Thoughts on the President's State of the Union address

I have been interested to look at some of the reaction that conservative commentators have put forth in response to the SOTU address -- especially the President's comments about American's "addiction to oil."

In his address President Bush suggested that the way forward to prosperity, security, and freedom for the USA is by developing new fuel sources and the technologies to use those. He mentioned clean burning coal plants, hydrogen fuels for cars, and better technology for hybrid cars that run on a combination of gas and electricity. Responses to this, which struck me as right and forward looking, include things such as this fro Iain Murray at National Review.

As an indication of what the rest of the world thought was important about the SOTU speech, here's the BBC's headline: "Bush urges end to oil addiction." That one, silly, inaccurate metaphor has attracted more press around the world than anything about Iraq, Iran, cloning, spending cuts or globalization. Le Monde called it his "principal announcement" and even translated the phrase as saying oil is like a drug to America. The lesson for Europe is that America will cave on something fundamental to its economy if you harp on about it long enough.

Or in another spot Murray says

It's worth looking at just who supplies the US with its oil. Of the top suppliers of oil to us, we presumably are seriously worried about the stability of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Nigeria, Angola, Colombia and Algeria presumably fall into a middle ground where we are trying to support the governments against potential destabilizers. We are presumably happy with Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Kuwait, Ecuador, the United Kingdom (!), Equatorial Guinea, Norway and Trinidad & Tobago (although some may fall in the middle ground). Reducing US energy use generally hurts all of these trading partners; unless we're advocating a Cuba-style boycott of Saudi (but not, according to the President, Venezuelan) oil that would simply increase the pain felt by American consumers at the gas pump, because the price of oil is set in a global market. The oil addiction message makes less and less sense the more you look at it.


What I don't understand is why Murray thinks the "oil addiction" message makes little sense. He is not the only conservative who thinks this, I know. It seems to me that the development of new fuel technologies is something that is entirely in keeping with a free market economy approach. Just because, at present, oil is "fundamental to America's economy," that need not be the case in future generations. In fact, new technologies could produce new jobs, new products, new services, and new conveniences that we could not imagine at present. (Think home computer revolution.) Why on earth would a conservative free-market person want to say the present situation is the determining factor for the future? I say let's encourage development of efficient, clean, renewable, and powerful fuels for the sake of the economy and for the sake of a better and more competitive America. Why should OPEC reap such great windfalls? And why should fuel profits be chanelled into the coffers of the gas and oil companies alone. Let them compete in a market place that encourages real competition in fuel production. It will be good for us all in every way.