Lifted from Powerline:

When Jimmy Carter ran for president in 1976, he promised a foreign policy that would reflect the basic decency of the American people. In practice, that meant a foreign policy designed to project far less American power and influence than we had done throughout the heroic Cold War years. Thus, the U.S. remained indifferent when Iran, a key ally in the Middle East, faced the prospect and then the reality of being taken over by fanatically anti-American Islamic extremists. We reacted with similar indifference to the establishment of a Communist dicatorship in Central America. And when the Soviet Union promised Carter it would not invade Afghanistan, its word was good enough for our oh-so-decent president.

Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy successes seemed to vanquish the notion that too much U.S. power and influence was a bad thing for the world, much less the U.S. That notion, implausible on its face, became impossible to defend when our lack of abnegation seemed to produce a victorious end to the Cold War.

Yet domestic policies pursued by Jimmy Carter now threaten partially to re-impose Carter’s foreign policy vision of a diminished United States. For it was mostly in the Carter presidency (the years of sweater-wearing and ceiling fans) that the U.S. began systematically to deny itself access to domestic sources of energy. More than 30 years later, with the soaring price of oil creating perhaps the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world, that lack of access makes it increasingly more difficult for us to project power and influence on the world stage. And, predictably, it is nations with interests sharply divergent from our own — e.g., Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran — that are filling the void (Venezuela is a special case; few expected this this country to become the next Cuba, though one should never be surprised when a country with massive new wealth becomes belligerent).

In Europe, Russia, flush with new wealth and now a major oil supplier, is increasingly able to counter-balance U.S. influence. In the Middle East, our leverage with Saudi Arabia is in jeopardy due not only to our dependence on Saudi oil, but also the ability of the Saudis to sell their oil to China and India. More generally, the U.S. is seen as weakened, and objectively our economy is now weaker, due to its lack of status in the great global oil game.

Carter, of course, does not bear all of the blame. Republicans have had substantial power since 1980 and were never able (and not always even willing) to promote oil drilling in the U.S. or the use of nuclear power. Carter stands out at least as much for his eagerness to see the U.S. diminished as for his responsibility for bringing this about through bad energy policies.

More than 30 years of neglect cannot quickly be overcome. But the signal we would send by reversing our policies on drilling and nuclear energy would be unmistakable. History shows that when the U.S. plays, it usually wins eventually. It would be extremely salutary if the rest of the world came to believe that we are back, in a serious way, in the energy producing game.

In the last few weeks stark differences have emerged between Dems and the GOP on energy policy. With gasoline >$4/gal politicians on all sides feel compelled to say/do something. A recap of what each side is offering:

Democrats:

Sue OPEC 

On May 22nd the House passed the “Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008.” The act does three things: 1) amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (written in 1890)  “…to make oil producing and export cartels illegal…”; 2) Creates a Petroleum Industry Antitrust Task Force inside the DOJ to study cartels; 3) Orders a GAO study on the effects of mergers in the petroleum industry. The bill was co-sponsored by 20 Dems, with Dems voting for the bill by a margin of 219 to 2. Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the cartel’s members have not yet responded to what efforts they will make to ensure their own national activities comply with this new US law.

“Windfall Tax” on US Oil Producers

Obama has called for a reprise of Carter’s “windfall taxes” on domestic oil producers. (Even the NYT editorial board eventually agreed that Carter’s version was a bad idea, although it took them almost a decade to figure it out.) The idea is that somehow the folks who produce oil for us will do a better job if we penalize them, or something.

“Compel” US Oil Producers to Produce More

On June 12 eighteen Dem Congressmen introduced the “Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act.” The co-sponsors suggest oil companies leasing public lands might be secretly under-producing, a situation that they will remedy by imposing new fees on any acre leased that has not been drilled within one year. Never mind that it usually takes several years to determine whether newly leased land is worth drilling. After paying for the lease (usually 10 years) and the cost of exploration, the majority of these lands are returned to the government un-drilled. Not good enough for the Dems.

Increase Regulation of Energy Capital Markets

Just this weekend Obama outlined legislation directing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to “investigate proposals” for increasing regulation over the way oil futures are trades. New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine added, “I think everyone believes there’s too much speculation in the oil markets. A lot of the price of oil, I think, people put at the doorstep of speculators bidding up and holding supplies off the market.” Corzine thus neatly justifies this attempted power-grab by his estimate of what “people” think - note Corzine (a former bond trader and Goldman Sachs CEO) never says what he actually believes.

