Friedman lauded Lugar's "oil addiction" speech -- ignored Lugar's pro-oil past
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman lauded a speech made by Sen. Richard Lugar about breaking the United States' oil addiction, but Friedman ignored Lugar's extensive record in the Senate advocating oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and Lugar's vote, just last year, against a measure that would have set targets for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman lauded Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) for delivering "[o]ne of the best speeches I've ever read about the necessity of breaking America's oil addiction now, and redefining 'realism.' " In his March 22 Times column (subscription required), Friedman wrote of the speech, which Lugar delivered at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., on March 13: "Drop what you are doing and read it at www.brookings.edu." Absent from Friedman's column, however, was any mention of Lugar's extensive record in the Senate advocating for oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) -- which Friedman has spoken out against -- and Lugar's vote, just last year, against a measure that would have set targets for reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
From Friedman's March 22 Times column:
One of the most important laws of political debate is this: To name something is to own it. If you can name something, get that name to stick and therefore define how people think about an issue, your opponents don't stand a chance. One of the most pernicious things that Vice President Dick Cheney and Big Oil have done for years is to define ''realism'' when it comes to U.S. energy policy -- and therefore they have owned the debate.
[...]
One of the best speeches I've ever read about the necessity of breaking America's oil addiction now, and redefining ''realism,'' was delivered by Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at the Brookings Institution on March 13. Drop what you are doing and read it at www.brookings.edu.
[...]
While acknowledging that the oil alternatives still require a huge amount of work in order to achieve the necessary scale, Mr. Lugar insists that with a big strategic push we can, and must, get there: ''My message is that the balance of realism has passed from those who argue on behalf of oil and a laissez-faire energy policy that relies on market evolution, to those who recognize that in the absence of a major reorientation in the way we get our energy, life in America is going to be much more difficult in the coming decades. No one who is honestly assessing the decline of American leverage around the world due to our energy dependence can fail to see that energy is the albatross of U.S. national security.
"We have entered a different energy era that requires a much different response than in past decades. What is needed is an urgent national campaign led by a succession of presidents and Congresses who will ensure that American ingenuity and resources are fully committed to this problem.''
Lugar, however, has long supported oil drilling in ANWR, and as recently as November 5, 2005, voted against an amendment to the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that would have removed language allowing "the establishment of an oil and gas leasing program" in ANWR. On March 16, 2005, Lugar voted against an amendment that would have removed language from the FY 2006 budget approving drilling in ANWR. All told, Lugar has voted to open ANWR to drilling no fewer than five times since 2001.
Lugar even noted in the speech Friedman lauded: "Even as we strive to reduce the prevalence of fossil fuel in our energy portfolio, pragmatism requires that we diversify to the greatest extent possible our sources of oil and natural gas. I have supported opening ANWR for exploration. While we continue to debate production there and on the outer continental shelf, we have to carefully consider both the security and economic benefits of more exploration, as well as the environmental costs."
Friedman, in his March 17, 2005, Times column, attacked the Bush administration for striving to open ANWR to drilling, noting that drilling in Alaska will do little to help the U.S. economy, and could lead to increased global warming:
On energy, the Bush team's obsession with drilling in the Alaskan wilderness to increase supply is mind-boggling. ''I am sure China will be thrilled with the Bush decision to drill in Alaska,'' said the noted energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. ''Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find.
''With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier -- the U.S. -- while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography. [Also], a big find will lead to lower prices in the short term, promoting more emissions and more warming.''
On June 16, 2005, Lugar voted against an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that proposed to "improve the energy security of the United States and reduce United States dependence on foreign oil imports by 40 percent by 2025."
Friedman gave only a vague indication that Lugar has supported oil interests in the past, writing: "I draw great hope from seeing that smart conservatives like him are no longer willing to let Dick Cheney and Big Oil tell them what is ''realistic'' when it comes to America's energy future."
...downsize: smaller cars. Less driving. Smaller houses. Etc.
America has become the world's meth addict. Meth doesn't make one pretty and in a few years, with our oil debt and oil wars and climate disasters, we won't be pretty.
So, if Lugar wants to repent oil decadence, I don't care, but he's gotta back it up. He can't be a weepy drunk professing sobriety one day and staggering from the pumps the next.
I can't argue that it wasn't a great speech. We do need a "NASA" type of program - as another senator referred to the idea - to develop and implement alternative, renewable energy sources. A successful program potentially means:
- no need for another Iraq
- drying up of a key funding source for some terrorist organizations
- U.S. leadership in a critical emerging technology, providing an economic boost at home.
What's needed, however, is for the actions to match the words...and on that I give the administration and Congress a D-.
Media Matters is actually engaging in the classic logical fallacy argument ad hominem (against the man.) Ad hominem reasoning tells us to evaluate the correctness of teh argument by knowledge about the arguer, instead of by merit of the premises. It doesn't matter what Luger's past positions have been, it doesn't matter if he molests kittens in drag in his spare time--those things are irrelevent to how correct the points in his speech were. Congratulations to Thomas Freedman for getting that the merit of an argument doesn't have anything to do with the merit of arguer--boo to Media Matters for stooping to ad hominem attacks a la Rush and Bill.
We are not supposed to look at a history of loving the big oil and not be a little skeptical that it might be less than genuine. Got it.
Ileangood, I'm not disagreeing. I think I already argued something similar. But I think the underpinnings of MM's position might be that one must earn the right to assert the things that Lugar did.
Otherwise, as ChristianandDemocrat, noted, you've merely earned a D-.
