The Obama budget proposes to end funding for the Constellation Project, which aims to return American astronauts to the moon by 2020. The stated reason is that the project is behind schedule and over budget. (Former Apollo astronaut Walt Cunningham disputes that characterization, saying the program’s problems are the result of its being perennially underfunded.) Since the Space Shuttle is slated to stop flying next year, the Obama decision — unless Congress reverses it — means the United States will essentially be out of the manned space flight business. Oh, we’ll continue to recruit and train astronauts, but they will only be able to fly if they can hitch a ride aboard Russian or European (and, eventually, Chinese and Indian) spacecraft. How we would train astronauts to operate such differing systems (let alone resolve language issues) can be left to the imagination. In short, Americans in space will become a rarity after next year. Dreaming of becoming an astronaut, one of American childhood’s most common aspirations since the 1960’s, will increasingly be seen not as fanciful, but as fantastical.

And that’s wrong.

I know, I know. The Space Shuttle never fulfilled its expectations, the International Space Station is a boondoggle, libertarians say private launching companies can do the job better and cheaper than a government bureaucracy, etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, I’m not buying any of it. The ability to launch men and women into the hostile environment of outer space and return them safely to the earth is important evidence of a nation’s sense of its own prestige and technical self-confidence. (Not to mention military prowess.) That is why China is now launching men into orbit, and India soon will be. Even when the Russian economy appeared on the verge of collapse in the mid-1990s, the Kremlin seems never for a moment to have seriously considered shuttering its space program. In addition to the prestige factor any nation that can launch men into orbit is a nation to be reckoned with; they knew that such a capability, once surrendered, is one not easily or cheaply resurrected.

And quite frankly, I think that’s why Barack Obama wants the U.S. out of space.

The U.S. manned space program has always been propelled by a hefty dose of American patriotism. A visit to the Johnson Space Center in Houston underlines this fact. The place is festooned with American flags. A photo that is displayed in many places around the complex shows the mission control team deliriously waving American flags at the moment Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface. Also, on the roof of the building that houses mission control sits a flagpole. The flag is raised only when an American is in space.

Offhand, it’s hard to think of a government program less calculated to stir the blood of Barack Obama. (OK, maybe the Pentagon.) He has never, to the best of my knowledge, shared where he was or what he felt at the moment of the moon landing in 1969. If he was back living with his crypto-Communist grandparents in Hawaii by then, it’s safe to say he wasn’t hearing much that was positive about it.

So what does NASA do now? Worry about global warming and “reach out” to the Muslim world. (Whatever that means.) A cynic might say that Barack Obama was trying to humiliate an agency that for five decades has stood for American pride and technical leadership.

But he wouldn’t do that.

Would he?

When Barack Obama began trying to “engage” Iran last year, he explicitly cited Nixon’s policy as a precedent on several occasions. That got me curious, so I decided to read Margaret Macmillan’s Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World. It’s worth reading for a closer look at why Nixon’s policy succeeded, and most attempts at imitating it don’t. (I must admit I had another motive for reading it. I knew I was going to be sitting across the table from Henry Kissinger at a dinner last fall and I wanted more background. I asked him what he thought of the book. He replied, “It is about 70 percent accurate,” which, for a non-fiction book about recent events, is pretty solid.)

The most critical reason for the success of Nixon’s policy is the simple fact that he was pushing against an open door. His motives for warming relations with China were obvious. He was seeking to exploit the Sino-Soviet rift. (The Russians and Chinese had fought a short but sharp border war in 1969.) He also hoped that it would help extricate the United States from the Vietnam War.

China’s motives are less well known, but were absolutely crucial to making the process work. Not only were they concerned about the Russians too, but the chaos of the ongoing Cultural Revolution had left China dangerously isolated in world politics. There were daily demonstrations against foreign embassies in Beijing, and those of the “fraternal socialist allies” were not exempt. At home, the Chinese foreign service was an exceptional target for the Red Guards. When China unexpectedly won her 22-year campaign to be admitted to the United Nations in 1971, Beijing had to hastily transfer China’s ambassador to Canada to New York because so many other senior diplomats were languishing in re-education camps. English-speaking Chinese were so terrified of being found out and denounced as spies that the government had a very hard time locating enough interpreters to service the large delegation of U.S. diplomats and journalists who descended on China in February 1972. (Kissinger made the wry observation about his own Brooklyn-born Chinese interpreter that “She is eligible to serve as president and I am not.”)

