The Democrats and Oil
One thing I find fascinating in (what passes for) our national political debate on energy is the near-complete lack of understanding of market economics. It's all voodoo conspiracies and mysterious cabals that are affecting the prices, not supply and demand!
Now, I expect this from a certain quarter. For example, on last night's evening news, there was a feature that seriously asked the question if Bush was "lowering the price of gas to do well come Election Day." The correspondent trotted out various and sundry characters who talked about how the price had gone down in the past few months. These same people reasoned Bush was trying to buy votes. The logical flip-side of that assertion - namely, that Bush had previously raised the prices in order to make himself unpopular - was not mentioned. But whatever. It's the MSM, I don't expect much.
Right after that 'news' piece, however, there was a political ad for Congressional candidate Peter Welch. This, sadly, was a more erudite piece of idiocy, but idiocy all the same. In the ad, a voice-over tells us that we can keep the Republicans in power if we want the same bad things to keep happening. In the background, we see a wide shot of gas prices at the pump. The implication is clear: high gas prices are this Administration's fault and we're going to change that! The ad then goes onto tell us that Welch will work to create a sensible alternate energy plan that relies on alternatives.
Now, pardon me, but if one is in favor of alternate energy, shouldn't one be elated as the price of gas goes ever higher? It means alternate forms of transportation and alternate fuels would be more attractive in comparison. Any energy plan that doesn't involve higher gas prices (through, say, an increase in the gasoline tax) simply isn't a serious plan. If you're striving to make gas cheaper, why do we need these alternatives? It's economic nonsense.
But this is the fundamental problem facing the Democrats on energy: they can't very well say "we support higher gasoline taxes" and get elected. But at the same time, they can't very well neglect the obvious need for energy alternatives and different strategies. So, like typical Democrats, they come across as vague, vacillating, and contradictory. Good luck in November, guys!
posted by Joshua @ 3:37 PM
2 Comments:
I haven't seen the ad, but I'll jump to it's defense anyway. The hig price of oil is just the face of a growing national discontent with oil as our primary fuel. Slowly but surely, Americans are realizing that we're running out of it, our children are dying for some of the last of it, it's poluting our sky and water, it puts us in bed with people who want to kill us, and we have no stategy in place to wean ourselves off of it. And yes, it costs too much, as well.
The gas tax is, at best, premature. Not only is it political suicide, but it will be almost entirely innefective as long as there's no readily available alternative. The best we'd see is a little fewer SUV's on the road, but even that would only amount to a drop in the bucket of change that we need. Plus, thanks to the political ramifications, it just about guarantees a repeal in the subsequent election cycle, along with a Republican majority congress that would block any of the other steps necessary towards energy independence. Thus, like typical Republicans, they'll remain fatuous, hypocritcal, and entirely beholden to corporate interests. Good luck in November as well.
P.S., I also think the allegation that Bush is intentionally lowering the pump price now to be silly, not only for the reasons you mentioned, but also because it assumes that this administration has a shred of competence.
@ Bookie: You make a good (but sad) point that any sort of gas tax would most likely become an easy irrational hook to hang a subsequent election on. However, I do not agree with your contention that such a tax would be premature. While we could (and in the future should) certainly use a gas tax to incentivize people to switch to alternative fuels once they are practical, there are even stronger reasons for using that same price incentive to change the economics of gasoline and encourage, in the short run, more efficient vehicles, and in the long run, more vigorous (read: private sector as well as public) research and developement into alternatives.
Post a Comment
<< Home