“Progressives” Who Fear Progress
Sen. Daschle’s fears prevent him from learning the lessons of experience.

By William Hawkins, senior fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation.
May 30, 2001 12:35 p.m.

emocrats don't like to be called liberals, because that term has become associated with higher taxes and lower morality. So they decided to call themselves progressives instead. But as the nation's energy crisis spreads, it is clear that many Democratic leaders are deathly afraid of progress. Having been captured by the Luddite philosophy of the environmental extremists, they have lost faith in American ingenuity and now fear further economic development.

The new Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D., SD) revealed his phobias on NBC's Meet the Press May 27. Host Tim Russert asked Daschle "Over the next 20 years, U.S. energy demands will increase by 62 percent for natural gas, 33 percent for oil and 45 percent for electricity, according to estimates of the federal Energy Information Administration. How do you get that, maintain this country as the premiere economic power in the world, simply by conservation?" Daschle answered, "Well, I wouldn't minimize conservation. We're 5 percent of the world's population, we have 30 percent of the world's energy demand. I think that's wrong. We ought to be able to conserve more."

What seemed lost on the senator is the reason Americans have such a high share of the world's energy demand: We produce a high standard of living. Does Daschle think this is "wrong?" We are also quite capable of meeting that demand for energy. In contrast, low energy demand is associated with underdevelopment and poverty in most of the rest of the world. Is that what Daschle wants here?

The emphasis on conservation has driven U.S. policy for the last two decades. As a result, the United States is one of the most efficient users of energy on the planet. According to the Paris-based OECD (whose 20 members include the leading European nations, plus Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico and the United States), America accounted for 40 percent of the group's energy use in 1998. But the United States did far more with that energy and got more value out of it than any other country. For every $1 million of GDP produced here, just 76 tons of oil-equivalent were needed. For the OECD as a whole, the average was 151 tons.

Furthermore, the amount of energy to produce $1 billion in GDP has fallen in the United States by half since 1973. Yet, this very success of conservation demonstrates that this cannot substitute for new energy production. Its role has played out; and has done so in the very state that has pushed conservation the most.

Among the 50 states, California uses the least energy per capita. It is also the state where the energy crisis has hit the hardest. California's attempt to substitute conservation for energy production made it dependent on out-of-state energy sources. When the imbalance of demand and supply pushed up prices, California was helpless. Democratic governor Gray Davis has gone crying to Washington for salvation. Green slogans cannot replace the need for a steady flow of cheap energy. Bumper stickers make poor kindling.

Gov. Davis's plea to President Bush for price controls on interstate wholesale energy suppliers is itself an admission of conservation's failure. Higher prices would induce more conservation if this were an easy cure. Instead, Davis wants the federal government to hold down prices so Californians can continue to consume. Conservation has crossed the line from pursuing efficiency to "doing without" — which is politically untenable.

One aspect of American federalism is that states serve as "laboratories of democracy" where different approaches to problems can be tried. If successful, other states — and the federal government, can adopt the new methods. But if a policy fails, as California's has done so spectacularly, other states — and the federal government, should pay heed and avoid making the same mistake.

Sen. Daschle's fears prevent him from learning the lessons of experience. He also expressed his misgivings of nuclear power, claiming, "I don't think that this is the right time. Until we deal with how we're going to confront the nuclear waste issue, Tim, I think it'd be impossible for us to expand nuclear power." Yet, Japan and France both use nuclear power to generate some 60 percent of their electrical power. They seem to have solved their waste problems, and so can the United States. Daschle lives in the country that invented nuclear power, but he is so terrified of it that no solution can calm him.

President Bill Clinton used to talk about building a "bridge to the 21st century." Sen. Daschle would be afraid to walk across such a bridge. He'd see it as unsafe or as a threat to the environment. Daschle would rather lead his party back to the 19th century (or perhaps the 18th) where everything seems more cozy and safe.

Yet, the people who lived in the past didn't think so. That is why they strived so mightily to build and invent. The human hunger for progress is far from satisfied. Sen. Daschle might ask the labor unions and the working poor, whose votes sustain the Democratic party, if they feel their material needs have all been met. Their answer could split the party if Democratic leaders continue to give primacy to the Green faction.

Teamsters President James P. Hoffa enthusiastically endorsed President Bush´s proposal to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling at a White House meeting with Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, energy task-force members, and 17 other union leaders May 14.

"We like a lot of things" about the energy plan, said Hoffa, "We do believe we need more nuclear plants. We do believe we need more refining capacity; we haven't been building refineries .... American workers will be solving this problem; they will be building the resources to refine and generate new energy." He cited a Wharton Econometrics study predicting 700,000 jobs would be created nationwide by Bush's plan, stimulus the economy needs to reverse the recent slowdown.

The Greens may want to take the country backwards, increasing poverty, and limiting the opportunities for Americans to improve their lives; but few will follow of their own volition. Sen. Daschle would be wise to reconsider who he wants to lead, and where.