Dems for Nukes (Atoms for Electability)?

mmmmm....nuclear power


One of the charges will quickly be leveled against the Democrats who now control Congress by a razor thin margin is a lack of vision. This is unsurprising. A=Call Bush crazy (I know you want to) but the man understood the value of big ideas. And he wasn’t alone. Since the Goldwater debacle in 1964 conservatives have poured millions into think tanks creating the sort of big ideas that later went from the ivory tower to the voting booths. As a result, Democrats have in many ways been on the ideological defensive since the end of the Great Society, forced to play small ball and become the party of reaction. Indeed, one of the reasons the Republicans have been so stubbornly successful in elections this past decade is that right or wrong they were moving somewhere and getting there fast, with radical policies on taxes, foreign affairs and the role of religion in society. For me this was clearest in 2004, when the closest John Kerry came to “vision” was …well…never. Even 2006 was no triumph of ideas for the Democrats but rather a situation in which the Republicans beat themselves. And not by much.

The party that brought us Katrina, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, the war in Iraq, soaring gas prices, ever increasing inequality, out of control deficits, and (yes) a bona fide freaky deaky pedophile lost control of congress only because of a racist slur on YouTube (you heard me). Pitiful. Not that I’m unhappy about the democrats winning (to quote facebook, I’m looking for Whatever I Can Get). I’m just unhappy about the fact that it takes a public self immolation on the part of the Republicans for even a narrow Democratic Victory to occur. The Democrats will always be around as the contingency party, but if they want to become a party people actively vote for (as opposed to a vehicle for votes against republican ineptitude) then they need ideas.

Enter alternative energy. Today there are many candidates for “big idea”, but this one seems like a winner. First, the facts. Our current pattern of energy use is destroying the environment and reducing the quality of life in the meantime. In addition, the greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for global climate change are a direct result of current energy policies. Because our dependency on Middle Eastern Oil leaves us beholden to dubious regimes like that of Saudi Arabia and indirectly funds terrorism. Alternative energy technologies are promising, but they receive almost no federal support when contrasted to the billions of subsidy dollars poured into the oil and gas industry and the money spent on keeping gasoline prices artificially low.

Now, the politics. Alternative energy does many things for the Democrats. First, embracing this as the big idea allows them to seize the mantle of national security. It allows them to cement themselves as the party to act against climate change (a cause that is now viewed as crucial by groups that include, among others, Evangelical Christians). It allows them to be the party of the people since a transition would involve reducing the power of oil conglomerates. It would allow them to be farm friendly as ethanol and other alternative fuels are biologically based and wind farms are quickly replacing real farms in many agricultural economies. It leaves them as the party of advanced technology and science ( a great contrast to those who repeatedly coerced government scientists to abandon objectivity in favor of ideology). And at the same time, it could be done in ways that would show the Democrats as embracing free market economics (such as an emissions cap and trade scheme). As a result, alternative energy broadly defined is a terrific platform.

That said, Dem’s need to move fast. If a John McCain or a Rudy Giuliani wins in 2008, Republicans could co-opt the mantle of energy independence and thus take away a real ideological weapon ( for those of you who think it impossible, it was none other than Richard Nixon who created the EPA and officially acknowledged Earth Day in 1970)

All well and good. But now for the technical aspects. How do we actually make it work? Unfortunately, solar wind and geothermal power will probably never be sufficient to replace all of America’s needs. Biofuel isn’t a full solution either. While high profile photos of ethanol farms may win new votes, it won’t solve anything overnight. In short, allowing such technologies to reach a cost viable point takes time, and in many ways time we don’t have. So how can the Democrats (or for that matter, anyone else) make this happen. The answer is nuclear power.


corn; edible, but insufficient to solve our energy woes

Nuclear power produces far fewer greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels, can be produced using existing technology, and has the potential to actually fulfill a large chunk of our energy needs. While the problem of nuclear waste is troublesome, new technologies may soon make it less so. While in the past the plan was to dig a really deep hole (see Yucca Mountain) and bury it all, this may not be necessary. As detailed in Wired magazine, for example, state of the art casks could allow nuclear waste to dissipate the majority of its dangerous radiation and to be allowed to “cool down” for upwards of 100 years, at which point a better solution will almost certainly exist. In addition, today’s nuclear technology is far safer than that of the Three Mile Island era (let alone Chernobyl). In fact, nuclear energy is today so environmentally safe and friendly that it has been endorsed by prominent greens like Gaia theorist James Lovelock and Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore . Nations like France and Japan have already reached this conclusion, and even China is seeking a huge surge in nuclear power in order to address their appaling environmental record. I, for one, would not like to see China beat the US in breaking the addiction to fossil fuels.

Finally, and most interestingly, political will is no longer an insurmountable obstacle. In the past it seemed as though any nuclear plans for America were torpedoed by Three Mile Island and that Not in My Backyard sentiment would preclude any such developments. However as a 2004 Brookings Institution study reveals, today the main problems are not political but instead regulatory and economic. The public by and large actually seems fine with nuclear power, and has no insurmountable aversion to the concept. Yet today because the government does not support nuclear power, and thus nuclear power has not come to be.

just kidding

Enter the Democrats. With alternative energy as the big idea and nuclear energy as the engine to run it, they can achieve electoral, ideological, and policy success. Strange as it seems, this looks like a winner provided we can get it together long enough to sell it. Dems for nukes, anyone?

Note: This post written in my capacity as blogger of the Princeton College Democrats