Even so, working out the details consumed more than three years of delicate, secret negotiations before the visit actually took place. And even though Henry K. has often been quoted as saying that one “doesn’t go to a summit without the final communiqué in your pocket,” he spent most of his time in China negotiating with Zhou Enlai on the final Shanghai Communique. In spite of all the commonalities at work, it was, in the end, a close-run thing.

One need not be a geopolitician to see that almost none of the same conditions apply with regard to Iran. Iran is facing no external threat comparable to the one China faced from the Soviet Union. (Indeed, Iran is far more threatening to its neighbors than the other way around.) As a result, Iran’s diplomatic isolation is not as consequential as China’s was 40 years ago. Nor is Iran’s internal turmoil comparable to the Cultural Revolution. The U.S. had no sympathy for the Red Guards and what they represented. The Iranian opposition is potentially a very different matter, though Obama has so far refused to give them the time of day. Iran can also sell its oil on the world market, the only export it really cares about. It’s hard to see what the United States can offer that is of any real value to the Islamic regime.

Then there’s the issue of how successful was Nixon’s visit. The Soviet Union is no more, of course. In 1972, China was a backward, third world country. Now, it is a powerful economic competitor that looks to be transforming itself into a rival. Maybe Nixon should have stayed home.

The administration says it plans to raise over $36 billion in new revenues by eliminating what it calls “subsidies” for domestic oil and gas production. The stated reason: “Oil and gas subsidies are costly to the American taxpayer and do little to incentivize production or reduce energy prices.”

The invaluable Robert Bradley Jr. at the Institute for Energy Research in Houston has the best take on the incredible contradiction that lies at the heart of that statement:

Both of these points flatly contradict the whole philosophy behind the White House’s favored cap-and-trade scheme, which is expressly designed to (a) raise the price of fossil-based energy and (b) reduce the incentives to use such energy sources. The White House can’t have it both ways: Do they want higher energy prices (cap-and-trade) or don’t they? And do they think government policies influence energy production, or don’t they? If they claim tax hikes on the oil and gas industries won’t have any incentive effects on production or jobs, then how can they claim that “green investments” will create jobs in the solar and wind industries?

The whole point of cap-and-trade, after all, is to drive oil and gas prices north, so we use less. Energy Secretary Steven Chu is on record as supporting driving gasoline prices to European levels. Obama himself said duing the 2008 campaign that his main problem with the dramatic run-up in energy prices that year was related more to pace than to general direction. Now, all of a sudden, they’re worried about increased energy costs?

And “subsidies?” Pardon me while I clean the coffee that spurted from my nostrils onto the computer screen when I read that one. Allowing companies to expense their major investments – oil drilling platforms, etc. – over a period of a year just makes good sense. Energy companies pay plenty of taxes at all levels of government, and whatever “subsidies” they might receive to provide the American people with reasonably priced energy pale in comparison to what has been handed to the banks or the automobile companies.

These are tax increases on domestic oil and gas exploration and production, plain and simple. If they were to pass, the energy companies would simply move their exploration activities overseas. (Maybe to sunny Libya?)

In all likelihood, of course, these tax increases will not be imposed. Congress has repeatedly blocked such efforts in the past. Nevertheless, a number of months ago, I predicted that the likely result of the Obama so-called energy policy would be increased oil imports from overseas, as domestic production falls further and wind and solar prove a bust. I see no reason to change that projection.

And the congressional GOP is no doubt pinching itself and asking: What did we do to deserve such luck?

Seriously, Mitch McConnell’s worst nightmare had to be that a contrite and humbled president would mount the rostrum, admit he had misread his mandate and offer some big, public concession to the opposition, e.g., offering to work seriously on tort reform as the price of healthcare reform. Instead, the Republicans got a peeved, arrogant, self-righteous president determined to go double or nothing on what is plainly a failing strategy. Now, instead of being forced to decide whether or not to throw the president a life preserver, they can throw him an anchor – and the public will applaud them for it!

This is the polar opposite of the approach Bill Clinton followed once he fired the Carville/Begala left-wing populist team and brought in Dick Morris. Once he got the hang of triangulation, Clinton drove the GOP nuts. (And this was pre-Monica.) He snatched up their best issues (welfare reform, balanced budget, crime control) and adapted them for himself. With the bull market roaring ahead, no one was inclined to listen to Republican complaints.

