After the Fall

In the aftermath of the election, there is a lot of soul searching going on among the ranks of the Republican Party.  I am particularly amused by the advice on how to revitalize the Republicans being offered by pundits who would never in a million years be caught dead actually voting for them.  “If the Republicans want to become viable again, they have to embrace the Democratic Party platform.”

Most of the analysis has focused on identity politics.  The Republicans appealed to older, married whites, who are a shrinking share of the population.  The Democrats appealed to single women, African-Americans, Asians, and especially Hispanics, who are a growing share of the population.  So the standard advice is that the Republicans will have to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.  The dilemma for the Republicans is that is they help expand the Hispanic population, and Hispanics tend to vote Democratic, they are hastening their own demise.

I have also noticed that exactly no one has suggested that the Republicans try and expand their appeal to African-Americans.  I think the assumption is that African-Americans will vote as such a monolithic bloc for the Democrats that any efforts to court that demographic are wasted.  If this is true, it would explain why neither party is doing anything on those lines.  Why would the Democrats waste political capital on people who are going to vote for them no matter what?

Personally, I would like to see a shift away from identity politics, and back into the arena of governing philosophy.  The Republicans are the party of smaller government, the party that celebrates self-reliance.  The Democrats are the party of bigger government, the party that celebrates compassion.  Those are pretty clear fault lines.  Properly articulated, I think thet Republicans can make a pretty good case that the government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.

Hurricane andy, Part II

Recovery from Hurricane Sandy continues to move along.  The last time I looked, power was back on in all of Manhattan, the subways were running again, and utility crews were making inroads on the power loss problems in New Jersey.  Election coverage has completely pushed everything else off the news for the last two cycles.  Still, it looks like gasoline supplies in the Northeast are recovering.  Gas lines are down, although that may be more a factor  of rationing than  expanded supply.

One of the sidebars in the coverage of the storm and the damage it caused has been the climate change motif.  This part of the story is that the storm was exacerbated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. If we want to avoid more super storms in the future, we have to dramatically reduce the amount of greenhouse gas we put out as a society.

This may very well be true.  Certainly  levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased in the last century.  But the people calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are not being honest about the implications of their crusade.

Our society is based on the ready availability of energy, both in the form of electrical power, and as liquid fuels for transportation.  To make major cuts in greenhouse gases, we are going to have to restrict access to both of those.  The idea that we can cut energy usage in half,  simply by replacing all of the light bulbs with compact fluorescents is laughable.  The concept that the government can simply wave the regulatory wand an cars will get double the current gas milage is equally ludicrous.

To really reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions, half the electrical generating capacity in this country will have to be taken off line.  That is about the amount of capacity powered by coal burning power plants.  Also, we will all have to cut back to just a couple of gallons of gas per week apiece.

If you're paying attention, you'll realize that the kind of restriction of energy use I'm talking about is what New York and New Jersey have been dealing with for the last week.  If tempers were getting short from a temporary loss of power, imagine what will happen to the government that attempts to apply energy rationing to the citizens.

The symptom is the cure.

Hurricane Sandy

I've been following Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath for the last five days.  Staten Island and portions of the Jersey shore seem to be particularly hard hit.  Rebuilding those areas will take somewhere between months and years.  Flooding seems to be the worst type of disaster in terms of property damage.  Not only will a mass of moving water pull a house off its foundations and reduce it to matchsticks, but the flood waters will also deposit huge amounts of sand and muck.  That all needs to be cleared away, along with the rubble, before rebuilding can even begin.

Manhattan's problems seem relatively minor by comparison.  Pump the water out of the tunnels and subways,   dry out, repair or replace electrical systems, and turn the grid back on.  Unsurprisingly, Manhattan is coming back to normal far faster then some of the outlying areas.

People were patient about the situation for about one day after the storm.  Now the griping has started, and is increasing in volume.  I would hope I have the patience to endure a week without power, but you never know how you'll react until you've been tested.  Here in Tornado Alley, I get annoyed if the power goes off for more than a couple of hours, so I don't know if I would have the equanimity to sit tight for a week with no lights, refrigeration, running water, or flush toilets.

What amazes me is that Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, sent a threatening letter to the utility companies.  He threatened them if they don't get the lights on fast enough to suit him.

What a ridiculous thing to do!  Everything from compassion, to professional ethos, to sound business reasons is pushing the utilities to do the best job they can.  Instead of offering help, the governor threatens to pull their operating permits.  He turned a technical problem into political grandstanding.