Neoconservatives, Evangelicals Join Liberals on Energy

By Marc Perelman

Published February 17, 2006, issue of February 17, 2006.
  • Print
  • Share Share

Two pillars of support for President Bush’s Iraq policy — neoconservative foreign policy hawks and evangelical Christians — have begun lining up with liberals and environmentalists in challenging the White House’s energy policy.

The issue gained national attention in recent weeks, after President Bush declared in the State of the Union address that the United States needed to end its “addiction to oil.” Bush set what seemed a clear target, but within a day, administration officials were backtracking, saying he had not intended a specific goal. Bush spoke of reducing American dependence on

Middle East oil by 75% by 2025. Critics say the administration is reluctant to anger the oil industry by committing America to a full-bore alternate-fuels strategy. Administration supporters say alternate fuels don’t offer an adequate solution to U.S. fuel needs.

Alternate-fuels advocates got a big boost last month from Sweden, whose government set up a commission, chaired by the prime minister, to oversee a transition by 2020 to an economy that functions without petroleum.

With the Bush administration seemingly unwilling to move away from oil, some of the president’s backers have begun issuing their own calls for national energy independence, in what some observers say amounts to a direct challenge to the powerful oil lobby and its supporters within the administration.

The promised push comes at a time when European countries, led by Great Britain, are pressing Bush to accept scientific evidence supporting the existence of global warming that often has been rejected by conservative businessmen and pundits.

About 85 evangelical leaders launched a new initiative and issued a “call to action” last week, in which they endorsed research claiming climate change was “mainly human induced” and urged the administration to stop questioning the science on the issue.

Pro-war hawks have also been rallying to the energy cause.

“We’ve got a coalition of tree-huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters hawks and evangelicals,” said James Woolsey, the Clinton administration’s first CIA director and a leading advocate for the Iraq War, in an interview with the Forward. “Whether you want to end oil dependency for this reason or that reason, it’s perfectly fine as long as we do it.”

Woolsey is one of the leading hawks, along with former Reagan administration officials Robert McFarlane and Frank Gaffney, who are part of the Set America Free coalition, which advocates a blueprint for energy security. The coalition also includes a few liberal groups and two Jewish organizations: the right-leaning Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and, since last week, the more centrist American Jewish Committee.

“AJC has been raising the dangers posed by oil dependency for decades, and we understand we can only be successful if the effort is carried out by a broad coalition,” said Richard Foltin, the organization’s legislative director and counsel. “The agenda is very much in line with our concern that our national interest requires cutting oil imports.”

In recent months, several major Jewish organizations have issued statements declaring the need to curtail oil dependency. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, has put the issue on the agenda of its upcoming annual policy conference for the first time since the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s.

Gal Luft, coordinator of the Set America Free coalition, said that the renewed concerns of the Jewish community amounted to a “sea change.”

“They realize that oil is within one degree of separation with terrorism, global antisemitism and Iran nukes,” said Luft, who is also co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

Woolsey, a staunch critic of Saudi Arabia who prides himself of owning two hybrid cars, said that his main impetus for supporting alternative energy was national security rather than environmental protection.

In his interview with the Forward, Woolsey stressed the “peculiarity” of America’s ongoing “long war” with radical Islamic movements.

“It is the only one where we pay for both sides, importing oil from Saudi Arabia, which then uses it to export its deathly Wahhabi ideology,” Woolsey said.

Luft expressed similar misgivings about the oil-rich kingdom and acknowledged that it still had strong support in Washington. “There are people in high places with Saudi ties, but more and more people disagree with the over-reliance on them,” he said. “It’s going to be a tough battle.”

Luft’s coalition is pushing two bipartisan bills in Congress that would reduce reliance on foreign oil. The United States currently imports two-thirds of its oil; one-third of imports come from the Middle East. The coalition’s “blueprint for energy security” calls on the federal government to invest $12 billion to encourage carmakers to build more efficient vehicles and to develop facilities to produce plant-based fuels such as ethanol.

