This diary is based on the premise that Obama wins the election this November, and that Democrats will continue to control the House and Senate as well. That's no gimme (particularly in Obama's case); but it's not a longshot either--and I don't think it's too early to think about protecting Democratic control over the levers of government, given the object lesson of the disastrous 1994 midterms that came after only two years of a similar situation under Bill Clinton.
There are recent projections that gasoline will be $7/gallon within two years--just in time for the 2010 midterms. If you think people are freaking out now (and they are), wait until it costs $125 to fill up their Accord or Camry. We will get wiped out in those midterms (and quite possibly in the '12 Obama reelection effort as well) if we let the GOP have this gift of an issue.
Why do I call it a "gift"? It appears as though Obama and congressional Dems are going to stick to their guns and refuse to go along with offshore drilling or drilling in ANWR. According to the latest polls, only 22% of the public now agrees with that categorical opposition. Expect that to drop to single digits by 2010 if the $7/gallon projections are anywhere near accurate.
Yes, Democrats are for ramping up investment into alternative energy sources, and I agree that this is crucial over the long term. But when they correctly point out that more domestic drilling won't pay off until years in the future, they overlook the fact that the same is true for alternative energy. In a $7/gallon scenario, voters won't have patience to wait for those investments to pay off. They'll be ready to clutch at any straw anyone offers them, and the GOP will be only too happy to offer that straw (and delight their friends in Big Oil at the same time) in the form of increased drilling.
There's a way to head off this nightmare scenario--but it's one that many on the left will be loath to consider, especially in the flush of electoral victory, feeling that the GOP brand has been irredeemably tainted. Ask progressives in Canada or the UK, whose right wing parties have recently staged comebacks after being deep in the political wilderness: you can never count the right out. We need to be eternally vigilant and avoid giving them the perfect wedge to pry their way back into power!
So here's what I propose: a form of triangulation. We say, okay: we'll drill offshore, we'll drill in ANWR, we'll go after the coal and nuclear hardcore. That part, I know, looks an awful lot like capitulation--and to a vanquished enemy, no less! But at the same time, we implement a massive, multipronged effort to do other things the GOP would never do or would give only token, lukewarm support to: invest massively in alternative energy of all kinds, and research on better batteries for plug-in hybrids; improve, broaden, and subsidise public transit; transition to more local food production; shift shipping from long-haul trucks to much more efficient trains and barges (already beginning to happen, and it can have a big impact); dramatically raise CAFE standards; heavily incentivise the tax system to reward conservation (there's so much that can be done with more efficient appliances and light bulbs, plus better construction of homes and businesses, without actually needing to swelter without AC or wear a sweater and shiver in the winter, the kinds of things voters have traditionally associated with conservation and have shrunk from).
I just think we need to show we're going for the full court press in every direction (even thinking outside the box and trying things like Craig Venter's "microbial soup"). This leaves the GOP with no way to level accusations, no straws to grasp at, while still accomplishing the massive research and development into alternative energy we all want. Later, when the alternative stuff becomes able to do the "heavy lifting" in the energy grid and people are no longer panicking, we can phase out the offshore drilling, coal power plants, etc.
Another, even more radical idea that I'm surprised no one seems to talk about would be to set up some kind of federal program of subsidised gasoline and diesel. Mexico (like Iran and several other countries) does this; but they do it so the price is cheap at the pump no matter who's buying or how much--meaning Americans, particularly truckers, drive across the border and take advantage of it. We could do it in a way where people with household incomes under, say, six figures a year could be eligible for "vouchers" that would work basically like EBT (the electronic cards that replaced the old "food stamps") or the "coupons" (actually electronic cards as well) you can get from the Dept. of Commerce to subsidise the purchase of digital TV converter boxes.
People could use the gasoline vouchers to buy their first five or ten gallons of gas a month at, say, $1.99 a gallon (if they buy more than that, they have to pay market rates). Or, alternately, they could use the cards as monthly passes to ride public transit. This would look like socialism to the GOP; but wouldn't it look like a godsend to your average Joe and Jane Sixpack? I don't see the downside to this at all. It still encourages conservation, perhaps even moreso because the marginal effect is so strong: after paying $20 for ten gallons of gas, it would cost $70 to buy another ten! Many people would still buy efficient vehicles, and plan trips to avoid having to go beyond that first ten gallons, but would not face financial ruin every time they put gas in their cars.
I strongly believe Democrats have to take one or both of the above approaches to avoid getting taken to the woodshed in '10. Either triangulate to the center, go hard left and subsidise gasoline, or a combination of the two. To go the third route, where on the one hand we are seen to block GOP attempts to drill for more oil but on the other hand we allow the price of gasoline to freely fluctuate (and mostly rise) with the vicissitudes of the global capitalistic energy market...that way lies dragons.