Four Bits on Energy

President Bush, spurred by the increases in the prices of energy, recently spoke about creating a new national energy policy to the National Small Business Conference. His response, and the times, are reminiscent of the energy crisis of 25 years ago. Ronald Reagan and John Anderson had a debate that year, and touched on several issues that resound today.

Anderson, some may recall, proposed a 50 cent tax on each gallon of gasoline. He argued for it even though the price of gas had already risen by that amount. His intention was to raise the price to encourage conservation and to "recycle the proceeds" by reducing taxes. Reagan's approach was less clear. He did offer to encourage conservation, following Anderson, who emphasized it. But Reagan found the solutionlargely in greater production of oil, natural gas, and coal, in Alaska and elsewhere. Unlike Anderson, who saw American oil reserves diminishing by the end of the decade, Reagan believed those reserves to be abundant (in retrospect, he seems to have had the better argument there).

President Bush, of course, favors producing more natural gas and oil, in Alaska in particular. His emphasis, however, is on technology. He sees the cure for American energy ills in the development of new forms of energy, in the development of the more efficient use of energy in homes and cars, and in the power of technology to make coal clean and nuclear power safe. He has put millions into budgets to fund these things. Of course, befitting his philosophy, he has also advocated tax cuts and credits to encourage such behavior.

There are sound environmental reasons to be suspicious of or even oppose some of his measures, especially in Alaska and with nuclear power. But who does not hope that technology can provide the cure that he proposes? Indeed, technology, approached in the abstract, before any technological solution becomes real, is foolproof, costless, and safe. Moreover, our experience with the wondrous changes we have seen in our lifetimes makes it plausible. But can it alone undo what our energy-dependent lifestyle has wrought?

In the long term, quite possibly; in the short term, not probably. President Bush would not disagree, which is why he wants to encourage shorter term increases in production, here and abroad.

He sees energy as a problem largely because we are becoming ever more dependent on foreign sources of energy. This, he says, reduces our freedom of political movement: "Because of our foreign energy dependence, our ability to take actions at home that will lower prices for American families is diminishing." That was not a point of view expressed by either Anderson or Reagan in their 1980 debate, but it is consistent with views widely held at the time. It is curious that President Bush wants foreign producers to increase the supply of the substances to which we are so addicted.

One striking difference with the views expressed in the earlier debate, however, is the absence of any mention of conservation. As with much else in his approach to politics, President Bush is reluctant to call for sacrifice of any kind, even though that would help reduce our dependence on foreign sources. But that was a Carterian approach, abandoned by Reagan. (I recall that in January 1981, the lights of the Lincoln Memorial were turned back on at night--and searchlights around its base scoured the skies--when Reagan took office.)

One more thought. In 1979-80, when OPEC raised oil prices, creating the crisis that Anderson and Reagan addressed, and earlier in 1973-74 when OPEC did the same thing, higher prices led people to find more efficent ways to use energy (this might be called forced conservation). Today's higher prices will do the same. That style of conservation, an unbidden sacrifice, will do more to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and do it more surely and quickly than any of the solutions President Bush, or any other politician, is offerring. It is, one might suggest, the triumph of the 50 cent solution.

Avoidable Ignorance

In April, I wrote Michael McFaul about an op-ed piece he had written with Peter Berkowitz. Their argument was that universities are producing too few people who know the languages and cultures of the Middle East. They suggested that the Federal government fund such study, much as it did with Soviet studies after World War II. My comments draw on my own experience in academia a decade ago:

Dear Professor McFaul,

I enjoyed your op-ed piece in this morning's Washington Post. However, I just sent the following to the Post message boards:

"It is not enough for the money to be available to promote language skills and regional expertise. Academia must also believe that they are necessary. But academia does not. There has long been a bias against multidisciplinary area studies. This was epitomized by an advertisement for a teaching job at a major university. The applicant was advised that he or she would be teaching courses in Russian politics, but that a comparative approach was needed. That is, Russian specialists need not apply."

"In political science, one is encouraged to study comparative politics, but not the politics of a region. It is often true, as well, that quantitative work that requires deep knowledge of data sets is favored over more qualitative analyses that require knowledge of the local language and culture. Economics shows such biases even more. Where are our Middle Eastern specialists to come from?"

"It is optimistic to say that this will take a generation to change, even if foundations and the government are generous."

I ended there. But let me add that I, too, believe that much depends on our ability to develop a cadre of experts in the Middle East. Like you, I was trained during the last years of the Soviet Union. The knowledge that those who preceded us had of Russia, the other 14 republics, and the rest of the Soviet empire was invaluable. We must indeed, as you argue, develop a cadre of Middle Eastern experts whose understanding rivals that of Kennan, Nove, Mosely, Fainsod, and the students that they and their work produced. Let's hope that someone is paying attention.

Jim Voorhees

It should be noted that the recent report of the WMD Commission also noted the absence of regional expertise in the intelligence agencies, noting, among other things, that "the Intelligence Community did not sufficiently understand the political dynamics of Saddam Hussein's Iraq" (page 174). My basic point is that academia is unlikely to produce such people--they do not see their value.

That leaves the question of where they can come from. In the short term, at least, it will have to be government itself. Of course, it will take a minimum of two years to give someone the proper skills. As the report argues further, changes must be made in the way analysts are treated in the Intelligence Community.

It leads to the depressing conclusion that our ignorance of the regions we are operating in will remain undimmed for some time. Mistakes that stem from it can be expected to continue, with unfortunate results.

Note: Michael McFaul was kind enough to respond, saying that he agreed with me. No one on the Post's message boards addressed my points either way.