Andrew Sullivan asks, “How many neocons does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
My take on how Walt-Mearsheimer would answer:
Clearly, it is not in the U.S. national interest to invest exorbitant resources in new light bulbs, as light-emitting diodes are more energy efficient alternatives than either filament or fluorescent light sources. Indeed, our irrational support for light bulbs has brought down the wrath of environmentalists worldwide, who have cited excessive electricity use in the United States as their primary grievance against us. If not for the influence of a well-funded Light Bulb Lobby, the United States could pursue a more balanced policy in pursuit of energy efficiency.
(Cross-posted on The Daily Dish.)
Great stuff, and you succeeded admirably in not mentioning the big Z and still
I don’t know if Mearsheimer and Walt would be right, but their argument would make sense.
1) By the Light-Bulb Lobby they mean, for instance, the American Light-Bulb Public Affairs Committee. The ALBPAC meets annually, drawing the attendance of about half of all Congresspeople, including both Speakers, the Secretary of State, the presidential candidates and the national chairpeople from both major parties.
Now tell me of any other lobby gathering so many influential people at their meetings. The LED Lobby? The Candle Lobby? No. Only the Light-Bulb Lobby.
2) A prominent Ivy League professor, affiliated with the Light-Bulb Lobby, wrote a letter to the Governor of Texas, giving his advice (actually a threat) that the Texas University Press shouldn’t publish the book, Beyond tungsten: how the Light-Bulb lobby works to destroy alternative light sources.
Now tell me what other lobby has a prominent member who dares to write to a governor urging him to censor a book and walks away without even being reprimanded.
3) Having failed to censor the book, the same Light-Bulb Lobby professor wrote to the university where the author of Beyond tungsten worked, urging them to deny him tenure — this time successfully.
Now can you tell me of any other example of such an unprecedented move by any memeber of any other lobby?
I could go on for hours, years and decades, but the examples above are enough to prove that the Light-Bulb Lobby enjoys an influence and an impunity not usually seen among other lobbies.
So that, even if Mearsheimer and Walt’s case is poorly presented –and I agree it is–, their central thesis of an overwhelming influence of the Light-Bulb Lobby on national affairs holds water.