My concern with this sight is that we have to give people credit for coming around. If we only are willing to agree with people like us and refuse to applaud people who are different from us, and in fact seek to discredit their current position that we agree with because we dont' like who they are or what they used to stand for, I have to ask how is MM any better than its conservative analouges?
I have a serious concern about your use of "ad hominem" to describe this. Isn't hypocrisy a valid criticism? I can see if the comment has to do with something completely unrelated to anything, but the past statements are the very basis of the complaint, so I fail to see how this is ad hominem. As a comparison, if Bill Clinton criticized someone for being unfaithful to their wife, would it be an ad hominem attack to point out that he did the same thing? From your definition, it sure seems so. What if Lugar makes a completely opposite comment tomorrow, to a different crowd. Would it be "using knowledge about the arguer" instead of addressing the argument to point out the inconsistency?
Now if Lugar has really had some change of heart and his future actions reflect that, fine. It should still be noted right now that his comments are inconsistent with his past, there is nothing fallacious about that.
MMFA may or may not be guilty of a fallacy, depending on the intended conclusion...or MMFA may simply be informing and allowing us to reach our own conclusion.
If MMFA's intention was to discredit the programs recommended within Lugar's speech, then they would indeed be guilty of an ad hominem attack known as "tu quoque." It's similar to a smoker arguing that smoking can kill you and another smoker responding "but you smoke."
If on the other hand MMFA's unstated conclusion is, e.g., that Lugar's willingness to vote for energy independence programs is doubtful or unlikely, then that may be a valid argument or, at the least, not an ad hominem attack. (Note that the conclusion could also not be an unequivocal "Lugar will not," just questionable.)
MMfA doesn't advocate policy, so I don't think they have any commentary on Lugar's speech at all. There's none implied, anyway, as far as I see. It's just noting that Freidman could have pointed out Lugar's inconsistent behavior, but just heaped praise on him instead. Simple as that.
I understand your point when you state that MMFA doesn't advocate policy, though that's debatable. In any event, I'd say that much of the time, MMFA is making an argument; it's just implied. Even Factcheck, which tries to be non-partisan, makes arguments in each of their items.
But this is all getting academic and further off topic. Whatever their original intent, MMFA illuminates the undeniable fact that Lugar's rhetoric doesn't seem to match some of his prior actions. Further scrutiny is warranted.
You conservatives -- history means nothing to you. Everything is in the present.
OK, let me spell it out for you. TALK IS CHEAP. CONSERVATIVES DO IT ALL THE TIME. LOOK AT CHIMP SAYING HE WANTS TO FREE US FROM OIL DEPENDENCE.
So if talk is cheap, then we look at what people actually do. Until Lugar actually DOES something different, then we need to be reminded of what he actually did.
And cut the whiney ad hominem bull. Works on freeper sites which is basically a big troll bridge. Doesn't work here. We've already heard it.
I don't think hypocrite is a valid reason to dismiss someone's argument. Take your example of Bill Clinton--if Bill Clinton decides to lecture someone on why adultery is wrong, the fact that he is an adulterer has nothing to do with the correctness of his arguements. It might be a reason not to like him very much, it is certainly a good reason to call him a sanctimonous jerk--but that fact that he doesn't live his principles isn't evidense that his principles are wrong. Same thing with Luger--he may well be a hypocrite--but saying he is wrong because he is a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack--it is arguing against the person making the arugment instead of attacking the substantive points he is making.
Put it this way--if you didn't know who was saying something, but everything they said was factually correct (as far as your knowledge), who the additional fact of who they were have teh power to change all the fact they had previously told you?
Remember?
I am reminded of a dumb alien/action movie I saw once where an alien who looked human would go around killing humans for a chemical in their brains. Even as he was in he middle of killing humans he would keep saying "I come in peace" to anyone who was around. I just wanted so share that as it somehow seems relevant to this topic. It was called "Dark Angel" with Dolph Lundgren if anyone is interested. (Sorry- no Jessica Alba in this one)
"Same thing with Luger--he may well be a hypocrite--but saying he is wrong because he is a hypocrite is an ad hominem attack--it is arguing against the person making the arugment instead of attacking the substantive points he is making."
Who said Luger was "wrong"? When? Where? I believe you are engaging in a strawman argument. The issue is that Friedman is letting Lugar off the hook for his hypocrisy, not that anyone is "dismissing" the speech because of it. Friedman wouldn't have had to dismiss it either - he could simply say "a great speech, but Lugar's voting record..." etc, it's not an either/or situation.
You don't think that hypocrisy reflects on credibility? Are you really telling me that if Clinton made the comment I mentioned, you would say "well, he's right" instead of "is he kidding?? Bill Clinton is preaching about fidelity??". I know I personally would say the latter, even though I liked him as a president. Doesn't mean I'm saying he's "wrong" in criticizing infidelity - obviously he's correct - but I would point out the hypocrisy immediately!
Historical perspective? That's for the OTHER guy. Where did you get the crazy idea that the media is supposed to provide historical perspective.
Friedman is another corporate, zionist, MSM shill.
being a hypocrite and a realist. If we started drilling in ANWAR tomorrow, it would be several years until that oil came to market. In the same vein, if we focused all our resources (R&D) on efficient alternative energy sources, it will be several years before anything viable and affordable hits the marketplace. We need to keep all avenues open for discussion. BTW, did you know in the US, corporations spend more on tort litigation than on R & D? This is much different than our other competitors in the global economy.
in lugar's speech that a lot of democrats haven't been saying for many many years. it's the republicans for the most part that have fought anything that reduces our dependency on oil. mmfa is quite correct to call friedman on this. the gop is trying to rewrite their history of the last 20 to 30 years on a lot of issues, but they shouldn't be allowed to do that.