It seems conservatives are big fans of liquid ice, or female fathers. How else to explain "compassionate conservatism"? Or the fact that many "paleo-cons", repeating the liberal platform of anti-trade, pro-union and anti-war are called part of the right? (See "The Political Spectrum" and "A Question for "Paleo-Conservatives"") Or, most recently, how to explain the many conservatives calling for a "reasonable energy policy?"

Let me ask you, if you went to a marriage counselor, who said he was an advocate of traditional values in a monogamous marriage, and he proposed that the best solution was to adopt a "traditional open marriage", would you think he was really a supporter of traditional monogamy, or that he had some clearly mistaken ideas about what traditional marriage means?

That is how I feel when I hear conservatives calling for "an energy policy", whatever the specifics.

The worst part of this is that, unlike say social security, or the Federal Reserve, "energy policies" have no venerable history. We are not talking about century old traditions which may cause confusion in conservatives. Prior to Carter creating the Department of Energy int he late 70's, there WERE NO FEDERAL ENERGY POLICIES. Energy was treated as any other commodity.Prior to Carter, talk of a federal energy policy would sound as absurd as talk of a federal taffeta policy or a federal whipped cream program*. So, when conservatives adopt "energy policy" as an essential part of government, they are not recognizing the fact that Wilson or FDR changed our image of government, they are conceding that we won't even be free of Carter era absurdities, and that seems pretty defeatist to me.

The Department of Energy, and all federal meddling in energy, are ideal examples of the process I described in "The Endless Cycle of Intervention" and "The Cycle of Compassion". There was no great clamor for energy regulation in the 1960's. Look at the "big steel" Detroit was turning out, the poorly insulated homes, the spread of suburbs, and you can see that not only energy cheap and plentiful, but everyone involved in the question (other than a handful of environmentalists) expected things to continue in that vein**.

Then came Nixon's monetary meddling. I won't bore you with the details, as I have covered it over and over. (See "The Inflation Engine", "The Limits of Technocracy", "Sorry, President Jackson", "The Best Historical Example", "Careful What You Wish For") However, there was one consequence which matters here. Seeing prices spiral out of control, Nixon adopted the same foolish solution adopted by authoritarian types since at least the Emperor Diocletian, he imposed price controls. Unfortunately, not only did he impose price controls, but he tried to do it in a "clever" way. Rather than simply freeze prices, he established "experts" to set prices to what they "should" be. And one such "proper" price level was to set "new" oil, that is domestic oil from wells recently dug, at a price lower than "old" oil from pre-existing wells. Which had the predictable consequence of putting an end to all domestic drilling and exploration, increasing dramatically the amount of imported oil. And so we saw the paid of OPEC embargoes, as newly empowered oil producers, realizing how badly we had sabotaged ourselves with our price controls, flexed their political and economic muscles.

Thanks to these embargoes, inflationary price increases, and the consequences of the growing environmental movement, making other forms of energy harder and harder to produce, energy did become a major concern for the public in the 1970's, and, true to his Democrat tradition, Carter "solved" this crisis by establishing a new federal bureaucracy and creating the concept of "federal energy policy", basically taking what was a private concern and putting it, at least partly, under control of the federal government.

What confuses me is why conservatives would accept this history and adopt this Carter era stupidity as their own. We are supposed to be the party of individual initiative and free enterprise. So, why are we promoting any sort of "energy policy"? I know some conservative think we endanger ourselves by sending money overseas***, but that sort of anti-trade rhetoric is also anti-conservative. (See "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "Free Trade, Employment, Outsourcing, and Protectionism", "Fear of Trade", "Pro Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc" and "Cheap Lighters, Overseas Dumping and Monopolies") If we favor trade, we favor trade, and if we favor freedom, we favor freedom, we do not favor freedom and trade right up to the water's edge and no farther. After all, Jefferson did not write "all American men are created equal". If we believe in rights and freedom, we believe they extend beyond the borders****.

But some of those are contentious points, so let us leave them alone and just stick to the basics. If we accept a "federal energy policy", then why not a federal food policy? Or shoe policy? They are all "essential". If we accept that the government must manage our energy production and consumption for "our own good", then what is beyond the potential grasp of big government? ("Inescapable Logic")

And that is why I am shocked to hear the conservatives of today call for any energy policy. We should instead be calling for government to get out of the energy market. Our argument should not be for any "policy", but for the removal of regulatory roadblocks, restrictions on the use of one's own property, and the government's ability to make mineral leases worthless by preventing exploitation. Once the government gets out of the way, I think we will find we have plenty of energy without any need for a "policy" of any kind.

After all, without any policy at all, we are awash in shoes, clothing, consumer electronics and a host of other goods. Why would energy be different?

------------------------------------------------

* OK, to be fair that second one may have existed under the myriad farm programs that manage to exist, even under nominally conservative administrations. But I discussed that specific absurdity in "Bad Economics Part 6".

** Before anyone credit the environmentalists with prescience, recall my arguments in "Why Peak Oil is Laughable ", "Rejecting "Peak Oil"", "A Thought on Oil Reserves" and  "Shocking Numbers", as well as later in this post. The "oil crisis" was neither technological, nor environmental, it was an entirely political creation.

*** My post about fears of "supporting terrorists" by buying foreign oil will be written soon. While there is technically truth in the argument, it is no more valid than worrying that buying an Audi in the 1980's supported European communist front groups. But more of that later.

**** Likewise, my post on the fact that a truly free society must recognize the rights of all, not just citizens will be forthcoming. Though I don't think my conclusions will be pleasing to either side of this dispute, as recognizing rights is not necessarily the same as actively protecting them.

--------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

During the height of our oil scare in 2008 I wrote several posts about the many absurd arguments being made by supposed conservatives, many arguing for restrictions on export of domestic oil, limiting "speculation" and other very intrusive solutions. These can be found at "In Defense of Speculators", "Authoritarian Oil Talk", "Those Darn Speculators" and "Speculators Again?".