Gas Pains

Whatever the results of PNJ’s puffy "intelligence" poll, Senator John Adler ranks among the State’s smartest legislators. (Contrary to popular belief, the Legislature contains many men and women possessed of first-class intellects.) But, alas, politics often motivates extremely intelligent folks to take positions they know to be absolutely batty. Query whether succumbing to political expedience either serves the public or can be squared with intellectual honesty?

Consider poor Barack Obama. He was for gun control before he was against it. He opposed capital punishment until he realized that advocating for the rights of child rapists had very little political upside. He once threatened to filibuster a bill which provided immunity for telecoms which (gasp!) cooperated with the government to find terrorists, then meekly changed his mind. NAFTA, and trade in general, was evil and needed to be, at best, renegotiated; no, wait, it’s actually not such a bad thing after all. And, now, on his signature issue – the immediate and unequivocal turn-tail-and-run, retreat from Iraq, (he once said that genocide itself provided an insufficient rationale to put American soldiers in harms way) – he’s suddenly making adult noises. A "shift of nuance" as the media calls it.

All to the delightful consternation of the Moveon left. One leftist group even sent out a proposal to "embargo" campaign contributions to Obama to ensure that he stays "progressive".

Obama’s movement toward sanity constitutes little surprise; he needed the ultra-left vote to win the nomination, but toeing that line in a general election is s recipe for McGovern-style numbers, and Obama knows it. But his sudden change of mind (if not of heart) clearly demonstrates a certain lack of principle; essentially every statement he ever made, from pledging to participate in the public-financing of elections on, has proven subject to summary repudiation when the components of the electorate to which he feels obligated to appeal, change.

Make no mistake; Obama’s a brilliant man. He knows precisely what he’s doing. Put simply, he was either dishonest back when, or he’s fibbing now. There’s simply no way to reconcile his shifting positions. Not a single fact has changed, no new data has been presented; only the composition of the audience differs.

Of course, those not on the far-left fringe welcome his new positions as marked improvements, but the inevitable question arises: why did he suddenly convert? Only crass opportunism suffices as an explanation, which leads, inevitably, to the well-founded suspicion that he cannot be trusted to adhere to his newfound positions if elected and freed from the necessity of appealing to the electorate.

Politics will do that to ambitious, intelligent folks, who believe it necessary to hide their intelligence from the electorate when thoughtfulness produces an unpopular policy position.

Which brings us back to John Adler.

Consider the good Senator's recent press release on the subject of energy. His plan, he asserts, will lower gas prices while creating jobs and stimulating business. A cute trick, if one can pull it off. So, the plan is ...?

Spend oodles of tax dollars on wind, solar, and bio-fuels, while prosecuting oil companies for price gouging, increasing their taxes, etc.

In short, the typical, substance-free blather of the radical left.

Alas.

The Senator offers precisely one good proposal related to the price of gas: stop shipments to the strategic petroleum reserve. That might actually help drive gas prices lower. Indeed, go further: start selling off a few million barrels a day. Increase supply = lower prices.

One scans Senator Adler’s proposal in vain for any suggestion that the price of oil – or energy – actually depends upon the supply thereof. The self-appointed environmentalists love to point out that if we start drilling for oil in the US now, it won’t be on line for years. But virtually every one of Adler’s proposals – some of which make sense – are, at best, long term projects which will have precisely zero effect on the price of gas. Now or ever.

Oh, and you will not find the word "nuclear" in any of my esteeded colleague's proposed "solutions".

Let us be very clear: it’s disingenuous in the extreme for a Democrat to rail against high gas prices; Democrats LIKE high gas prices because they firmly believe that we should use less petroleum. Not because we get if from the Mideast, but because, like Al Gore, they regard the internal combustion engine as the greatest environmental crime ever committed. At best, like Obama, they wish the price had increased more slowly, to permit more gradual adjustments. Or risen as a result of a huge tax increase so as to provide government with more money to waste.

There is one, and only one, way to moderate gasoline prices in a world defined by increasing demand: increase supply. And that requires digging holes in the ground in places likely to make oil emerge therefrom, which Senator Adler – and just about every other Democrat – opposes.

It’s perfectly fair to oppose such drilling, provided one honestly addresses that subject. But contending that raising oil company taxes, or punishing "price gouging" (whatever that is) will have the slightest effect on prices exemplifies the Harry Potter theory of economics: wave one’s magic wand and things will change. It’s patently dishonest.

So dishonest that a man of Adler’s intelligence can’t possibly believe it.