The politics of $4 gas

By Dan Haley - The Denver Post
June 20, 2008

When it suddenly seems cheaper to fill your tank with Starbucks than gasoline, you know fuel prices have gotten out of hand.

But judging from the morning commute, most of us haven't changed our transportation patterns. Sure, we may let out a few sighs of exasperation while we're doing it, but we're still fueling up and driving to work solo.

How high do gas prices have to go before Americans really blow?

The threshold at which you begin to make lifestyle changes depends on your income level and on, well, whether or not you're a masochist. But it appears that $4 may be the threshold that begins to shift the prevailing political winds.

High gas prices could emerge as our newest wedge issue this year: Do you want cheaper gas or do you want to save the Earth?

Democrats for years have had the wind at their backs, literally and figuratively, when it came to high energy prices. Voters lapped up their message of weaning ourselves off of high-priced petrol in favor of renewable energy. We can stave off global climate change, they say, and become less dependent on foreign oil.

Sounds good. But does that sell when gas is suddenly $4 a gallon?

Republicans, who have been as popular lately as a pimple on prom night, are hopeful that soaring gas prices will make people more receptive to domestic drilling. They want to give the guy with gas pains at the pump a reason to vote Republican.

That's why President Bush flip- flopped last week on his longstanding opposition to off-shore drilling. If we drill here, he said, we can expand our domestic energy sources and lower prices.

Sounds good, too.

But here's where the politics of $4 gas come into play:

First, prices wouldn't drop overnight. Second, Bush also could have overturned an executive order banning off-shore drilling with a stroke of his pen. He still might, but by pushing Congress to overturn its ban first, it allowed him to claim that Democrats have "helped drive gas prices to record levels."

"If congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act," he said.

Fair enough. But he, too, should explain why $4 gas wasn't enough for him to overturn the presidential ban on drilling. (Oh, did I mention it was signed by his dad?)

Democrats have demagogued the issue, too, calling for taxes on oil company profits.

In Colorado, high energy prices could affect everything from Gov. Bill Ritter's proposed rules on energy development to his plan to end a severance-tax break for oil and gas companies in order to help pay for scholarships for college students.

If you're already paying $4 a gallon for gas, and experiencing higher costs to heat your home, do you really want to increase the costs of energy companies? It's something voters will have to consider.

In a story in last week's Post about the Senate race between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall, the GOP's strategy was best summed up by consultant Sean Tonner: "All those cars out there in the parking lot are not running on ethanol or solar energy," he said. "They're running on gas. . . . If Schaffer can push Udall into defending $4-a-gallon gas, I wouldn't want to be Udall out there saying it's for the polar bears."

High gas prices could change the dynamic of some political races, since we're all feeling pain at the pump. The candidate with the most palatable plan could win over voters. But it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. We can have cheaper gas and a cleaner world by conserving, investing in renewables and, yes, expanding domestic drilling.

But first, voters have to see through the politics of $4-a-gallon gas.