So why doesn’t Obama copy him? My theory: he doesn’t think such a political life is worth living.

I think that’s what he was getting at in the Diane Sawyer interview about preferring to be a successful one-term president rather than ”a mediocre two-term president.” While Obama did not use any names, I’m guessing the mediocre two-term president he had in mind was Bill Clinton. After all, much as he enraged the political Right, Clinton was no favorite of the liberal Left. His moderately conservative policies on many issues and corporate friendly attitude enraged many liberals, who viewed him as a sellout. Many of them were so angry they actually backed Ralph Nader for president in 2000, a decision that cost Al Gore the presidency.

I suspect one of those angry liberals was Barack Obama. His definition of a “successful” presidency is likely not merely presiding over a period of peace and prosperity, followed by an endless round of Davos-style conferences and well-paid speaking engagements in shady Middle Eastern locales. No, he’s a believer, and he sees his administration as a once in a half-century opportunity to remake the United States in the image of Olaf Palme’s Sweden. He was motivated to bag community organizing and get into politics, after all, by his desire to rid America of “Ronald Reagan and his minions.” This is his chance, as he sees it, and he is not walking away from it.

It’s an admirable stance, in a funny sort of way. Better to fail while daring greatly and all that. It remains to be seen, however, if his party is willing to take the dare with him.

This is not a partisan point. I have always thought Bill Clinton an underrated speaker. His great strength is his ability to distill a complex point to its essence so that the everyday people can see their stake in it. That allowed him to reach out to people who were not true believers and persuade them over to his side. And that, of course, is the essence of presidential speechmaking. In his first term, President George W. Bush was a very effective speaker. In his second term, however, he devalued the coin by saying things that simply weren’t to be taken seriously, e.g., Harriet Myers was qualified to be a Supreme Court justice, things were getting better in Iraq, etc. Eventually, people just tuned him out.

Obama seems to be edging dangerously close to the same territory after only a year. It’s not hard to see why. His oft-repeated promise that “If you like your health care plan and you like your doctor, you can keep them,” has fallen by the wayside. So has the alleged moral imperative of covering the uninsured, as both the House and Senate plans would leave millions without insurance. And let’s not even mention closing Guantanamo. All of this and more besides has combined to debase the value of Obama’s words. (His “gift,” as he modestly described it to Harry Reid.)

And now, ever so gently, the Beltway chattering class is allowing itself to ask a previously unutterable question: “Is Obama REALLY that good a speaker?”

The Washington Post was first into the field on Jan. 17, with a column finally taking note of something the rest of us had identified nearly a year earlier: Obama’s favorite phrase, “Let me be clear.” The Washington Post even allowed that said phrase often preceded points that were anything but clear. Perhaps in coming months we can look forward to articles calling attention to such phrases as “I have enough on my plate” (invariably delivered before announcing a new nationalization or takeover); “This is a false choice” (issued when he wants to evade the essence of the subject under discussion); “This is not about me” (when it invariably is); and so on.

OK, every president overuses certain words and phrases. What ought to be of more concern to the Obama speechwriting team is an AP article headlined “Capital Culture: Critics Assess Obama’s Speeches.”

The killer quote is right near the top, coming from no less than the dean of presidential speechwriting (and Obama supporter) Ted Sorensen.

‘He is still a very eloquent, articulate speaker,’ Sorensen says. ‘He is clearly well informed on all matters of public policy, sometimes, frankly, a little too well informed. And as a result, some of the speeches are too complicated for typical citizens and very clear to university faculties and big newspaper editorial boards.’

Ouch. The rest of the article goes on to point out that Obama’s speeches are neither very memorable nor, on the basis of the record, very persuasive.

If you are President Obama (or his speechwriters), this is not a discussion you want to see happening. If your man has a “gift,” the last thing you want to hear is that the gift is no longer giving. Can the slide be reversed? Yes. A little humble pie in this week’s State of the Union could go a long way. Does he have it in him? Maybe, but on the basis of what we have seen so far, I’m not betting on it.

And it largely worked, for a long time. When Republicans were able to finally “nationalize” House races in 1994 and 2002, they won big. The Democrats were able to turn the trick themselves in 2006 and 2008, but with the help of an increasingly unpopular GOP administration that appeared generally incompetent and losing a war.

