Energy security is national security

I'm at a conference today, put on by the Center for American Progress and the Century Foundation (hanging out with Matt and Nico and Ezra, among others), at the moment listening to a panel on energy and the environment as they relate to national security.

The impact of energy and climate upon U.S. (and world) security is tremendous. Various recent reports have predicted massive famine, drought, and rising water levels (in different places, natch), which would create tens of millions of refugees, wild shifts in global economy, etc. There is general agreement among sane, reality-based foreign policy leaders that the U.S. has a responsibility to lead the way on energy and environmental policies . . . but actual movement has been pretty weak.

On a semi-related note, I'm less exercised than Matt (see above link) about invocations of Truman; having a foreign policy rallying cry can be helpful at a macro level if not necessarily a micro one. Republicans, after all, constantly invoke Reagan as a model for foreign policy while concurrently insisting on the decidedly non-Reaganesque strategy of refusing to negotiate with countries we don't like. The intellectual inconsistency of some regarding Truman's legacy (cough *Beinart* cough) doesn't mean Truman isn't someone worth emulating generally.

To go on a tangent from a tangent, having just heard Albright speak, I'm always surprised that Dems don't invoke Clinton (or at least the foreign policy leaders in his administration) more on international relations. The man, after all, won two wars, worked tirelessly on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and made real attempts to counter the rise of terrorist influence. Does Mogadishu overshadow all of that? Anyway, for now, I guess Truman it is.