I have to agree - just political posturing and more outgoing federal checks.

Let's face it, politicans don't create energy - they can only get in the way.

That photo of Senator Cantwell - sure looks like she knows a lot about truck aerodynamics!

Over a the Nuclear Energy Institute's blog (http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/), there is some consideration about the new Congress and especially Barbara Boxer, presumptive chair of the Environment Committee.  The consensus seems to be that the next two years will see little change in course from Congress on nuclear.  Their efforts on GHG and climate change will only improve the apparent economics of nuclear power.

I suspect that we're politically where being anti-nuclear is no longer the easy way to "stick-it-to-da-man" (SITDM)that it used to be.  The crowds of people searching for a SITDM cause have moved on leaving only the geezer SITDM residuals.  In fact, if global climate change is the SITDM da jour, then being PRO-nuclear is the new cool!

Unfortunately I think that the election of the Dems will do very little for the promotion of the tough long-term solutions like nuclear or say mass transit or (oh!) conservation. I expect quite the opposite frankly. Now that they have the Congress but don't really have the Senate and the Presidency they have all the reasons to spend their time in chattering about the politically cheap but disfunctional solution we already well know of (ethanol anyone?).

No, they must get themselves deep in the power so that they could be held accountable for what they [did not] do afterwards. But time is running out, and this fact makes me quite gloomy for the long term outlook for all of this...

Let me speculate a little bit: The year is 2011. The president Clinton (Hillary) has some 17% approval, largely due to the 10$ gasoline and the massive electricity blackouts throughout the country. In November she is overwhelmingly overthrown by the popular Republican candidate who pushes for the most obvious, easy and efficient solution for all of our problems: go get the gas from "those guys that hate us" :(

I think we already tried the "go get the gas from those guys that hate us" and it didn't work nor could people live with it morally.  

Perhaps, I'm naive here, but I see the Democrats victory as people saying, "we tried the global oil grab method, let's try something else".

I think you're right.  The Iraq War was a big reason the GOP went down in flames.  Two years ago, some analysts were suggesting that the Democrats would fade away entirely, and the GOP would fracture into separate conservative and moderate parties.  No one imagined the Republicans would lose both wings of Congress in 2006.  Many thought it would take years, if not decades, for the Dems to regroup.  

The neocons blamed Vietnam for making the U.S. skittish of military involvement for a generation or more.  Iraq was supposed to be the fix - the low-hanging fruit that cured America of its Vietnam-induced war phobia.  Instead, the opposite has has happened.  The phobia has been reinforced.

I don't know if it will last as long this time.  If gas gets to $10 or $20 a gallon, maybe people will decide it's time for another oil war.  But I really think they'll think twice, given the way Iraq turned out.

Trying to answer both of you:

I think your answers alone show that I should be pessimistic. Iraq'03 is everything else but the first oil grab in US history. Yes, maybe it is the most apparent and bombastic one, but our military and political might has been working on the same task for decades now. Yes, the means are becoming harsher and the resistence from the 'locals' is growing, but generally we have been pretty much consistant in what is euphemiristically called "securing the oil supplies".

Going back in time, there have been a number of US wars and interventions in the ME, either directly or through the "outpost" (Israel). After all this history spreading into  several generation, what do you think they think in the Middle East when our leaders are asking with all the innocence they can gather about "Why do they hate us?". Do you think they don't feel all the hypocricy of this question?

Back to the future - now that the public has largely forgotten Iraq'90, Iran'80s etc. what is the guarantee that it will not forget Iraq'03 and the next time elect another "supercowboy" that would make Bush look like a toddler? Looking at the attitude towards Iran, Venezuella or Russia (the only exporters we don't have much control of) even at those bargain 60$/barrel, I can only imagine what will happen when it gets to the triple digits.

LevinK...yes...memories can be short thereby dooming us to repeat history.  I also agree that our (the US public's) tolerance for oil price increases has not been truley tested yet and no one knows how we all will react to a "real" gasoline crisis.

With all that has gone on since 2000, we still have not had countrywide lines at gas stations, rationing, or widespread panic.  These types of events can change people's minds quickly.

Well...jeez...of course 9/11 caused a panic and there were some gas lines...and look...people's minds changed quickly.  But much of that was self-induced panic.

There was never any nationwide shortage of gasoline.

Yes, I also think we are too far from that, even though for example blogs like this may be inducing a certain sense of emergency.

The problem is how will we react as it inevitably happens (I am generally assuming that we'll do nothing really efficient until it starts to bite - complacency rulez!). I am mostly concerned about what I see as a double-facedness of our society - polite, moral and compasionate on the surface, but capable of accepting all kinds of bad things happening, as long as they don't happen to us. You can see that I am not an optimist about which side will show up.

I think either side can show up at different times, for different reasons.  
What is askew with the American psyche right now is that there is a general sense that people are waiting for the next disaster...like it is inevitable.  

We go about our daily business, but one half of the brain is in reaction-mode...What will I do when X happens?  Where can I take my family when X happens?  

This has made people more edgey and snappy.  The dark side of the double face creeping up to the surface.

Leanan...what is that Star Trek episode with the half white/half black faced alien?

"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."  

And I agree with you about that waiting for disaster thing.  Remember that essay Peggy Noonan wrote?  

