These struggles of ideas seem to me not only centered around a profoundly different Zeitgist that exists between generations, but also result from the tension between an idealized perception of government (“of, by and for the people”) and the realities of the modern military-industrial political economy (thus becoming “of, by and for the corporations and well funded special interests).

I also think that in the spirit of trying to be fair and learn from debate, we have done ourselves an enormous disservice by evolving into a two-party-only political system. We are thus eternally locked into polemics where the very framework of the debate is in voiding the opposite. By means of example, a white person (for the sake of most of these types of questions), is really a question of whether one is a “non-black”, or a “non-Hispanic” person (the reason, btw, I refuse ever to answer such questions, including being called out by a Harris County judge for failing to answer this question on a jury summons). The very nature of the dichotomy starts a circular feedback logic that is difficult to break free of. What I think we really need is some new dialogue entirely. Is it Obama? Possibly, though I wouldn’t hold my breath. He can’t change the very institutions he is beholden to, short of revolution. Is another civil war necessary before we truly reform our institutions to be more democratic? Are the Hummer and 5,000 sf house crowds going to really give up a little to make things work? I have my doubts . . .

So, it should come to no one’s surprise that a new generation of people concerned about profits AND responsibility, environment AND technology, etc, are routinely marginalized by a system of privileged, wealthy, power-elites whose purpose is to balance their constituents’ needs (again, corporations and well funded lobbying groups) against their more immediate selfish interest of being re-elected (term limits for Congress?). It is all-too-easy to see proof of one’s values in the trappings of material and political success, and to thus become aloof. In a similar vein, perhaps we should have a rule that before Congress can support the President in a foreign war, at least 10% of the Congress must have active duty immediate family in combat. Doesn’t anyone find it perplexing that the majority of the nation’s wars are fought by people who have no family members in Congress? Does that beg a question about representation – hello – Boston Tea Party?

Thusly, in this light, the debate on energy policy makes perfect sense. This is not a debate by scientists, entrepreneurs and civil society about well-informed, objective energy policy. It is, rather, a debate of voiding the opposite (“socialists vs. free marketers”), taking care of your constituents (Exxon Mobil, Chevron, etc), paying lip service to the future health of us all, and remaining nice and removed from it all (do you really think that anyone in Congress is THAT concerned about the price of oil except a few looking for a new cause?).

Like all human inventions and even nature itself, our society will survive or die by it’s willingness to learn, change and adapt. One thing never changes – that historical fact. Some days I think I see progress, many days I see a disaster that only massive disruption can address.

I can’t disagree with your last paragraph – and I wasn’t taking the position the Republicans have their crap together, only that there is more than one side to the story.

Should you wish to address the keeper at the inn, that would be me. I do agree with Jason’s keen understanding of economics (and most economists of any political persuasion about this issue) of course.

You are right in that I am attacking the economics of neo-conservatism in an irreverent reductio ad absurdum manner (and their politics in general), however.

Going back to economics: a major factor in the supply/demand equation of energy is finite refining capacity. Your mention of a weak dollar is an interesting one, as a major contributing factor for the dollar’s decline is squarely placed at the feet of the current administration’s fiscal policies and mounting trade and budget deficits. I was going to rant about all that too ad absurdum but didn’t want to get carried away (that will be a book at some point). My main point is that the Bushies make up the rules (as with everything) rather than adhering to the laws of nature and somehow think if they believe their own BS long enough it will come true. They speak of being strong-dollar proponents yet their economic policies are completely the opposite. Following sound economics, the fastest way to dropping oil prices would be to curb trade and budget deficits. But it will probably require someone that believes the earth is older than 4,000 years to have the sense to get 4 out of 2+2 in my estimation. The current administration is hopeless and it appears that McSame is following in his economic policy footsteps.

For instance, $4.00 gas (or $120/brl oil) is not merely an expression of demand, it is also an expression of a weak dollar against a dollar denominated commodity combined with inflationary concerns. As foreign economies lose confidence in the American dollar, they invest in oil as a hedge. As long as the dollar is weak, as long as China’s and India’s economies are growing and inflation is a serious concern, oil will be expensive. So, the price of oil and subsequently gas is not entirely coupled with demand in the US.

The intention of the gas holiday isn’t necessarily to mitigate decrease in demand, that was simply a counter point to your assertion that it would increase demand – “Causing consumers to increase their demand when gas is still cheap…” I assume you mean, relatively speaking – or put another way, less overly expensive than once the government taxes the commodity again.

But the purpose of your post wasn’t to discuss energy markets or economic concepts, it was to justify a political leaning and/or attack. Which is fine – this is your house – but it does not necessarily mean that those who hold a contrary position don’t know what they’re talking about.

If the price does fall due to the tax holiday, demand will not increase, rather quantity demanded will increase in response to the lower price. What COULD increase demand, however, is the expectation that come Labor Day, the tax will be reinstated… causing consumers do increase their demand while gas is still cheap over the summer.

I’m wondering what you mean by “we’re already seeing a decrease in demand”… Is it falling demand that has led to $4.00 gas? I doubt the intention of a gas tax holiday is to “mitigate any further decrease in demand”. If demand for gas were decreasing, politicians would not even consider susupending the gas tax, the price of gas would be falling on its own and our global warming problem would be well on its way to being solved!

Mo, your comments reflect a serious lack of understanding of the reality of the energy market and basic economic concepts… Anyone who argues for a suspension of the gas tax will find it utterly impossible to offer sound economic arguments, and must do so on purely political grounds.

The only sound justification of the gas tax was expressed by a representative from the McCain campaign on NPR’s OnPoint program the other day, when she stated that “60% of Americans favor a suspension of the gas tax”. Pure politics, bad economics…

I also find it hard to believe that even assuming the $0.18 is passed on to consumers the difference between $4.00 and $3.82 for gasoline would increase demand – since we’re already seeing a decrease in demand, the argument might have more veracity if it is phrased in terms of mitigating any further decrease in demand rather than making the argument that it would have the effect of increasing demand. That just seems specious.

You make a fine argument for your position, I just don’t happen to agree.

I completely agree that the high price of gas has the benefit of eventually changing behavior (though it certainly takes a while!). The problem is when the reactionary political “solution” is more of the same crap rather than approaching it with different thinking. I also agree the gas tax should increase. Nothing but politics and extortion keeps the oil guys in business. If our market was truly “free” and meritocratic, we would already have eliminated our foreign dependence in oil by now. We need serious government leadership to help all the promising alternative energy technologies reach their potential. And I’m not talking about cellulosic ethanol, either (another hare brained, inane idea).

Thanks for the comment!