Campaign principles

Barely noticed in a boisterous presidential campaign, US energy policy finds itself caught in a cross-fire of negativism. Both major-party candidates bear high disapproval ratings; the election is over which is disliked the least. And neither Democrat Hillary Clinton nor Republican Donald Trump speaks much about bedrock principle.

For both candidates, of course, principles can be inferred.

The candidates

Clinton's bedrock principle is the ability of government to solve a nearly full range of human problems. Like President Barack Obama, she's an activist. She claims to know what's best for people and therefore what government should do for them-or to them, as the case may be.

Trump's bedrock principle is the ability of Donald Trump to solve human problems. He, if his campaign is to be believed, is what Americans need for their country to become "great again." In this sense, a Trump presidency would not differ fundamentally from the alternative. It would be just as activist as a Clinton presidency while differing much in priority.

So what happened to conservatism defined by limited government, strong defense, market freedom, and individual liberty (and responsibility)? Some observers think this shade of conservatism, popularized most recently by former President Ronald Reagan, has gone extinct. In fact, political dispositions-bedrock principles-never die; they just cycle through variations of popular mood. A swing back toward limited-government conservatism is in fact quite likely to follow the presidency of either Clinton or Trump.

During a Clinton first term, the Affordable Care Act would finish its unraveling, discrediting the fancies and promises of health-industry central planners-and of the notion that government knows best about everything. During a Clinton administration, too, taxpayers and consumers of energy would begin feeling the painful consequences of Obama-era overregulation and whatever elaborations the new president brought to that enterprise. This especially would be so if Obama's Clean Power Plan survived Supreme Court review and took effect as the 2018 midterm elections approached.

A Trump administration-well, who knows what would happen in a Trump administration? What seems certain is that the brash tycoon would take office giving orders and caring little about constitutional niceties such as divided government and separation of powers. A reckoning would be inevitable, probably not involving an outbreak of humility on the part of the central-character-in-chief.

With either candidate in office, then, odds are favorable for a turn in popular preference away from the authoritarian leanings of the moment. Proponents of lighter-handed governance should prepare now to manage the change to their favor.

Advocacy for principled energy policy deserve to be part of that effort. Energy policy based on limited government, free markets, and individual choice serve individual and national interests better than any other kind. History offers no reason to think otherwise. Governments distort markets and create cost when they make energy choices best left to consumers. The unworkable and unjust Renewable Fuel Standard is just the most recent example. If lawmakers had adhered to the free-market principles in which many of them claimed to believe when they began mandating sales of fuel ethanol in 2005, the country would have been spared this monumental blunder.

Principles and decisions

Contrary to claims typical of fans of official activism, limitation of government and freedom of markets do not mean absence of regulation or exploitation of consumers. Governments should regulate markets to ensure they work freely and enforce safety and environmental standards to ensure businesses work responsibly. Too much regulation now amounts to restraint imposed to implement political energy choices that inevitably enrich few at the cost of many.

Sound principles breed good decisions. They also can be asserted positively. Arguments for limited government or for market freedom would be refreshing at any time. They'd especially be so after a campaign in which, for many voters if polls are correct, too little can be said positively about either candidate-and in which principles seem not to matter.