As a registered Independent, I have ample cause to loathe the constant partisan bickering that pervades discussion of so many issues in Congress that, substance-wise, have nothing to do with ideological differences. As a result, I am more than sympathetic to the cause of bipartisanship, the central tenet of the Partnership for a Secure America (PSA).

But it turns out that even ideas getting wide bipartisan support can be bad ideas. Case in point: energy independence.

I give PSA full credit for organizing today's Hill briefing on "A New Energy 'Manhattan Project.'" An organization dedicated to breakthrough bipartisan initiatives would be foolish to ignore the opportunity that energy policy presents. And the event was full of good ideas about how to structure incentives to help the energy market innovate.

But right from the get-go, as the impressive roster of speakers (including former Reagan Administration National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, former Senator Gary Hart and Represenatives Steve Israel and Roscoe Bartlett) decried the lack of political leadership on energy ("half-steps, missteps and backsteps," Rep. Israel was fond of saying) for the last 30 years, they presented the solution as energy independence. Mr. McFarlane used the phrase, "Here is what we need to do so that we won't need a drop of foreign oil in 20 years," several times.

This idea is a fiction, a throw-away line that amounts to political candy. This quickly becomes apparent upon entering actual discussion on the topic. Sure enough, the first questioner asked how we should deal with the countries that now supply the U.S. -- which uses one quarter of the world's energy -- once we have become "independent."

And sure enough, Mr. McFarlane and Senator Hart hastened to clarify that of course the U.S. cannot make itself totally independent from the global energy market. Rather, we need to be sufficiently independent of unstable supplies in the Middle East and elsewhere so that the U.S. maintains its economy in the event of a massive disruption of supply. As Senator Hart pointed out, we make that disruption far more likely by "financing our own destruction" -- he quoted intelligence estimates that 1% of the $300 billion the U.S. spends a year on oil from the Middle East ends up in hostile hands.

Indeed, added the speakers, our allies around the world hold many of the solutions. Rep. Bartlett noted that corn prices (and consequently, everything from eggs to beef) are rising, hurting rich and poor alike because the U.S. insists on home-grown, corn-based ethanol rather than importing Brazil's far more efficient sugar cane ethanol. Huge sugar processing plants in Africa could be selling us cheap ethanol too. And oil from around the world does not go away, even if the U.S. could provide enough energy to meet its needs. Oil will always be an option for companies and consumers so long as it is priced attractively (and it will be when significant alternatives force it to compete), no matter where it comes from. (See Citizens for Global Solutions' excellent primer on the subject, Energy 101.)

Important points, all. But it doesn't sound much like energy independence to me. My question to today's speakers: why dangle the meaningless promise of energy independence, only to retract it when pressed on the realities of energy policy? Rep. Israel said that the only bipartisan aspect to energy policy over the past 30 years is that everyone, from both parties, has screwed it up. Could it be that despite bipartisan consensus on energy independence, our failure of political leadership persists?