Debating energy policy

There was a lot of talk about energy in the Oct. 3 presidential debate between Republican challenger Mitt Romney and Democrat incumbent Barack Obama, I'm told. That information came to me secondhand because I wasn't among the millions watching it on TV. Once a political junky back in the days when candidates and issues were decided in convention floor fights, I lost interest in political campaigns when they morphed into packaged television events and sound bites. Besides, like most registered voters I already know which candidate will get my vote. The media blitz up to election day is aimed at the relative handful of "undecideds."

Apparently both candidates during the debate used energy policy to send broader signals to voters, according to the Council on Foreign Relations Oct. 4 report by Michael Levi, the David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and director of the CFR program on energy security and climate change. That's not a new approach, of course. "That fact jumps out when you look at the 1980 presidential race. Ronald Reagan talked about energy as his way of hammering Jimmy Carter for excessive intervention in the economy and for being out of control," Levi said. Reagan used energy "to project optimism: America would have all the energy it needed, he suggested, so long as government would get out of the way. Carter tried to blunt the attacks by painting himself as a pragmatist, grabbing the ‘all of the above' mantle, just as Obama has. It proved to be a difficult sell."

Romney channels Reagan

Levi reported, "Romney is now taking an approach that isn't all that different from Reagan's. He's using energy as a vehicle to go after Obama for supposedly meddling too much in the economy, for what Romney thinks is managerial incompetence, and for fealty to environmental interests. He's also using it to appear optimistic about the future."

Neither candidate talked about climate change during the debate, he said, "But when Romney does, a big part of the intended message seems to be ‘I don't listen to university eggheads.'"

Obama "used up debate time hammering away at oil industry tax breaks that are relatively small in budgetary terms; it's his way of saying that Romney stands with industry over average Americans. (This tactic goes back to the 1970s too.)," Levi said. Obama previously used energy to emphasize the government's important role in the economy and regulation of business via the 2010 Macondo blowout. But during the debate, Levi said, "He didn't go that way. Perhaps most troubling for his political strategists, his attempts to defend claims that he's for ‘all of the above' seem to be having about as much success as Carter's did."

The use of energy for its "symbolic value" may explain why energy discussions have become so polarized. "It's one thing for two sides to compromise on the balance between fossil fuels and clean energy, or over the right way to design a regulatory program; this happened several times in the 2000s," Levi said. "It's another thing if that compromise implicitly means conceding on fundamental questions of how to create jobs, the right role for government in the economy, and whether your opponent is a good or bad guy. So long as our energy debates are proxies for something else, they're unlikely to come close to being resolved."

Like other subjects in the debate, energy remarks by "both candidates frequently went deep into the weeds, throwing around numbers and programs that most viewers probably couldn't follow," Levi said. The second debate between Obama and Romney on Oct. 16 will take the form of a town meeting with citizens questioning the candidates on foreign and domestic issues. Perhaps it will indicate whether voters are interested in energy issues beyond the pump price for gasoline.