across "The Ocelli Journal" today because the author is another who misuses a quotation attributed to but probably not stated by former Secretary of the Interior James Watt (under the Reagan administration).

And I ran across this appalling viewpoint under the title heading "Muslims, be careful what you wish for":

Americans want out of the middle east so bad they can taste it. We are tired of dealing with you (yes, the whole region) and your quirky ways. Just as soon as we can wean ourselves from your oil, your problems will be over because we will be out of your land so fast your head will spin. Just think, no more Americans (and no more American money). If China is not on board with alternative energies, they will be needing your oil. I am sure you will love dealing with the Chinese. Get pissed at the Chinese and fly a plane into one of their government buildings and you will see how reasonable they are.
(The Ocelli Journal)

As of today, the profile indicates the author as 45 year-old male.

Where to start?

First, we're not going to be weaning ourselves from an oil-based economy anytime soon, even if the Democrats do an about-face on nuclear energy.

Second, buying their oil is one of the things the Arab nations like the most about the West. What the hard-liners really don't like is the export of our culture (cable television and Hollywood) and the way we stand between them and the destruction of Israel.

Third, if China buys oil from the Arabs they'll be using it to produce products that we buy in the United States. So unless Mr. Ocelli also has a boycott on Chinese goods in the works the Arabs will still end up with their pockets stuffed full of American dollars courtesy of Chinese go-betweens. Though the Chinese could always pay for their oil with munitions that the United States refuses to provide to hard-liners (the U.S. forbids sale of arms minus a pledge of use only for self-defense--China maintains no such policy). And maybe the hard-liners will use those weapons to re-take traditionally Muslim lands in Europe.

And Ocelli will speed along on his ethanol-powered motor-scooter without a care, secure in the knowledge that all that trouble is an ocean away. And who could possibly believe that hard-line Muslims hate the image of Hollywood, anyway?

*****

Can't the Democrats do something to stop this?

No, not the Iraq War.

LOS ANGELES: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received its first application since the 1970sto build a new nuclear power plant, a spokesman for the NRC said on Wednesday.

The proposed plant in Maryland won't come online until at least mid-2014 and is among a new wave of about 19 reactors that will be considered by the NRC in the next year or so, said Scott Burnell, NRC spokesman.
(The News)

Will the Democratic Party turn on its green-tinged faction and support nuclear power?

Just give me the warm power of the sun
Give me the steady flow of a waterfall
Give me the spirit of living things as they return to clay.
Just give me the restless power of the wind
Give me the comforting glow of a wood fire
But please take all of your atomic poison power away.
("Power"--lyrics by John and Johanna Hall)

Of the options mentioned above, only nuclear power offers a plausible path to energy independence. The "spirit of living things" is safe from domestic exploitation thanks to Democrats if their nixing of drilling in the ANWR preserve is any indication.

Nuclear is the best energy option for the United States right now if environmentalists block the tapping of U.S. fossil fuel resources.

It would be nice if nanotechnology could make nuclear power obsolete in 50 years or so.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party seems poised to drive energy prices up-up-Up by intentionally forcing the nation toward less cost-efficient energy sources such as biofuels. That initiative is already bumping up prices, most notably with milk and meat products. As the effects spread out through the economy, we'll be at risk for spiraling inflation.