It’s the end of October and autumn is in the air.  The leaves on the trees are turning colors, the Michigan sky has turned that familiar battleship gray, and, once again, the all too familiar quad-annual tradition of the presidential rat race is in full swing.  For months, we have had the pleasure of amusing ourselves over the folly that has unfolded as the respective candidates have whored themselves to the American populous regarding this topic or that.  Among the issues on the platform are the old favorites, such as education and welfare, as well as a few newcomers.  Of paramount interest among these, however, the recent spike in oil prices has the country worried about a potential crisis in energy production, and the major players in a fervor over what to do about it.

Midway through August, the union of Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC) unanimously elected to reduce oil production in an effort to inflate profits and strengthen their hand in the global economic power struggle.  Lamentably, there is nothing that anyone can do to curb the profound effects on the national, and world economy as virtually the entire civilized world is heavily reliant on this invaluable commodity.
According to the most recent estimates, the combined resources of this organization provide roughly 40% of the world’s crude oils, and, more importantly, control in excess of 75% of the world’s accessible oil reserves.  Their inherent market share gives them the capacity to profoundly influence the supply of oil around the globe.  As a result of OPEC’s tightened grip on the oil market, the price per barrel of crude has soared from less than $20 per barrel ten months ago to a going rate of well in excess of $30 a barrel.
Naturally, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that an increase in price of over 50% in this short period of time will inherently lead to an overall higher cost of living for the average American.  From heating the west wing of the villa, to gassing up the SUV, to building more petroleum based power plants to energize the eight appliances we all have plugged into each socket, America will eventually have to tighten its belt, but not today.  Why work for a better tomorrow when you can have fun now and bury your head in the sand at the end of the day, hoping that tomorrow never comes?  Instead of worrying about the impending permanent global shortage of petroleum, the general sentiment among Americans seems to be “what’s the guv’ment gonna do about making it cheaper to fill up the Excursion?”  This is where the presidential race comes into play.
History has proven innumerable times that people vote their pocket books.  If there’s food on the table and a job to go to every day, the president must be doing a good job.  While there is absolutely no foundation for such logic in reality, congruence with popular belief is what wins elections.  To that effect, the candidate who can promise the most bang for their buck is the one who is likely to win.  After all, as adherents of capitalism, Americans hold much greater allegiance to dead presidents than they do towards the living ones.
In terms of getting elected, the one who has the most to lose, as well as the most to gain from this whole ordeal is the champion of the DNC, Al Gore.  As the sitting veep, he represents the establishment, which still bears the brunt of the responsibility for the well being of the nation, regardless of cause.  Still, this is a double-edged sword.  Gore managed to take the lion’s share of the credit for the unparalleled economic prosperity which the country has seen while he was in office—an aftereffect of the so-called “dark era” of Reaganomics.  At the time, unemployment was at an all time low, the stock market was exploding as most of the indexes saw remarkable gains, and, of great concern, the price of gas was actually dropping after reaching record highs around the country.  Analysts attribute this apparent show of fiscal savvy, more than anything, to the incredible swing in momentum which he received shortly after the convention in Los Angeles.  On the flip side of the guilty by association clause of human nature, this second attack on the free flow of oil by OPEC in as many months sent shock waves cascading through every facet of our socioeconomic infrastructure.  In a single blow, they managed to constrict the lifeblood of American industry.  Now the once benevolent administration has become complacent, failing in its duties to protect the well being of the people.

In typical liberal fashion, the Gore team whipped out the old smoke and mirrors for another dog and pony show in a valiant effort to humor the populous.  As the Los Angeles Times reported in its October 1, 2000 edition in their article entitled “The Better Friend,” “Vice President Al Gore has pulled a rabbit out of the hat by getting President Clinton to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in hopes of dampening oil prices—a strategy that Gore himself opposed just a few months back.”  The quick fix is here.  Miracles will never cease.  It is just so amazing how Gore can have so much influence over Clinton such that he would be able to persuade him to make such an historic decision as dipping into the oil reserves.  This is especially so considering all Clinton has done in the last year has been to try to get his right hand man elected president.  In actuality, what the author really meant to say was that he managed to get President Clinton to withdraw oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in hopes of raising his poll ratings.   In a recent press conference, Gore justified this action claiming that the withdrawal is nothing more than a loan whereby the extracted petroleum will be returned, in full, by the end of next year.

Considering that the last time we have called upon the National Petroleum Reserve was in 1991 during the Gulf War, one has to question just how dire our situation is.  Since then, there have been dozens of attempts by OPEC to implement similar actions.  Each one of them, however, has failed as a result of undermining business tactics by one of their constituents seeking greater profit in cornering the market through volume exports at lower prices.  In actuality, this is no different, except that it happens to be in the middle of a presidential election.

Part two of Gore’s plan entails increasing oil production within the United States so as to reduce our reliance on foreign countries.  After all, OPEC can’t cut us off if we don’t buy anything from them.  This sounds great, of course, until one examines the feasibility of this plan.

When asked to comment on this ploy to curb rising oil costs, George W. Bush, a man who knows oil, pointed out that, given the huge volume of oil consumed in this country every day, the infusion given by the NPR would make an insignificant impact on the rising oil prices.  Likewise, the domestic oil producing facilities already in place are currently functioning at 95% efficiency.  Considering that this rate of production is quite difficult to sustain, improving upon it in a quantity that would appreciably affect the current demand would be next to impossible.  Furthermore, the cost of finding new deposits of petroleum in accessible locations and then erecting installations to harvest is far greater than the now inflated price of oil.  Instead, he presented a more aggressive approach to solving this problem.

 Bush boasts a much more cavalier attitude towards solving the issue of reduced production in the Middle East.  While he concedes that reduced supplies of oil will make heating and other such bill more expensive this winter, he does support the idea of subsidizing low-income families in the coming months so that they are able to cope with the change more easily.  Furthermore, he feels that it is the administration’s responsibility to remind our “friends in the Middle East” of who sent their troops there ten years ago to save them from the Iraqi oppressors.  He suggested that this ought to give Washington the diplomatic ammunition to call for higher output.  As for the future, Bush calls for a movement away from fossil fuels as an energy source, and promises to aid in the development of alternatives.

Ultimately, which strategy will be victorious?  It all depends on blind luck.  If the price of petroleum products declines over the next month, then Gore will point to all of his magnificent programs claiming that he has magically caused all of America’s problems to go away.  Paramount among these, of course, will be his brilliant suggestion to dip into the National Petroleum Reserves; a plan which he firmly opposed but a few short months prior and which single-handedly proves that strength of character is irrelevant to the voting public.  However, should Gore’s little scheme go awry, Bush would be hailed as the new leadership this country needs to rebuild its strength in foreign policy once again and to lead us into the future.  Indeed, the lesser of these two evils will be decided by the one who can more efficiently dodge this rather large and obtrusive bullet.