Nuclear reactionaries: it's a big-government-dependent tool to fight climate change that was championed by Jimmy Carter, is now dominated by the French, and has never managed to compete in the marketplace. So why, exactly, do Republicans love nuclear power so much?

• Author: Frank, T.A.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

When the White House released a budget proposal in February calling for $54 billion worth of federal loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants, part of the idea was to woo the other side of the aisle. Congressional Republicans had spent the better part of a year blocking a piece of climate legislation known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, and it was hoped that some nuclear seduction might soften their opposition. Even if the White House had no luck with the GOP, what would be the harm--really--of firing up some new reactors? Much as tort reform is widely seen as a legitimate Republican goal in the pursuit of cutting health care costs, or the curbing of teacher's union power is seen as a reasonable Republican aim in the pursuit of education reform, so too adding more nuclear power to the energy mix is widely considered a reasonable Republican priority in formulating a balanced energy policy. We're adults, right? Surely, we're done blubbering over Silkwood. Many Democrats now seem to embrace nuclear power almost as heartily as their Republican colleagues.

Well, Republicans can love nuclear if they want. And Democrats can indulge them in some conciliatory fission if they want. But the rest of us shouldn't have to smile politely. Nor should we pretend that the bedfellows are anything but bizarre. The GOP and nuclear power are such old friends, like Tarzan and Cheeta, that we forget to reflect on the oddity of the relationship. At least Tarzan and Cheeta had compatible policy priorities, such as defense against crocodiles. But the nuclear industry and the Republican Party have nothing ideologically obvious in common other than a soft spot for things that go boom. That they've teamed up all the same says something--all too much, really--about our politics today.

Anyone with even a passing interest in politics knows that Republicans stand for a few bedrock ideas. One is that the market knows better than politicians. (Republicans don't favor "using the government in Washington to pick winners and losers," Senator Lamar Alexander once told Wolf Blitzer.) Another is that bailouts and subsidies are a waste of money. ("[T]here is no guarantee that financial assistance from taxpayer dollars will prevent these companies from collapsing," said Lisa Murkowski, explaining her vote against loans to the auto industry.) So how does a push for expanded nuclear energy match up with such convictions? At the risk of oversimplifying, the short answer is "Not at all." And the long answer is "Um, not at all."

If there's any energy program that's more Big Government than nuclear power, it would have to involve the harvesting of millions of humans in pods for their body heat. (This was out-lined in The Matrix, but...