At Long Last?

The New York Times ^ | 4-5-2 | Paul Krugman

[TK21]

I almost had a Joseph Welch moment on Wednesday. I've calmed down a bit since, but I'm still on the edge.

Joseph Welch represented the Army in the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings. It was a time, like the present, when the nation faced a real external threat; alas, some people tried to use that threat to gain political advantage and suppress dissent. When Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear one more innocent victim, Welch burst out with a heartfelt soliloquy that earned him a place in the pantheon of liberty. It ended: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

But it wasn't a smear attack that set me off this time. It was Ari Fleischer's use of a press conference on the crisis in the Middle East to shill, once again, for the Bush energy plan.

Let me say for starters that energy policy isn't central to this crisis — and to be fair to Mr. Fleischer, he didn't say that it was (he was responding to a question about oil prices). Even if the United States weren't dependent on imported oil, the Middle East would still be a strategically crucial region, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would still be a world nightmare.

But to the extent that oil independence would help — and it would, a bit, by reducing the leverage of Persian Gulf producers — the Bush administration has long since forfeited the moral high ground. It has done so by vigorously opposing any serious efforts at conservation, which would have to be the centerpiece of any real plan to reduce oil imports.

There are many ways to make this case; here are two more. Even at its peak, a decade or so after drilling began, oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would reduce imports by no more than would a 3-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency — something easily achievable, were it not for opposition from special interest groups. Indeed, the Kerry-McCain fuel efficiency standards, which the administration opposed, would have saved three times as much oil as ANWR might produce. Or put it this way: Total world oil production is about 75 million barrels per day, of which the United States consumes almost 20; ANWR would produce, at maximum, a bit more than 1 million.

Yet a few months ago, Republican activists ran ads with side-by-side photos of Tom Daschle and Saddam Hussein, declaring that both men oppose drilling in ANWR — and Dick Cheney, when asked, stood behind those ads. Administration critics could, with rather more justification, run ads with side-by-side photos of George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein, declaring that both men oppose increased fuel efficiency standards. (Actually, I'm not aware that Iraq's ruler has expressed an opinion on either issue.) Of course, if such ads did run, there would be enormous outrage. After all, turnabout wouldn't be fair play because, well, just because.

This isn't the first time the Bush administration has engaged in "hitchhiking," using a crisis to promote a pre-existing agenda that has nothing to do with that crisis. A year ago it was trying to promote drilling in the wildlife refuge as the answer to electricity shortages in California — a connection as far-fetched, if you think about it, as the alleged connection between arctic drilling and the war on terror. And the administration has shamelessly exploited Sept. 11 to cover its fiscal tracks, pretending — in flat contradiction of the facts — that the war on terror is the reason those huge projected surpluses have vanished, and that tax cuts have nothing to do with it.

But this crisis is different, if only because it is so awful. The unfolding tragedy in the Middle East reduces me and many others to despair in a way that Sept. 11 never did.

Needless to say, I don't have the answer to that tragedy. Mr. Bush's speech yesterday gave some reason for hope: at least, for now, he has rejected the advice of sycophants who assure him that tough guys never get caught in quagmires. (Tom DeLay recently declared that if we'd had a leader like Mr. Bush, we would have won the Vietnam War.) But one thing I'm sure of is that this is no time for hitchhiking.

The question is whether Mr. Fleischer and his colleagues understand this. At long last, have they left any sense of decency?

krugman@nytimes.com

[TK21]

I'm sure some of you will have some thoughts to share with Mr. Krugman.

[over3Owithabrain]

I will never, ever, connect the word decency with Krugman. In his anti-capitalist fervor, he once claimed that the Enron affair was worse than 9/11. That POS doesn't deserve to be taken as anything more than pond scum.

[BushMeister]

Paul Krugman checks in with the view from that hotbed of Communism, the Upper West side of Manhattan.

I'm sure Mr. Krugman's antecedents had some interesting cards in their wallets.

[M 91 u2 K]

Have these liberals no sense of decency!!! When there was the school shootings in the late 1990's wasn't it the clinton adminstration that used those shootings to promote their gun control agenda!!!!!!!!! But, what should I expect from the New York Times!

[TK21]

haha! Is it just me or does it seem to you like the title and opening paragraph are completely refuted by Krugman himself in the second paragraph? Ari didn't bring it up, he was asked about it!

This isn't the first time the Bush administration has engaged in "hitchhiking," using a crisis to promote a pre-existing agenda that has nothing to do with that crisis.

There was no HITCHHIKING!

Lord have mercy!

It is like he just wanted to say something... ANYthing bad about the administration to have a scandalous catchy title. Give me a break!

[Logophile]

But to the extent that oil independence would help - and it would, a bit, by reducing the leverage of Persian Gulf producers - the Bush administration has long since forfeited the moral high ground. It has done so by vigorously opposing any serious efforts at conservation, which would have to be the centerpiece of any real plan to reduce oil imports.

I was not aware that the Bush administration opposes conservation. I do recall hearing the vice president say that conservation alone will not solve the problem; but he did not say that conservation is a bad idea.

What may be a bad idea is the imposition of stricter fuel standards. Mr. Krugman believes that a 3-mile-per-gallon increase in fuel efficiency would be "easily achievable, were it not for opposition from special interest groups." What he does not mention is that the easiest way to increase fuel economy would be to make cars lighter and less safe. He does not say how many additional traffic deaths are acceptable to achieve a 3-mpg increase in fuel economy.

Nor does Mr. Krugman identify the "special interest groups" who oppose higher fuel standards. Perhaps that is because the biggest group consists of consumers who want to buy larger, heavier vehicles that offer better protection in a crash.

[otterpond]

Let me say for starters that energy policy isn't central to this crisis

I stopped right there. Why waste time reading an article by a guy who hasn't any idea what is going on?

[TK21]

right on target

[Logophile]

I am also suspicious of anyone who frets about "forfeiting the moral high ground." Those who talk that way are less interested in doing the right thing than in appearing to do the right thing. They suppose that the "high ground" gives them some rhetorical advantage over their political opponents.

[TK21]

I just don't know what to think when I read something like:

And the administration has shamelessly exploited Sept. 11 to cover its fiscal tracks, pretending — in flat contradiction of the facts — that the war on terror is the reason those huge projected surpluses have vanished, and that tax cuts have nothing to do with it.

Not to cause more anger... but for him to speak of decency and then say something like the Bush Admin is EXPLOITING 9-11 to cover fiscal tracks!??!?!?!?!

It is absolutely disgusting.

[gridlock]

Perhaps that is because the biggest group consists of consumers who want to buy larger, heavier vehicles...

Given that CAFE was such a disaster, it is amazing to me that Liberals want to compound the error. Fleet fuel economy for the US is actually down since the passage of CAFE, if you include SUV's and trucks that are used as passenger vehicles. It was CAFE that forced people into top-heavy, inefficient, unstable vehicles and resulted in the bumper-height-mismatch crashes that these Liberals love to whine so much about. But if they can have just one more law, they'll get it right this time!

[fporretto]

It is one of the great ironies of "journalism" that this man gets away with calling himself an economist.

Economics is the study of the patterns that run through people's pursuit of what they desire, according to their individual priorities. Paul Krugman knows less about that subject than the typical undergraduate economics major. He's a relentless, thoroughgoing statist whose only passion is for imposing his desires and priorities on everyone in America. At this time, only the odious Robert Kuttner can match him for dishonesty and monomania.

Give him that coloration, pursue him with it relentlessly, and maybe he can be neutralized.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com