“Nationalize” US Refineries

Video of Maurice Hinchey (D-NY): “We (the government) should own the refineries. Then we can control how much gets out into the market.”

“Socialize” Domestic Oil Companies

Video of Maxine Waters (D-CA) tells the President of Shell Oil she wants to “socialize” his company.

Republicans:

Increase Production 

In his radio address on June 21 Bush made 4 proposals: 1) Drill ANWR; 2) Lift the 25 year ban on drilling on the outer continental shelf (OCS); 3) Lift the ban on exploiting shale oil reserves in the American West; 4) Increase refining capacity by allowing new refineries to be built in the US for the first time in 30 years.

On the second point its worth noting that Brazil has recently announced two massive oil discoveries on its own OCS, possibly turning that country into one of the largest oil exporters within the next 10 years. Its also worth noting that Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and even China (in Cuban waters less that 100 miles from Florida) are all already exploring the North American OCS.

Although McCain is still only “considering” ANWR, he largely agrees with everything Bush proposes. The American people apparently do too - according to Rasmussen only 18% of Americans oppose OCS drilling (including only 37% of self identified “liberals”). McCain is also calling for the construction of 45 new commercial nuclear reactors. The last commercial nuclear reactor in the US to come online started construction in 1973.

The GOP proposals are straightforward. They acknowledge the reality of increased oil demand from emerging economies like China and India. The solution is removing regulatory obsticles that make the US the only major oil producer in the world where new production is effectively illegal.

Some Dem proposals are laughably stupid (i.e. declare OPEC illegal so we can sue them). The rest seek to turn public concern about oil prices into yet another opportunity to expand regulation, expand government power, and grind down and demonize the private economy.

From the WSJ:

“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels,” he said over the weekend, responding to a question from an Israeli journalist who noted that Mr. Carter had been snubbed by most of Israel’s top leadership and reprimanded by its president, Shimon Peres. “When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.”

The mask slips. I believe Carter’s views on democracy are fairly typical among American leftists.

George Will’s piece today touches on a similar topic - Obama’s contempt for many American voters. Read the whole thing. Excerpts:

…When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, “Yes, but I need to win a majority.” When another supporter told Stevenson, “You educated the people through your campaign,” Stevenson replied, “But a lot of people flunked the course.” Michael Barone, in “Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan,” wrote: “It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind.” Barone added: “Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture — the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting.”

Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, “what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude.” They sought from Stevenson “not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance.” They especially rejected “American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent,” rather than — in Michelle Obama’s words — “just downright mean.”

The emblematic book of the new liberalism was “The Affluent Society” by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a “false consciousness” (another category, like religion as the “opiate” of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:

First, the consent of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false consciousnesses, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats….

Marxist dictatorship, industry nationalizations, populist land reform, anti-colonial race war - this county has all the hallmarks of a leftist paradise.

Alas, the fun cannot last forever. From yesterday’s Telegraph:

The economy of Zimbabwe is facing total collapse within four months, leaving the country facing a slide into Congo-style anarchy, The Sunday Telegraph has been told.

Western officials fear the business, farming and financial sectors may be crippled by Christmas, triggering a collapse of government control that could leave the country prey to warlords and ignite long-suppressed tribal tensions…

And the LA Times:

A drive across Zimbabwe today reveals a desolate portrait of decline: Aimless mobs of people wait along the rural roads, each with a silent pleading gesture for a lift at every passing vehicle. With fuel almost dried up, unemployment at 80% and transport too expensive for most, movement is almost frozen.

Along the highways, brown grass stands high between the thorny acacias in a stunning vista of what Africa must have looked like before mechanized agriculture made farming Zimbabwe’s main export business. Now, most farms lie dormant.

Meat disappeared after the government shut down private abattoirs, transferring all slaughtering to a quasi-governmental organization that cannot meet demand. Fuel supplies dried up after the National Oil Co. of Zimbabwe was made the sole authorized distributor.

In towns, straggling queues form at any rumor of sugar, maize or bread. Most supermarket shelves are empty of basic staples: no meat, no sugar, no maize, no bread, no pasta, no rice, no milk.

Authorities have focused on one sector after another, accusing them of collaborating with the opposition, supporting regime change or engaging in economic sabotage…

Its worth remembering how we got here, how one of the most vibrant economies in Africa, a net food exporter, was converted into a starving dictatorship with >10,000% inflation. How a fragile post-colonial, democratically elected government was overthrown by Marxist thugs.