A Separate Peace: America is in trouble--and our elites are merely resigned.

I'm not exactly a big fan of hers, but I think she's onto something with that essay.  

Thanks...oh Great One of Star Trek knowledge.

I remember skimming that article by Peggy Noonan way back when...wow..that was written on October 27, 2005.

How appropriate it is now to read it again a year later.  I want to pull two pieces out so people will read it:

This passage at the beginning of the essay:

It is not so hard and can be a pleasure to tell people what you see. It's harder to speak of what you think you see, what you think is going on and can't prove or defend with data or numbers. That can get tricky. It involves hunches. But here goes.
I think there is an unspoken subtext in our national political culture right now. In fact I think it's a subtext to our society. I think that a lot of people are carrying around in their heads, unarticulated and even in some cases unnoticed, a sense that the wheels are coming off the trolley and the trolley off the tracks. That in some deep and fundamental way things have broken down and can't be fixed, or won't be fixed any time soon. That our pollsters are preoccupied with "right track" and "wrong track" but missing the number of people who think the answer to "How are things going in America?" is "Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination."

I'm not talking about "Plamegate." As I write no indictments have come up. I'm not talking about "Miers." I mean . . . the whole ball of wax. Everything. Cloning, nuts with nukes, epidemics; the growing knowledge that there's no such thing as homeland security; the fact that we're leaving our kids with a bill no one can pay. A sense of unreality in our courts so deep that they think they can seize grandma's house to build a strip mall; our media institutions imploding--the spectacle of a great American newspaper, the New York Times, hurtling off its own tracks, as did CBS. The fear of parents that their children will wind up disturbed, and their souls actually imperiled, by the popular culture in which we are raising them. Senators who seem owned by someone, actually owned, by an interest group or a financial entity. Great churches that have lost all sense of mission, and all authority. Do you have confidence in the CIA? The FBI? I didn't think so.

But this recounting doesn't quite get me to what I mean. I mean I believe there's a general and amorphous sense that things are broken and tough history is coming.

And this one at the end of the essay:

If I am right that trolley thoughts are out there, and even prevalent, how are people dealing with it on a daily basis?
I think those who haven't noticed we're living in a troubling time continue to operate each day with classic and constitutional American optimism intact. I think some of those who have a sense we're in trouble are going through the motions, dealing with their own daily challenges.

And some--well, I will mention and end with America's elites. Our recent debate about elites has had to do with whether opposition to Harriet Miers is elitist, but I don't think that's our elites' problem.

This is. Our elites, our educated and successful professionals, are the ones who are supposed to dig us out and lead us. I refer specifically to the elites of journalism and politics, the elites of the Hill and at Foggy Bottom and the agencies, the elites of our state capitals, the rich and accomplished and successful of Washington, and elsewhere. I have a nagging sense, and think I have accurately observed, that many of these people have made a separate peace. That they're living their lives and taking their pleasures and pursuing their agendas; that they're going forward each day with the knowledge, which they hold more securely and with greater reason than nonelites, that the wheels are off the trolley and the trolley's off the tracks, and with a conviction, a certainty, that there is nothing they can do about it.

I suspect that history, including great historical novelists of the future, will look back and see that many of our elites simply decided to enjoy their lives while they waited for the next chapter of trouble. And that they consciously, or unconsciously, took grim comfort in this thought: I got mine. Which is what the separate peace comes down to, "I got mine, you get yours."

You're a lobbyist or a senator or a cabinet chief, you're an editor at a paper or a green-room schmoozer, you're a doctor or lawyer or Indian chief, and you're making your life a little fortress. That's what I think a lot of the elites are up to.

Not all of course. There are a lot of people--I know them and so do you--trying to do work that helps, that will turn it around, that can make it better, that can save lives. They're trying to keep the boat afloat. Or, I should say, get the trolley back on the tracks.

That's what I think is going on with our elites. There are two groups. One has made a separate peace, and one is trying to keep the boat afloat. I suspect those in the latter group privately, in a place so private they don't even express it to themselves, wonder if they'll go down with the ship. Or into bad territory with the trolley.

If people were wondering why the elections occurred the way they did, I think this article hits the nail squarely on the head.

Thanks Leanan, once again for finding the pertinent documents to fit the discussion at hand.

I remember that piece so well because it spoke to an unspoken truth.

One of the great achievements of the US society and government is that people can change the elites when the elites need changing, without killing them.

It happened with the Puritan theocracy.  It happened with the British (opps, had to kill some of them!)  Andy Jackson shook up the New England mercantile class and party hardy in the White House.  Teddy Rooseveldt put the kaboosh on the robber baron plutocracy.  Reagan did a number on the New Dealers.

It will happen again and it seems like past time.

We'll get through it OK if we keep our heads about us.

Wasn't it Andrew Jackson that opened up the Whitehouse to the public during the inauguration party?  Your comment made me think of that.
Exactly.  He opened the White House to all after the Inauguration and provided the moonshine.  His supporters got very drunk and trashed the place.

But....the frontiersmen he represented, the Westerners, killed the Bank of the United States, ended many protective tariffs, and opened further lands for settlement.

The broke the control of the East Coast Hamiltonians and Federalists.

I've had this thought before.  A very vague feeling that the people around me think the ship is sinking.