The coalition’s efforts have been bolstered in recent months by the record price of oil. In addition, those pushing for energy independence say that their case has been made stronger by the potential instability facing two other major exporters of oil to the United States: Venezuela and Nigeria.

Pro-war hawks say that they see Bush’s recent decision to apportion more funds to alternative energy research as a clear indication that their advocacy is bringing results.

Woolsey noted the key role played by former secretary of state George Shultz in swaying leading Republicans to back the goal of reducing oil imports. “He’s been talking to the administration and Congress, and they listen to him,” Woolsey said.

Shultz, who is co-chairman with Woolsey of the hawkish Committee on the Present Danger, could not be reached for comment.

In addition to prominent neoconservatives, the Bush administration is having to deal with a split among evangelicals on the issue of global warming.

Several prominent evangelicals, including Southern Baptist ethicist Richard Land, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James Dobson and Prison Fellowship founder and chairman Charles Colson did not endorse the so-called Evangelical Climate Initiative, pointing to the lack of consensus among evangelicals about the extent and cause of global warming. The initiative calls on the federal government to enact laws to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and urges businesses, churches and individuals to do their part.

“This is God’s world, and any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God himself,” the evangelicals said. “Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship” of the planet.






Find us on Facebook!
  • "I’ve never bought illegal drugs, but I imagine a small-time drug deal to feel a bit like buying hummus underground in Brooklyn."
  • We try to show things that get less exposed to the public here. We don’t look to document things that are nice or that people would like. We don’t try to show this place as a beautiful place.”
  • A new Gallup poll shows that only 25% of Americans under 35 support the war in #Gaza. Does this statistic worry you?
  • “You will stomp us into the dirt,” is how her mother responded to Anya Ulinich’s new tragicomic graphic novel. Paul Berger has a more open view of ‘Lena Finkle’s Magic Barrel." What do you think?
  • PHOTOS: Hundreds of protesters marched through lower Manhattan yesterday demanding an end to American support for Israel’s operation in #Gaza.
  • Does #Hamas have to lose for there to be peace? Read the latest analysis by J.J. Goldberg.
  • This is what the rockets over Israel and Gaza look like from space:
  • "Israel should not let captives languish or corpses rot. It should do everything in its power to recover people and bodies. Jewish law places a premium on pidyon shvuyim, “the redemption of captives,” and proper burial. But not when the price will lead to more death and more kidnappings." Do you agree?
  • Slate.com's Allison Benedikt wrote that Taglit-Birthright Israel is partly to blame for the death of American IDF volunteer Max Steinberg. This is why she's wrong:
  • Israeli soldiers want you to buy them socks. And snacks. And backpacks. And underwear. And pizza. So claim dozens of fundraising campaigns launched by American Jewish and Israeli charities since the start of the current wave of crisis and conflict in Israel and Gaza.
  • The sign reads: “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances.”
  • Is Twitter Israel's new worst enemy?
  • More than 50 former Israeli soldiers have refused to serve in the current ground operation in #Gaza.
  • "My wife and I are both half-Jewish. Both of us very much felt and feel American first and Jewish second. We are currently debating whether we should send our daughter to a Jewish pre-K and kindergarten program or to a public one. Pros? Give her a Jewish community and identity that she could build on throughout her life. Cons? Costs a lot of money; She will enter school with the idea that being Jewish makes her different somehow instead of something that you do after or in addition to regular school. Maybe a Shabbat sing-along would be enough?"
  • Undeterred by the conflict, 24 Jews participated in the first ever Jewish National Fund— JDate singles trip to Israel. Translation: Jews age 30 to 45 travelled to Israel to get it on in the sun, with a side of hummus.
  • from-cache

Would you like to receive updates about new stories?




















We will not share your e-mail address or other personal information.

Already subscribed? Manage your subscription.