We begin our discussion by noting the three distinct dimensions that have always defined American conservatism. The original and traditional American conservatism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries collapsed in a great debacle during the Great Depression of the 1930s, but this was followed by a creative reinvention of American conservatism during the Great Stagflation of the 1970s. This reinvented conservatism experienced its own debacle during the current Great Recession, which began in 2007 and which continues into the 2010s. We conclude with a review of the current condition of what was once a reinvented, but now seems to be YET another collapsed conservatism, in the light of the elections of 2012.

He poses this theory:

It is the business elite that, over the long run, has proven to be the most powerful component of the conservative coalition; it has gotten its way on more issues than either the religious or the security conservatives, and it has done so not only within the conservative coalition itself, but with actual government policies. Calvin Coolidge may have exaggerated somewhat when, in the 1920s, he said that “the business of America is business,” but it has been no exaggeration that the business of American conservatism has been business.

However, business is by no means limited to the financial services area.

Traditional American conservatism and its political vehicle, the Republican Party, largely dominated American society and politics after the Civil War down through the 1920s. However, they were unable to provide satisfactory responses to the challenges posed by the Great Depression during the 1930s and the Second World War during the 1940s. The result was a great debacle for this kind of American conservatism in each of the three policy arenas, and this in turn resulted in a long period when American progressivism and its political vehicle, the Democratic Party, largely dominated American society and politics.

The Depression was a failure, not of the conservatism of Calvin Coolidge but a failure of the progressive policies of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. The essay linked here is worth reading in full but Peggy Noonan seems to think that the only hope for the Republican party is a return to social conservatism.

He is right about the policy dominance of “Wall Street”, and the need for the party to kick away from policies that have left it looking like the handmaiden of the economic elite. In the foreign policy section, something should be added to his references to the Cold War, something that has been largely lost to history. Americans for half a century opposed the Soviet Union and stood in support of US efforts in the Cold War for many reasons — the Soviets were totalitarian, a dictatorship, and dangerous. But one of the biggest reasons Americans resisted the Soviet Union, and made sacrifices to oppose it, was that the Soviet Union was atheistic — and expansionist.

Americans saw that wherever the Soviets went they oppressed the church and the religious. And Americans were a church going people.

I don’t believe that social conservatism will save the Republican party as it tends to missteps like Akin and Mourdock, both sincere men but inept at politics. There is no question that we are suffering from a debased culture but nuclear power and molecular biology do not seem the natural home of social conservatives.

The crony capitalism of Goldman Sachs does not add to the economy. Invention, like that of Craig Venter, and energy progress like fracking does.

And it’s on Lake Erie.

Carl and I have had exchanges in the past about new nuclear build. Low gas prices and Depression Era negative demand growth for electricity certainly didn’t help but the Obama Administration took great pains to dive a stake through the heart of new nuclear in this country.

Here’s a summary of the war on nuclear:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/obamas_war_on_nuclear_power.html

I don’t agree that the notion was a pipe dream, but certainly am in accord with the notion that the stupid tsunami dealt nuclear power development another massive setback akin to that of TMI. As with recent Gun Control exhortations in response to Denver, Oregon, and Connecticut, the response is stupid and utterly senseless, but it certainly is the public’s idiotic view that a 40 year old design hit by a triple whammy that killed no one off the property of the plant is indicative of the inadequate safety properties of modern nuclear power… :-S

I am not much at predicting prices as I note above.

Home generation moves the delivery problem from wires to pipes. Gas transmission and distribution systems are in even worst shape than our electric systems. Plus, applying the same emissions standards to home generators from central station units will drive up the cost and hassle of installing and running a home generator – and that’s only for those who can afford the up-front capital investment.

“Trains” magazine had a piece on how the jump in coal exports to Europe was stressing rail systems on the East coast and causing big investment in more coal shipping terminal investment at our ports.

I don’t know about natural gas prices rising. They have a lot of existing wells and infrastructure in place. They also are linked to oil since you often find them together and there is little talk of oil prospecting slowing in the short, medium or long term. But I certainly am not a prognosticator either way.

The fact that low gas prices reduced the price of coal and bought the coal plant operators a bit more time is interesting.

Low gas prices will push out the older coal and nuclear units.

Basically by the time gas prices rise we will be so desperate maybe we will just start up our own coal plants. They will be damn efficient by then, we can just copy the Chinese designs since we won’t know how to build them anymore, 10 years from now.

The fight is going to move to our decaying infrastructure for delivery and the impending fuel switching from electric centrally burned to gas powered home generation. They will co exist but this is going to be an interesting fight. People are going to get pissed paying 2x – once for electrical infrastructure (through their bill) and once for a reliable, backup natural gas generator.

Like cable which is under threat from the internet (although of course often they are provided by the same company), electricity is going to be a less dominant monopoly in the future. Land line phones are now virtually dead.

Exelon owns 17 reactors in the US. The nuclear industry scuttlebutt estimates between $50 to $100 million per reactor for post-Fukushima modifications – figure another $1 billion in capital outlays for Exelon over the next 3 years. Looks like they’ll have to borrow the money to do so or slash their dividend.

As to natural gas prices staying so low, I’m skeptical. Looks like we’re seeing a bubble burst where initial fracked wells investment blew out the market leaving gas prices below current cost of production for now. This can’t go on and we’re seeing some industry leaders like Cheasapeake having financial difficulties.

I expect the price of gas to recover significantly. Add in export of US gas via LNG terminals, and we’ll see gas approach global LNG prices of about $6/mmBTU. That will take a few years though – the terminals need to built and licensed although the economic life of a fracked well is only about 2 years. On the downside, domestic demand for gas and electricity will stay low for 4 years at least as demand tracks economic activity and Democrat policies continue to suppress growth.

Obama done screwed coal but good. He’s been no supporter of nuclear either. Worst, he’s a wet blanket economically for all.