No Thanks, We'll Walk

20 April, 2004

Liberals are outraged over the implication in Bob Woodward's new book that George W. Bush arranged for Saudi Arabia to increase oil supplies just before the election, to provide cheaper gas and a better economy to voters. Woodward now disclaims that interpretation, saying (I think) that while the likely outcome of such a supply boost may be to help Bush at the voting booth, that was not the motivation for the deal.

This ought to be a good issue for Democrats. It fits in well with the "corrupt oilman" image that we've tried to construct for Bush. It looks like pandering of the worst sort (cheap gas so we can afford to drive to the store for bread and to the circus). And it links up with the bipartisan criticism of the Saudis for their anti-democratic rule and ties to terrorism and fundamentalist Islam.

Unfortunately, the response has been too narrow. The reason the cheap gas pander would be expected to work is that Americans feel entitled to cheap gas. The Democrats have signed on to this idea as well. They want a president who can cut deals with the Saudis on oil production. Their only complaint is that he hadn't done it sooner. Consider this excerpt from a letter by Congressmen Waxman and Markey:

Mr. President, we request that you fully explain the understanding that you or your Administration reached with the Saudis to boost oil production and disclose any promises that have been made to the Saudis on behalf of the U.S. Additionally, we request that you explain what steps you are taking today to address excessive gasoline prices, and why your Administration has not pressed the Saudis to increase their production prior to this year's driving season.

Perhaps bowing to the SUV gods is a pragmatic necessity in an election year. America was built on the promise of cheap gas, and so we depend on it. Our cities and neighborhoods, as well as our regional organization of the economy, were constructed under the assumption that we'd have all the oil we needed. That kind of physical and social infrastructure won't change overnight, and won't change without pain (especially to the least advantaged Americans). But it's necessary.

Breaking our addiction to gas isn't just good for the environment and good for national security. The specter of the Saudis juicing our economy just before an election is a warning that our addiction to gas puts us at risk of manipulation by corrupt politicians. The early history of oil drilling (such as the original Pennsylvania and Texas booms) taught us that decentralized production of a resource like oil is a recipe for disaster. But centralizing production through mechanisms like OPEC is a recipe for manipulation. If a future president tries to drive us to his inauguration with cheap gas, Americans need to be free to say "no thanks, we'll walk."

Stentor Danielson