OPINION:
As the Republicans think about what to do in the event they wind up taking one or both houses of Congress in November, they should consider reframing many issues.
Most of the time, legacy Republicans are content to accept the current frame of discussion and try to “win” the conversation within that frame. One of the things that made former President Trump different was his ability to reframe issues quickly and dispositively.
Think about the energy and environmental issues. When asked about climate change, for example, Mr. Trump always pivoted to what people actually cared about with respect to energy and the environment – clean air, clean water and affordable energy.
What would a new frame on energy and environmental issues look like?
It would be constructed with the knowledge that it is limited, in the near term, by a Democratic president in the White House. Consequently, it would focus on votes in both congressional bodies, which is the best way to expose and express important collective differences.
It would seek to limit the ability of the Biden administration to do more damage to the United States, its citizens and its economy. It would highlight differences between the parties. It would make clear what the Republicans intend to pursue in the event the party takes control of the White House in 2025.
A new frame would include scrutiny and votes on the foundations of the left’s approach to energy issues. Many think that we have made some sort of national commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, or that the electricity sector is required to reach net-zero by 2035. Many think we have made a national commitment to the Paris Agreement.
We have done none of those things. Such national commitments require a vote of some sort, a vote in which the features of such an approach could be openly considered and debated. The Republicans should make those votes happen.
They should schedule similar votes on federal fleet mandates that will require almost 20% of sales be electric vehicles by 2026; on energy taxes; on whether we want to be reliant on communist China for the batteries and minerals that are supposed to power the world when we have eliminated oil and natural gas.
The Republicans could structure votes on whether citizens would prefer to rely on energy sources (like wind and solar) that we don’t actually control, that we can’t turn on and off.
In each instance, we could have meaningful discussions about what the costs and potential benefits of the policy would be, and the American people could make up their minds about whether they favor or oppose a particular policy goal or approach.
At the end of the process, we would know what the voters want and what they don’t.
The truth is, of course, we already have a pretty good idea. Voters have been telling opinion researchers for years that they are willing to pay almost nothing to address climate change. They like their cars. They like affordable gasoline. They insist on reliable and affordable electricity. They prefer that food prices not increase. No one wants the federal government to make decisions about which cars or houses they should buy.
The Republicans just need to find the courage or wisdom or whatever to drag these voter preferences out into the light.
These are not small matters. Because of the misguided and ill-informed energy choices of a handful of European nations and the global lack of investment in oil and natural gas (a consequence of the net-zero propaganda), the entire world is heading toward two or three years of high energy prices, high food prices and a biting recession.
Oil prices may crest $200 per barrel. High fertilizer prices mean farmers throughout the world will struggle to bring in crops, which will, in turn, lead to starvation and malnutrition. Electricity prices and natural gas prices will continue their ascent.
All of this, which was completely avoidable, will devastate economies.
That will provide what alcoholics call a moment of clarity. Voters are going to care about whether you have a plan to get the energy we need. They already know that Team Biden doesn’t.
The Republicans should declare clearly and openly that affordable and reliable energy is essential to human civilization, that they oppose the reliance on energy that humans don’t control, that they oppose the reliance on energy from genocidal regimes, and that climate change is not, in any sense, an existential threat, and that investment in energy sources that humans control is the only thing that will save us.
• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is the president of MWR Strategies. He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.