Bush’s Tilt on Energy Policy May Widen Nation’s Political Rift

By proposing major increases in domestic energy production, President Bush threatens to widen the geographic and cultural chasm already reshaping the landscape of U.S. politics.

The emphasis on new production that Bush is expected to announce today in his energy plan would most immediately benefit the energy-producing states concentrated in the South and Mountain West--almost all of which he carried in 2000. By contrast, polls show that concerns over the environmental effect of a production-first approach are strongest in the East and West Coast states where Bush ran weakest last year.

Like Bush’s views on abortion rights and gun control, this tilt toward production may thus reinforce the president’s position in the inland states already in his camp while raising questions among coastal swing voters who resisted him last time. In that way, Bush’s energy policy, like many of his early decisions, appears focused more on consolidating than expanding his political base--an approach that could perpetuate the sharp polarization in the electorate evident in the nearly tied 2000 election.

“If you win a close presidential election, it would seem to me your attitude would be how do I expand my base, not how do I hold on to what I have,” said Steve Elmendorf, chief of staff for House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). “But that’s not what they appear to be doing.”

That long-term division could be reflected immediately on Capitol Hill: Bush’s energy plan is likely to produce a congressional debate that fractures both parties along regional lines. Bush’s energy plan may attract crossover support from rural and inland Democrats while suffering defections from Republicans representing environmentally sensitive constituencies in the Northeast and on the West Coast.

“Historically, the energy issues have not been Republican-Democrat, they are regional: North-South or producer-consumer [states],” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that will consider much of Bush’s plan.

Already, resistance from moderate Republicans has prevented Bush from including in the recently passed budget resolution his proposal to open for drilling Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As other issues arise, GOP leaders hope to compensate for their defections by attracting to Bush’s plan Democratic lawmakers from energy-producing states such as Louisiana, Texas and Montana.

The GOP’s challenge is that, as the two parties continue to partition the country into distinct geographic areas of influence, there are fewer and fewer Democrats holding House and Senate seats from those inland, energy-producing states. Strategists in both parties say that points toward close votes on Bush’s key priorities.

In the 2000 campaign, Bush ran up some of his largest victory margins in energy-producing states. His success in these culturally conservative and often heavily rural states probably derived more from his views on broader issues, such as gun control or tax cuts, than on energy. But in states from West Virginia to Colorado, Bush promised to champion the interests of extraction industries that he argued had been unfairly constrained by Clinton administration environmental decisions.

The result was a near sweep of the states where mining and drilling have the most economic effect. Of the 15 states that produce the most coal--a list topped by Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky--Bush won 12. He also won 12 of the 15 largest oil-producing states (losing only California, Illinois and New Mexico). Likewise, Bush won 13 of the 16 states that produce the most natural gas.

Analysts in both parties believe the administration’s emphasis on increasing supply will only reinforce Bush’s already strong political position in these states.

Tom Cole, former chief of staff at the Republican National Committee, notes that Bush’s coal-friendly campaign promises helped him swipe West Virginia from the Democratic column in 2000. And he argues that if the congressional debate pits Bush as coal’s champion against Democrats trying to limit its use, that could help the GOP ticket capture Pennsylvania (the fourth-largest coal-producing state) and Illinois (the eighth) in 2004.

Yet in states such as Pennsylvania and Illinois--or, for that matter, California--Bush faces the risk that, if seen as too favorable toward drilling and mining, he could alienate environmentally conscious suburban voters. The risk may be greater still in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic states where there’s no oil- or coal-related employment to guarantee a constituency for Bush’s plan.

Most experts agree that public opinion is relatively unformed in the energy debate, with few Americans giving the issue much thought until recently. But a Los Angeles Times Poll this spring found that initial attitudes about Bush’s strategy are much cooler along the coasts--the Northeast and California--than in the South and Mountain West.

One argument Bush has repeatedly made is that Washington should defer more to local officials in deciding whether to permit drilling, exploration or other commercial uses on public lands. In The Times Poll, just 28% of Easterners and 34% of Californians agreed, compared with 40% of Southerners and 46% of adults in the Mountain West.

Likewise, 44% of those in the mountain states said they trusted Bush to strike the right balance in opening public lands to greater exploration--compared with just 26% in the East and 34% in California.

Still, that last finding captured the cross-cutting pressures on these issues, even in the producing states. Though Bush’s approach to managing the public lands drew more support in the Mountain West than anywhere else, even there a slight plurality said they were concerned he would go too far in favoring developers over backpackers.

Those numbers suggest opinion on Bush’s plan won’t be monolithic in the producing regions. Voters in rural parts of the West generally accept Bush’s argument that increased oil exploration is compatible with protecting the environment, notes Denver-based Democratic pollster Floyd Ciruli. But Ciruli says the growing suburban populations across the Mountain West are as open to environmental arguments as their counterparts in New Jersey or Southern California.

“Wherever you have urban populations, whether it’s in Boise or Salt Lake City or Phoenix or Reno . . . , talking about conservation and protecting the environment in any exploration is absolutely essential,” Ciruli said.

Opinion is also likely to be conflicted on the coasts. Polls show voters in these states are most concerned about a production-first approach, but many observers believe those sentiments could change if gas prices remain high or if California-style rolling blackouts spread.

“These voters are environmentally sensitive until they turn into price sensitive,” Cole said.