Unfortunately, the US deserves much of the blame. From The Weekly Standard (June 2007):

In April 1979, 64 percent of the black citizens of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) lined up at the polls to vote in the first democratic election in the history of that southern African nation. Two-thirds of them supported Abel Muzorewa, a bishop in the United Methodist Church. He was the first black prime minister of a country only 4 percent white. Muzorewa’s victory put an end to the 14-year political odyssey of outgoing prime minister Ian Smith, the stubborn World War II veteran who had infamously announced in 1976, “I do not believe in black majority rule–not in a thousand years.” Fortunately for the country’s blacks, majority rule came sooner than Smith had in mind.

Less than a year after Muzorewa’s victory, however, in February 1980, another election was held in Zimbabwe. This time, Robert Mugabe, the Marxist who had fought a seven-year guerrilla war against Rhodesia’s white-led government, won 64 percent of the vote, after a campaign marked by widespread intimidation, outright violence, and Mugabe’s threat to continue the civil war if he lost. Mugabe became prime minister and was toasted by the international community and media as a new sort of African leader. “I find that I am fascinated by his intelligence, by his dedication. The only thing that frustrates me about Robert Mugabe is that he is so damned incorruptible,” Andrew Young, Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to the United Nations, had gushed to the Times of London in 1978. The rest, as they say, is history.

The article further recounts how the Carter administration systematically undermined Muzorewa’s popularly elected government, notably leaving in-place sanctions that had been designed to force the previous non-democratic government controlled by minority whites to accept popular rule. Carter insisted that militant Marxists be allowed to first share power, then take control in a ridiculously compromised do-over election.

A generation later Carter is still scouring the world in search of rag-tag Marxists groups attempting to seize power through violence. We wrote in June about his efforts to get the US to “establish some communications” with a tiny but vicious group of Marxists attempting to overthrow the democratic government in Nepal.

And, of course, there’s his affection for Venezuelan Marxist Hugo Chavez. The Carter Center has been one of few international observers to regularly endorse Venezuela’s recent tainted elections. They’ve been notably silent on Chavez’s recent president-for-life declaration.

Chavez actions since taking power - land reform, hyper-inflation, nationalization, price controls - bear striking resemblance to Mugabe’s own play-book. Unfortunately for the people of Venezuela (and maybe the people of Guyana who’s Chavez now claims 62% of) Chavez’s thuggocracy may be more enduring.

As Daniel Yergin has argued, the Soviet Union’s inevitable economic collapse was forestalled by perhaps 20 years by their enormous wealth in natural resources. The entire economy was otherwise in free-fall, but, particularly after the Arab-Israeli wars in the 1960s and 70s, and thanks to economically thriving and therefore energy hungry Western democracies, a few marginally operated oil fields were able to keep their entire, fatally flawed economy afloat into the 90s.

Chavez’s emergent dictatorship enjoys such a cat seat today. And with the help of a few leftist politicians, idiot celebrities, trustifarians, and American useful idiots in general, the left’s newest darling dictator may survive to oppress the citizens of his own country longer than even Mugabe has.

From today’s Washington Post: 

Former South African president Nelson Mandela plans to announce on Wednesday the creation of “the Elders,” a group composed mostly of retired global leaders that will seek to tackle urgent world problems unfettered by the politics of any one nation, officials with the group said.

It will have about a dozen members, including former president Jimmy Carter, former U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan and retired Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa. Among the organizers of the effort have been rock star Peter Gabriel and British airline mogul Richard Branson, who has used meetings at his Caribbean getaway, Necker Island, as an incubator for creation of the group.

Branson? And while Carter was at least elected, Annan was just a career bureaucrat. Too bad Saddam and Mao can’t join. Also too bad Castro won’t ever ‘retire’.

Jimmy Carter has spent most of his adult life trying to advance the cause of marxism. Unfortunately for him, besides the occasional thugs like Castro and Chavez, there are few viable commie movements left for him to support.

Well, he’s found some more commies. And guess what - he wants the US to open a dialog with them.

From AFP:

Former US President Jimmy Carter called on his country’s government Saturday to establish relations with Nepal’s former rebel Maoists, who remain on a list of US terrorist organisations.

“My opinion is that the US should establish some communication with the Maoists. The people of Nepal have accepted them as political players,” Carter told journalists at the end of a four-day visit to Nepal.

It’s incredible he would even imagine calling for communication with a group he himself identifies as “Maoist.” I dont think anyone would call even the Chinese government Maoist anymore. Mao killed 70MM of his own citizens in peacetime - but still good enough for Jimmy?

And I’m not sure in what sense he thinks “the people of Nepal have accepted them…” According to the BBC the communist movement there is basically 10,000-15,000 roving militants. That’s in a country with 27MM people.

