Fueling the vote

Fueling the vote
As fuel prices rise, voters are looking more closely at energy policy

Sept. 30, 2000

When George W. Bush picked Dick Cheney as his running mate, much was made of the pairing of "two Texas oilmen." The fact that Cheney had represented Wyoming in Congress was often glossed over, and when it was noted, it was with the caveat that Wyoming has been an energy state as well. Their ties to Big Oil were seen as a liability. The oil industry, dealing as it does in millions of barrels and billions of dollars, was not perceived as a good way to prepare for dealing with the concerns of ordinary Americans.

That was before gasoline prices soared. Baby boomers who can remember when a $5 bill was enough to fill a gas tank have watched in dismay as prices at the gas pump have outpaced their ability to pay them. Natural gas prices are rising as well, just as cold weather begins.

Unlike the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the Gross National Product, those costs aren’t abstract economic indicators. They have a real effect on voters’ lives. Suddenly negotiations with OPEC, traditionally considered "foreign policy," suddenly seems like an important domestic issue because it makes a difference in how we live.

Does this mean that Bush and Cheney, conversant in the language of petroleum, are suddenly more competent to run this country?

Not necessarily, but it does give Americans another marker to aid in their decision-making process. A week ago, Al Gore — still vice president and so still somewhat responsible for guiding the current administration — recommended that the president release some of the nation’s petroleum reserves, and Clinton did. Now Bush and Cheney can say that Gore and Clinton have cut into a fall-back supply that is essential for our national security. The voters can then decide which is a more immediate concern: paying the fuel bill, or hoping no other superpower declares war until oil supply and demand stabilizes. How many will vote their pocketbooks?

Those voters need to realize, though, that stability isn’t the same as affordability. Anyone who travels abroad quickly comes to understand that Americans have long enjoyed extremely low gasoline prices. Although we’ve occasionally made stabs at conservation, we seem to forget those lessons as soon as the supply increases and the price drops. There’s no reason to believe we’ll act differently this time.

Perhaps a more appropriate question is whether Bush and Cheney believe what’s good for the oil industry is good for the nation. There may be parallels, but they are hardly exact. While they’re gloating that the Democrats have mismanaged energy policy decisions, they need to remember that drivers who cannot afford to fill their gas tanks aren’t likely to identify with two men who profit from higher prices. That holds true even when they’ve officially placed their oil interests in trust, because the industry contributes to their campaign in a major way.

Bush has accused Gore of viewing American oil producers as adversaries. Do voters feel the same way? Probably not; they may believe domestic production is the only way out of this mess. Whether they blame the mess on the Clinton administration or the oil industry remains to be seen, but you can bet it will be a factor on Nov. 7.