Democrats Go Nuclear

Right Democrat again:

A growing number of Democratic candidates and elected officials are in favor of building more nuclear power plants to reduce carbon emissions and help meet our nation's energy needs. Democratic U.S. Senate nominee and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner is a proponent of atomic energy.

"Nuclear power should be expanded and should play a role in addressing our energy and environmental needs. Nuclear power generates one-fifth of America's electricity. It holds the potential to provide clean, relatively inexpensive power and lessen our dependence on fossil fuels at a time when prices are rising."

"France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and Japan is aggressively building new reactors. If they can do it, so can we. While safety around using nuclear power has improved greatly, we need to invest in research to find a long term solution to storing nuclear waste. And as we look to increase our nuclear energy, nuclear plant security also must be a top priority."

Another leading Democrat - Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware has stated: "I am a strong supporter of safe and secure nuclear power and believe it must be a prominent part of any global warming solution. The resurgence of nuclear power in the United States gives us a unique opportunity to rebuild a carbon-free energy industry, and creating tens of thousands of highly-skilled jobs."

Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana says that it is "very important for our country to move forward in a very deliberative direction" toward building more nuclear power plants.

According to NEI Nuclear Notes, the following Democratic Senate contenders support expansion of nuclear power: Nick Carter of Wyoming, Bob Conley of South Carolina, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Scott Kleeb of Nebraska, Larry LaRocco of Idaho, Jim Slattery of Kansas and Mark Udall of Colorado.

Together with coal in Britain and oil in America, nuclear power offers to secure high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs for the working class, and independence from Arab oil and Russian gas.

Among many other good things, this would contribute significantly to reversing Thatcher's and Reagan's destruction of the economic base of paternal authority, initially in working-class families and communities, but then very rapidly throughout society as a whole.

Only public ownership can deliver what is necessary on the scale that is necessary. And public ownership is, of course, British ownership in Britain, and American ownership in America.

How could any conservative object to any of this? And how could any economic populist?