Now the wheel has turned again – and with astonishing speed. I lived in Massachusetts for two years around 20 years ago and, believe me, Massachusetts voters have taken more than their share of abuse since that time from a Democratic machine that has grown ever more bloated and ever more entitled. But Scott Brown’s landslide victory was clearly achieved by nationalizing the race around the most unexpected issue of all: healthcare. His campaign seems to have really taken off with the Christmas Eve vote in the Senate, enabled by the Cornhusker Kickback (which has grown so unpopular that Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson now, pathetically, wants to give it back.) The attempted terrorist bombing over Detroit the next day also didn’t help Coakley, who then, bizarrely, claimed there were no terrorists in Afghanistan.

But it was healthcare that did the trick. (Don’t believe it? President Obama didn’t even mention the subject during his Sunday speech in Boston.) Much as it pains me to agree with Barney Frank, he is almost certainly correct: Brown’s victory means the end of healthcare reform as we know it. Already, it appears Evan Bayh of Indiana and Jim Webb of Virginia are signaling they will not go along with any parliamentary shenanigans to jam the bill through. There will likely be more such declarations in the days to come.

What Obama did do was attack Scott Brown’s truck something like a dozen times in his speech on Sunday. I just saw a clip on Fox of John Kerry attacking the truck, too.

Truly, you can’t buy political tone deafness like that. The attacks on Scott Brown’s emblematic truck played into every elitist liberal stereotype there is. Roughly half the vehicles on America’s roads are trucks. (Put there, it should be noted, by liberal CAFE standards that made cars smaller and smaller.) And the people who drive them vote. Who on earth dreamed up this line of attack?

A word has to be said about the tea party activists and the incredible political maturity they displayed in this race. As David Frum has written, Sen. Scott Brown is likely to disappoint many of his more conservative supporters. I suspect many of them knew that going in, however, and supported him anyway as the only person who was likely to get elected in Massachusetts. Based on these results, those who think the tea party movement will split the GOP are likely to be disappointed.

So as Scott Brown heads for Washington, all I can say is: Keep on truckin’.

When George W. Bush became president, he famously enjoined his staff against playing “small ball.” He wanted them to think big, an attitude that arguably led to some of the administration’s biggest mistakes. Well, who knew that W. and Larry Summers, Bill Clinton’s last Treasury secretary, were kindred spirits? Summers arrived at Harvard in 2001 with an expansive vision, and he told the faculty not to think small. “Its ambitions were limited only by its imagination, he said,” according to the story. “Harvard could always come up with more money from its ‘deeply loyal friends.’’’

To these ends, he proposed growing the Arts and Sciences faculty – ironically, the group that eventually heaved him from office – by 25 percent. He also moved to massively expand the university’s physical plant  – mostly building new science labs - by increasing infrastructure spending from $150 million in 2000 to $644 million by 2009. (I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, and believe me, a world-class science lab is just about the most capital-intensive investment there is.)

True, Harvard was famously sitting atop the richest university endowment in America. But some members of the Harvard faculty itself were warning that the spending spree could come to no good end. Interest payments on all the new buildings alone were staggering, not to mention top-of-the-line salaries and benefits for all those new faculty members.  Under pressure to keep the music going, the university’s investment advisers resorted to ever more exotic and risky investments to maintain high returns. Even without the financial crisis, the situation would have been perilous. The latter brought it crashing down. As the authors of the piece themselves note, if Harvard were a private corporation, heads would long since have rolled and root and branch reform instituted.

Out of control spending. People can always be found to bail us out. Accounting tricks. For some reason, I’m feeling ill…

Those of us involved in the energy biz have known for years that the need for water is one of the many stumbling blocks to large-scale solar power development. Those solar arrays in the desert need water to wash the panels, and that’s nothing compared to the water demand presented by solar trough technology. Now everybody else is finding out about it too. It’s not easy being green, as the song goes, and we are only beginning to discover just how hard it is.

On the other end of the energy spectrum is the discovery that there remains plenty of oil to be found out there. BP’s giant Tiber field might not be another Cantarell (the field that put Mexico on the oil map in the 1970s), but then again, it might be. In the last decade, technology has taken off, allowing fields that were supposed to be played out long ago (Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, for example) to keep on giving. So when are we going to lift that bizarre ban on exploration off Florida and California and really start producing oil and gas in the US again?

Ever since oil hit $147 a barrel last summer, analysts predicting “peak oil” – the point at which oil production begins sliding inexorably – have had a field day. Perhaps it’s true, but the earth doesn’t seem to want to cooperate, at least not yet.