WASHINGTON — Readers of this column will recall that from
time to
time in
covering an election cycle I have referred to a voting bloc that
political analysts of more delicate sensibilities would rather not
mention, to wit, the moron vote. It is a constituency composed of
politically ignorant citizens who nonetheless feel very intensely
about political issues once their respective demagogues have
notified them of the issues, suitably transmogrified. The moron
vote’s rank and file might, in point of fact, not be morons at all.
Some might be marine biologists or interior decorators or
professors of romance languages, and in their chosen field they
might be very knowledgeable. Yet when it comes to politics they are
in the dark. They are very angry but still in the dark.
We can all feel superior to these poor souls, if we are bereft
of charity, but we might also feel a twinge of compassion for them.
After all, they are not totally to blame for their ignorance. Most
have been misled by their political messiahs, or should I say by
their seducers? The fact is that in many elections clever
politicians shamelessly prey on their supporters’ insecurities and
the gaps in their political knowledge.
As Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has demonstrated in her last
gasp effort to wrest the Democratic nomination from Senator Barack
H. Obama, the moron vote can be very important. Once she is out of
the race and seething back in Chappaqua (where life for Boy Clinton
is going to be dreadful), the moron vote will continue to be very
influential. As the race has gone thus far, almost no politician
has made an effort to inform the electorate, and on four key issues
the Democrats have only exploited the ignorance of the voters. On
one issue even the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has
been of no help in educating voters.
First, consider the Democrats’ cruel exploitation of their
supporters’ hopes and fears regarding rising gasoline prices. Both
Clinton and Obama have talked as though those prices can be
lowered. Clinton specifically talks of lowering federal gas taxes
during the summer. That will do it, but only for the summer. The
problem is that oil demand worldwide has exceeded supply. As
legendary oilman Boone Pickens has been warning for several years,
the world can produce about 85 million barrels of oil a day and
demand — thanks to growing prosperity in developing nations — now
exceeds that production level. Even if somehow the world could
produce more than 85 million barrels daily, we do not have refinery
capacity to turn the oil into gasoline. Environmentalists oppose
increasing refinery capacity. Doing so will take years. America
needs to develop alternative energy sources, and market pressure
will ensure this development more effectively than demagoguery.
Likewise the candidates are deceiving their supporters when they
promise to make the country “independent of foreign oil.” We shall
not be independent of foreign oil for years to come, whatever
progress we make with alternative sources of energy. Drilling into
known oil reservoirs in this country and developing nuclear, solar,
and wind power will relieve our dependence on foreign oil, but 62
percent of our oil consumption is from foreign oil. Oil production
here peaked in 1970, and what domestic oil is left will not
markedly relieve our need for foreign oil for years. Again
alternative sources of energy are needed.
Or consider the Democrats’ promise to pay for their new or
expanded programs by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Though neither the Obama nor the Clinton campaign is forthcoming
with the costs of its promises, the National Taxpayers’ Union
estimates that the Obama platform will increase federal spending by
$307.3 billion. The Clinton platform’s price tag is $226.1 billion.
No rollback of the Bush tax cuts would cover that kind of wanton
spending increase. Amazed by the dishonesty of the presidential
candidates, the Washington Post’s economics columnist
lamented this week that “[t]he candidates dissemble because they
believe that Americans don’t want the truth. It would be too
upsetting.”
That brings us to the candidates’ empty boasts on global
warming. Here all three remaining presidential candidates dwell in
error. They promise to moderate global warming by reducing carbon
emissions, but it is not clear how culpable carbon emissions are
for global warming. In an enlightening new book on climate change,
An Appeal to Reason, Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of
the Exchequer and British secretary of energy, explains that for
the past seven years there has been no global warming.
Over the last quarter of the 20th century there was a modest
increase in the earth’s temperature of a half degree centigrade;
but in the three decades prior to that the earth was cooling.
Moreover, though carbon emissions have continued to increase
through our years of cooling, warming, and now temperature
stability, the consequences of carbon emissions remain unclear.
Worse, Lawson argues, there are no foolproof ways to limit carbon
in the atmosphere.
There you have it: four public issues on which the presidential
candidates spread only hot air. At least McCain is only wrong on
one.
