The latest target of the Republicans is the price of gas at the pump, and more generally the price of oil. Certainly, the prism you use colors your views, as Erick Erickson presents:
If President Biden committed to tapping our oil reserves and expanding domestic energy production, oil markets would respond rapidly, just as they did in 2008.
Instead, even now, his administration dogmatically demands Americans switch to electric vehicles and get off fossil fuels. His administration continually, daily signals that they will put the fossil fuel industry out of business. They thereby disincentivize investments in oil and gas, driving up costs on the American people.
Decline is a choice and it is one Joe Biden’s Administration is making on the backs of the American middle class. Their Marie Antoinette moment of “let them have EVs” is going to provoke a backlash.
They can blame Vladimir Putin all they want. Banning imports of Russian oil was the right thing to do — but it should responsibly be done by expanding American energy production, not relying on Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
But it’s hard to take Erickson’s points seriously. He’s complained elsewhere about the Keystone XL pipeline cancellation, but Professor Richardson notes that the Pipeline, a spur on the current Keystone Pipeline meant to lessen travel time, would not compensate for Russian oil. Erickson also ignores the distortions of the market caused by subsidies, which will skew all market responses as pricing moves from up-front to taxation, today and tomorrow. His attempts to ridicule Democrats who are saying more drilling and refining would not lower prices ignores the fact that this is not a standard economic situation of supply and demand, but rather a war situation in which analysis is far more nuanced and difficult – and pricing reflects it. I’m left thinking he doesn’t really have a grip on how this works at all – and I’m saying that as nothing more than an ignorant amateur who happens to have a lot of experience at analysis of complex situations.
Steve Benen sees a half-full glass:
Americans have expressed support in recent weeks for a ban on Russian oil imports, but are consumers prepared to accept the consequences of such a policy by paying more at the pump?
A few recent surveys suggest the answer is yes. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday:
A wide majority of Americans, 79%, said they favored a ban on Russian oil imports even if the prohibition increased energy prices in the U.S., according to data from a new Wall Street Journal poll. Just 13% said they opposed it…. The Journal poll surveyed 529 registered voters from March 4-7 on this question: “Would you favor or oppose the U.S. imposing new sanctions on Russia by banning the sale of Russian oil to the U.S., even if you knew it would cause U.S. energy prices to increase?”
On many of the nation’s most contentious issues, there’s a sizable gap based on party affiliation, with Democratic and Republican voters disagreeing in large numbers. But these survey results from the Wall Street Journal suggest the issue is less divisive: 88 percent of Democrats support the moratorium on Russian oil imports, and 77 percent of Republicans agree.
Even 72 percent of voters who would vote for Donald Trump in 2024 are on board with the policy.
Right now, he sees this as a positive, of a citizenry rallying to the Ukrainian cause. How long will the ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) hold it together?
I think, at the moment, Erickson’s behind Benen. Rather than note and appeal to American pride in ingenuity, he instead is solidly in the status quo camp, which forces him into the attitude that his audience, that all Americans, are snowflakes who’ll wilt when oil prices go up. And he can’t stand the thought that the “baby-killing” liberals are urgently pointing the way to a solution.
And that’s really a rather repulsive take in a stressful situation. He looks more like a paid oil industry lobbyist than an honest pundit.
