Friedman On SOTU: Bush Makes Strides, But He's Still A Long Way From China

I'm going to make a confession - I love Thomas Friedman. Alright, I said it. That feels better. For the record, if you want to learn about why the Middle East (or at least the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is the way it is, read his From Beirut to Jerusalem. Anyway, I read his analysis of last week's State of the Union (SOTU from here on). After Friedman's work on globalization and the undeserved publicity the President's comments on energy independence and competing in the global marketplace, its not surprising that Friedman focused on those aspects of the SOTU. For Friedman, the president's change in tone on some key aspects regarding these issues show that President Bush might mean what he says. Here's Friedman:

I heard the president use language about the necessity of breaking our oil addiction through innovation on renewable technologies-without mentioning drilling in Alaska-which I've never heard before. When the president changes language on an issue like this in a sustained manner (and we still have to see if it will be sustained), the whole country and bureaucracy starts to talk differently.

I said before that I love Friedman and his work - However, he is reading too much into the President's rhetoric on energy independence. He didn't mention ANWR for a simple reason: its a dead issue and its not going to be revived in an election year. Sen. Ted Stevens was recently embarrassed after trying and failing to sneak ANWR drilling onto an Appropriations bill. That was also a defeat for the President and, with approval ratings still hovering in the low 40's, he wasn't about to remind people of that embarrassmentent. The absence of ANWR from the SOTU was due to political realities, not a change in philosophy.

Here's more:

The technology we need to make a huge reduction in our gasoline consumption is already here, hybrid cars that run on flex-fuels. No great breakthrough is required. What's needed are more buyers. While enticing Detroit to make these more fuel-efficient vehicles is a good idea, we also need a gasoline tax to entice every consumer to buy one. The president rejects a gasoline tax. He's wrong. He can't end our oil addiction unless he ends his tax-cutting addiction.

Friedman is right on this one. He is also right to note that if you think that a gasoline tax will be signed into law under this administration, you're crazy. Even when everything else goes down the shitter, conservatives can still look at this president and say, "At least taxes are low." Again, the President would never risk this by accepting something as controversial as a gas tax. So basically, if we assume that Friedman is correct (that one of the only things holding us back from breaking our "addiction" to Middle Eastern oil is incentive to invest in alternative energies) we can conclude that the new SOTU rhetoric is EMPTY. Here's a bold prediction: this president, despite his new catch phrases (i.e. 'addiction to foreign oil'), will do nothing to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Even after his apparent misguided optimism, Friedman seems to accept this conclusion:

And if he fails to carry through with this energy initiative, I'll be the first to rip him for it. In the meantime, I prefer to give him a new reputation to live up to. You never know. And by the way, pal, you got a better horse to ride right now?

No Tom, I don't.