American Presidents and Energy: a Challenge of Leadership

Oval Office
Every American president has wrestled with the question of how best to fuel the country’s transportation and other energy needs. Even Abraham Lincoln chose to reject an offer from the King of Siam (the same one of Broadway musical lore) to send over Asian elephants who could propagate here and create a national transportation infrastructure. Lincoln explained to the King that America planned to rely on steamboats and steam-engine railroads, both fueled by burning wood. Modern presidents have found energy issues daunting. A few may even have lost re-election because of this difficult task.

Richard Nixon confronted the first years of America’s decline in oil production, an Arab oil embargo, and angry motorists stranded in gasoline lines. While Nixon’s policies of oil price controls and allocation made the gas lines worse, he responded to the crisis by increasing the nation’s commitment to energy research, starting the Alaska Oil Pipeline, and instituting the 55-mph speed limit. Gasoline shortages and price surges, in addition to the Watergate scandal, brought down his popularity to dangerous levels.

Gerald Ford established energy as a top priority and signed the legislation that established an emergency stockpile of oil and mileage efficiency standards for transportation vehicles. However, his efforts received little recognition from voters or, later, from historians.

Jimmy Carter went on national television to advocate energy conservation, declared energy “the moral equivalent of war,” and sent Congress two major waves of energy legislation. New tax credits for insulation, programs to get electric utilities off of oil generation, and other programs helped reduced oil usage. Still, the Iranian Revolution sharply cut world oil supplies, brought about a second outbreak of gasoline lines, and contributed to historic levels of inflation (part of “the misery index” cited by Ronald Reagan).

Ronald Reagan ended controls on the price of crude oil, made major additions to the strategic oil stockpile, and increased U.S. Naval forces in the Persian Gulf to protect the free flow of oil. On the whole, he reversed the energy initiatives of his predecessors and put his faith in “the market” rather than government action to solve energy problems.

George H.W. Bush became the first president to enter international negotiations to discuss how to combat global climate change, coming largely from the combustion of fossil fuels. He will be best remembered for his successful effort to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait because, in his own words, “Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security.”  The war brought a big (but temporary) jump in oil prices, which probably contributed to a later recession.

Bill Clinton was one of our least active presidents on energy matters. In 1993, he proposed a bold BTU (energy) tax, which survived only in tatters. During his second term, he signed the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, but never submitted it for ratification by the Senate, where it faced certain defeat. 

George W. Bush raised doubts about the science of global warming and urged drilling in Alaska as a major thrust of U.S. energy policy. He sent American troops to Iraq, arguably to reassert American oil influence in the region. Little noticed in late 2007, Congress passed and Bush signed the strongest package of energy legislation since 1980, reflecting growing national concerns about the issue.

John McCain and Barack Obama?  No one knows with certainty how our next president will handle the ongoing challenges of dependence on foreign oil and global warming. Still, McCain and Obama have devoted more attention to energy this election cycle than any previous presidential candidate, including Carter in 1976.  Energy is a hot topic in the politics of 2008, and the positions of the two presidential candidates offer important clues on what they might do in the Oval Office. Whoever wins, history suggests that energy will continue to be an important test of presidential character.

©2008 Jay Hakes



By: Jay Hakes

About the Author:

Jay Hakes was head of the Energy Information Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy from 1993 to 2000, where he oversaw the collection and dissemination of America’s official energy data and analysis. He has given testimony before congressional committees on more than twenty-five occasions and is currently head of the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum in Atlanta. He is the author of A Declaration of Energy Independence, available now from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.



A Tale of Two Countries

Todd A. Smith asked:


Charles Dickens once wrote in his classic novel, A Tale of Two Cities that, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…”

Barack Obama’s historic journey to become the presumptive Democratic nominee for the upcoming presidential election is the culmination of those who struggled throughout slavery and the Civil Rights movement. It is a testament to what Dr. King envisioned during his famous “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963, of children of all colors coming together for the good of mankind.

However, the gains in racial unity that Obama’s historic campaign has made have sometimes been overshadowed by the voice of intolerance and **** that sometimes come from his opponents.

On July 14, The New Yorker magazine released it latest issue with a drawing of Barack Obama wearing Muslim clothing-sandals, robe and turban-while his wife Michelle was dressed as a Black Panther dressed in camouflage with an assault rifle slung over her shoulder and wearing an afro. In the background of the cover, drawn by Barry Blitt and titled “The Politics of Fear,” a picture of Osama bin Laden hangs over the fireplace while an American flag burns inside.

