Progressive World Review

Republicans are often credited with their ability to stay on message.  Their capacity for presenting a united front is unmatched by the Democratic Party.  This is hardly surprising though when you consider the fact that when unconstrained by reason or reality the only requirement for agreement is loyalty to the party, something Republicans possess in abundance.  This is no better exemplified than in a recent Charles Krauthammer column, “Pelosi: Save the Planet, Let Someone Else Drill.”  Krauthammer repeats several recent Republican talking points despite the fact that they’ve all been thoroughly discredited.  To start with, Krauthammer points out the decline in domestic oil production as if it’s a Democratic plot, without actually attributing its cause,

Consider: 25 years ago, nearly 60 percent of U.S. petroleum was produced domestically. Today it’s 25 percent. From its peak in 1970, U.S. production has declined a staggering 47 percent.

The innuendo of course is that moratorium against offshore drilling as well as drilling in other protected habitats such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) region of Alaska is the cause.  The reality however is that peak oil production in the United States-the tipping point where it is no longer possible to increase the annual amount of oil produced–was accurately predicted in the mid fifties by oil analyst M. King Hubbert, hardly a leftist, tree-hugging activist.  Hubbert’s model continues to be used today to predict the peak and decline of limited resource commodities like oil.

The next debunked talking point concerns the safety of modern offshore drilling.  Several people from the right, including John McCain, have made the wildly inaccurate statement that hurricane Katrina caused no oil spills, a point Krauthammer faithfully repeats,

Compare the Niger Delta to the Gulf of Mexico, where deep-sea U.S. oil rigs withstood Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without a single undersea well suffering a significant spill.

The reality is that Katrina caused extensive damage resulting in millions of gallons of spilled oil.  The oil slicks were so large they could be seen from space.  This myth has been widely repeated and thoroughly repudiated but as previously mentioned, it’s easy to repeat lies when one has little use for the truth.

Finally, Krauthammer accuses Democrats of NIMBYism (not in my backyard), by claiming calls for OPEC to increase oil production amounted to the same thing as drilling in the protected areas of the U.S.,

Democrats want no oil from the American OCS or ANWR. But of course they do want more oil. From OPEC. From where Americans don’t vote. From places Democratic legislators can’t see. On May 13 Sen. Chuck Schumer — deeply committed to saving just those pieces of the planet that might have huge reserves of American oil — demanded that the Saudis increase production by a million barrels a day. It doesn’t occur to him that by eschewing the slightest disturbance of the mating habits of the Arctic caribou, he is calling for the further exploitation of the pristine deserts of Arabia. In the name of the planet, mind you.

The flaws in this reasoning are several.  Comparing the increase in production from already producing oil fields to drilling in a pristine wilderness is disingenuous to the extreme, as is comparing that to offshore drilling where a relatively minor accident can cause devastating results as we’ve already witnessed.  Additionally, while it’s no longer clear that OPEC has the ability to increase their production to the levels we would desire, whatever increase in output that could be achieved could happen relatively soon, as opposed to the seven years or longer it would take to ramp up new production nationally.

But the most dishonest part of this argument is in the suggestion that increasing foreign oil imports represents the core of the Democratic plan to supply America with the energy we require.  In fact, Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama’s energy plan combines several factors from alternative energy sources to conservation.  Obama’s suggestion that every American check and adjust the tire pressure of their vehicles produced ridicule from John McCain, that is until he was forced to admit Obama’s proposal made sense,

“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it,” McCain said.

It’s been estimated that drilling in the protected areas might reduce the price of gas by six cents a gallon-a decade from now-while if every American car and truck had their tires inflated to the proper pressure, it would lower the price of gas by twice as much-right now-and without releasing additional greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that increased oil production, from anywhere, would.

Krauthammer’s OPEC argument is not one that I’ve heard from other Republicans, yet, but no doubt it will be if it gains popularity, regardless of how misleading it is.

A Republican talking point not mentioned in Krauthammer’s article but commonly forwarded by other conservatives is the absurd notion that the recent drop in gas prices is due to Bush’s proposal to end the moratorium on drilling.  Nothing could be more ridiculous.  Even if the ban on drilling had actually ended, rather than just proposed, it would have absolutely no effect on present gas prices.  Gas futures are traded based on trends over weeks and months, not years.  The drop in prices have to due with the fact that the sky high price of gas has forced Americans to drive less, consuming approximately two percent less fuel in recent months.  And the fact that such a small reduction could have such a significant effect is a testament to the role speculation plays on the price of fuel, speculation that due to deregulation, is done mostly in the dark.

This has been a short list of dishonest and misleading Republican talking points.  There have been countless more in the past and no doubt they will continue, all with one thing in common, their basis in fact will always be less important than their ability to prey on the fears and uncertainties of voters in order to garner support for whatever the Republican agenda happens to be.

–Paul Wilden

Digg buttons brought to you by diggZ-ET (WordPress Plugin)

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.