And by the way, why should the US ever have formal ties to a militant rebel group representing a tiny minority in a country we otherwise have good relations with? Should have a dialog with FARC militants in Columbia? How about neo-Nazis in Austria?

On a related note, Hillary “shares a laugh” with some facist supporters:

Democratic Presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) shares a laugh with supporters during a town hall meeting at Charles City Elementary School in Charles City, Iowa, May 25, 2007. REUTERS/Joshua Lott (UNITED STATES)

Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East was a great success in advancing her party’s main policy initiatives in the region: 1) Increase confusion and chaos; 2) Lend legitimacy to brutal dictators; 3) Emit meaningless platitudes.

From the Washington Post:

After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that “Israel was ready to engage in peace talks” with Syria. What’s more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to “resume the peace process” as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. “We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria,” she said.

Only one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. “What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel,” said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister’s office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that “a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel.” In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel’s position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad’s words were mere propaganda…

Of course Carter loves this stuff. From UPI:

Former President Jimmy Carter says he supports House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, despite criticism of the visit by the Bush administration…

…”I was glad that she went,” Carter said. “When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem.”

I suppose he’s an expert of sorts on that last point. 

Update (4/6/07):

From USA Today:

Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad - even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.

From the WSJ:

So this is Democratic foreign policy: Assure our enemies that they can ignore a President who still has 21 months to serve; and wash their hands of Baghdad and of their own guilt for voting to let Mr. Bush go to war. No doubt Democrats think the President’s low job approval, and public unhappiness with the war, gives them a kind of political immunity. But we wonder.

Once we leave Iraq, America’s enemies will still reside in the Mideast; and they will be stronger if we leave behind a failed government and bloodbath in Iraq. Mr. Bush’s successor will have to contain the damage, and that person could even be a Democrat. But by reverting to their Vietnam message of retreat and by blaming Mr. Bush for all the world’s ills, Democrats on Capitol Hill may once again convince voters that they can’t be trusted with the White House in a dangerous world.

From WND:

One terror leader, Khaled Al-Batch, a militant and spokesman for Islamic Jihad, expressed hope Pelosi would continue winning elections, explaining the House speaker’s Damascus visit demonstrated she understands the Middle East…

…”Nancy Pelosi understands the area (Middle East) well, more than Bush and Dr. (Condoleeza) Rice,” said Al-Batch, speaking to WND from Gaza. “If the Democrats want to make negotiations with Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah, this means the Democratic Party understands well what happens in this area and I think Pelosi will succeed. … I hope she wins the next elections.”..

…Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria “is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S.”

“The Americans know and understand they are losing in Iraq and the Middle East and that their only chance to survive is to reduce hostilities with Arab countries and with Islam. Islam is the new giant of the world.”

“Pelosi’s visit to Syria was very brave. She is a brave woman,” Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, told WND.

“I think it’s very nice and I think it’s much better when you sit face to face and talk to (Syrian President Bashar) Assad. It’s a very good idea. I think she is brave and hope all the people will support her. All the American people must make peace with Syria and Iran and with Hamas. Why not?” Jaara said.

Another from the WSJ:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn’t going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

Here’s the complete text of the Logan Act:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

Marxist thug and hero of the American Left Hugo Chavez may be less popular at home  than some believe. From today’s NY Sun:

Astonishing as it may seem to Americans who believe the contention by Mr. Chavez that he won both elections by a landslide — 58% to 42% in the recall and 61% to 39% in the presidential election — the studies show that since 2003, Mr. Chavez has added 4.4 million favorable names to the voter list and “migrated” 2.6 million unfavorable voters to places where it was difficult or impossible for them to vote.

None of these additions or migrations to the voter-register has been independently audited in Venezuela. Instead, the votes have been electronically counted by Chavez cronies. So when Mr. Chavez announces a landslide, there has been no way to prove otherwise, even though exit polls and other data have consistently shown that half the voters of Venezuela or more oppose Mr. Chavez.

The article goes on to note Jimmy’s Carter Center regularly endorses Venezuelan elections without any serious audit and despite credible protests from opposition and other international observers.

The American Left feigns conniptions whenever an election here doesn’t go their way, claiming all manner of ballot-box stuffing, voter intimidation and the like. Yet they’re conspicuously silent when one of their model regimes abroad undertakes the most overt election fraud. Perhaps they doth protest too much, actually admiring strongmen like Chavez who take power by force while feeling only contempt for genuinely elected leaders.