A spokesperson for The New Yorker said that the cover was a satire attempting “to hold a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover.”

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker said, “I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama’s supposed ‘lack of patriotism’ or his being ’soft on terrorism’ or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all of this is going to come to the oval office.”

However, Obama’s camp saw the cover as offensive and not satirical. “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree,” said Obama’s spokesperson Bill Burton.

Even presumptive Republican nominee John McCain believed the cover was in bad taste saying it was, “totally inappropriate and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters find it offensive.”

The latest racial and religious controversy in this year’s presidential election comes as leaders from the fields of politics, business, entertainment, military, media and religion plan to gather in the nation’s capital from July 24-25 to participate in a nationwide conference on “Race and Reconciliation in America.”

The conference is being hosted by former U.S. Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and his wife, author and playwright Janet Langhart Cohen. The couple authored Love in Black and White, which chronicles the prejudices they have endured as a bi-racial couple. The Cohen’s hope their conference will initiate a serious dialogue on racial, ethnic and religious prejudice.

Expected to speak at the conference is Academy Award winner Louis Gossett, Jr., radio host and syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams and Joshua Packwood, the first White valedictorian of Morehouse College.

“Our goal is to begin a national conversation to deal with the truth, understand the need for accountability, and learn how we can work together to really achieve a post-racial society,” said Secretary Cohen.

In essence, America has become two countries: one united despite racial and religious difference and another determined to maintain the divisions and barriers that many are desperate to destroy. The question is will America become the spring of hope that Obama is envisioning or remain the winter of despair as some opponents are hoping?



Barack Hussein Obama

Oval Office
Nancy billa asked:


Currently, Barack Hussein Obama is on track to be the next president of the USA. With voters increasingly frustrated by the Bush administration, people are calling for a change of party in the oval office. Unfortunately, this change May take shape in most leftist president of USA in history.

Calling Obama liberal political position is an insult to the standard liberal. His political views are more similar to a black panther left-winger. Let’s review some of its positions more scandalous:

Economy

Obama is a socialist through and through. He wants to raise taxes, mainly on the wealthiest Americans. Although many May think “oh, this does not affect me,” tax rates, he wants to implement are very punitive, especially against small business owners. In addition to letting Bush tax cuts expire, Obama wants to uncap Social Security payroll tax. The owners of small businesses will actually pay more than half their income in taxes to the federal government.

It is clear that it reduces incentives for owners of small businesses to invest and grow their businesses. With more small businesses are struggling just fewer jobs and economic stagnation. It is ok for Obama. Obama believes in the restoration of “equity” to the system. If everyone is poorer, that is ok as the gap between rich and poor has always been so-slightly reduced.

Foreign Policy

Obama took a lot of heat for claiming he will meet with hostile foreign leaders without preconditions. Many managed so far to an error beginner. The heart of the problem is that, as a left winger, he has a very pacifist view of the world. Since then, he and other leftists are puppy dogs at heart, they assume everyone else is too. They believe that countries like Iran and North Korea can be done with friends in a friendly conversation on the brunch. It is a belief that their hostility is the result of our hostility towards them, rather than something on their side.

Unfortunately, this view does naive big comeback time. The most obvious is the case with Western countries rooms made to Hitler, allowing him to invade the country and expand its power just before the outbreak of World War II. A gentle vis-à-vis a country like Iran May feel fine, but what do we do when they develop nuclear capabilities and sell them to terrorists?

The racial issues

If a sensitive subject, it must be addressed. How can Obama explain his friendship with leftist preachers as Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger. Wright Obama called a close friend and mentor and gave him $ 27000 in donations in 2007. Although many of them saw Wright’s anti-American tirades on television, fiery sermons just scratching the surface. Wright believes that the U.S. government has deliberately created the AIDS virus to destroy blacks downtown. How on earth can Obama and support by a man who is so clearly dementia?

Pfleger is very similar to Wright. Obama was able to obtain more than $ 200000 affects the value when it was the United States Senate. As Wright, Pfleger accuses of all the ills of society on white people. If these views are accepted by Obama, will he see all the problems of the world such as America rooted in the blanks?

While America May want a Democrat to be president, the vote is strictly based on parts can be dangerous in this election.