10 Reasons to be Dismayed About Democrats (and John McCain, sadly) #9: "Energy independence". This is a fatuous, meaningless phrase. 2 things in basic outline can happen with our energy. Either we produce more than enough for ourselves, in which case we'd sell the rest of it to someone who needed it, or we'd purchase it from elsewhere (the dominant method right now). Before we get all in a lather about the peoples and countries and regions whence our oil comes, let's ask ourselves if, generally, people making money like to kill those from whom they take money. No. And if indeed that region depends solely upon sales of oil, and we were concerned about its influence, wouldn't we buy as much oil as possible, so as to hasten the day when they need things we Americans have to sell? Furthermore, doesn't importing certain things mean that we have time to create other things?
As a general rule, I hate "pox on both your houses" takes on politics. Most of the time, I'm inclined to think that a particular person chooses this take because someone else has made them uncomfortable with a certain aspect of their own philosophy. If they adopt a posture of cynicism, maybe they can escape the moral force of that criticism. That could be bulverism in any one case, but I have seen it before, and I can't paint a picture without generalizing. Anyway, I didn't come here to talk about that. I came here to say that both major parties in the United States--and the people themselves--have embraced the absolute individualism at the heart of classical liberalism. Rightists want freedom from constraint in economics, environment, religious liberty, and a few other things. Leftists don't believe in this absolute individualism with respect to economics or the environment (not to mention religious liberty), but they do embrace it with respect to human sexu