Brooks's column today is about energy. Al Gore's loss of the Presidency in 2000 apparently convinced energy interests, who for the first time included both the President and Vice President of the United States, to strike while the iron was hot. Some day, if serious history survives long enough, some one will piece together the story of what Dick Cheney's energy task force actually did. It evidently decided on a long term push to develop sources of energy in North America, including both oil and natural gas the latter to be extracted through the new technique of "fracking." In 2003 the Republicans slipped an exemption from EPA regulation for fracking into a law--something I know only thanks to the HBO documentary Gasland. The price of energy has doubled since then, fueling the domestic boom, which has made two states--Oklahoma and North Dakota--islands of prosperity in our depressed economy. One of the best questions in the debate the other night related to Secretary Chiu's statement that it wasn't his job to reduce the price of energy. Both the President and Mitt Romney dodged it completely.
Brooks's column today takes note of our increasing reliance on fossil fuels, but treats it simply as a joke on environmentalists in general and Al Gore in particular. He makes it sound as if the whole shift away from green solutions, which he even claims to favor personally himself, is nothing but another triumph of the free market. He doesn't even mention the environmental consequences of fracking, which in some cases are turning out to be extremely serious. Nor does he suggest that the increasing political activism of energy magnates like the Koch brothers might have anything to do with it. He has the gall to accuse Al Gore of getting rich out of green energy, as if no one has ever gotten rich out of oil and gas. He has nothing to say about the high cost of energy either. In other words, he takes a triumph of right-wing money and right-wing politics and turns it into a simple manifestation of the course of history.
Will's latest, in my opinion, is even more pathetic. It's an all-out attack on Barack Obama for having made three recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. He never mentions that the Republican Congress had persistently prevented them from coming to a vote in an effort to make the Wagner Act a dead letter. The President, like Presidents before him--including George W. Bush--took advantage of a technicality to make a recess appointment, even though the Senate was claiming to be in session, a fiction it maintained by having two or three Senators show up every day. Will makes that sound like an impeachable offense. He doesn't care that the Republicans have used this tactic to make it impossible for much of the federal government to function. He has come to hate government, like the Republicans, and he evidently doesn't care what tactics are used to stop it.
Polling is another area in which logic has gone out the window. The Gallup Poll is now owned by an Omaha, Nebraska outfit named Selection Research, and it seems to be functioning as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. It is showing a big lead for Romney, in complete contrast to virtually every other poll, as Nate Silver has gently pointed out. Yet Drudge headlines it every day, and other Republican sites use it to rally the troops. Romney may win the election, but he ain't going to win the popular vote by 5%. No one, however, is likely to care.
The political landscape is rather confusing today because elite opinion, in my judgment, is out of touch with popular opinion. The right-wing media are far more powerful than the left, and Frank Rich is now convinced the Tea Party is going to control the future of the U.S. (I think he is going too far: free market ideology has won huge victories and will probably hang on to them, but the trend may at least come to a halt soon.) But right-wing Senate candidates are in deep trouble in Maine, Wisconsin (where the Democrat is a gay woman), Ohio, Virginia, and even in Indiana. What we lack is leadership, probably because of the power of money--including energy money--over both parties. That is why we face nothing more than a choice between the lesser of two evils--but make no mistake about it, Obama is the lesser by a considerable margin. If you don't believe me, read this welcome dose of reality, an insider's description of what private equity really is, how it earns its money, and how little Romney's experience will allow him to do for anyone except fellow financiers in private equity. The free pass he has been given for being part of the economic problem never ceases to amaze me.