While the economy will likely be the top voter concern in the November elections, energy may be a stealth issue that comes in second or third on many voters' lists — especially if the growing Iraqi insurgency continues to drive up gasoline prices over the next several months.
Iraq isn't the only hot spot that could send energy prices spiraling. Russia, Iran and Venezuela use energy policy as a tool to buy regime support and funnel cash to nefarious efforts, including terrorism, cyberattacks, political suppression and international unrest.
For example, Russia has decided to punish the struggling Ukraine by cutting off natural gas supplies unless the Ukrainian government prepays for what it wants.
Threats of energy cutoffs, embargoes and coups can rattle markets — and elections.
These days, energy, especially oil and gas production, and the economy are connected at the hip. Energy accounts for about 7.3% of the economy and supports more than 9 million jobs.
Without the energy explosion that cranked up shortly before President Obama took office — primarily the result of new and innovative drilling techniques — the sluggish U.S. economy would have grown at an even slower pace.
The president recognizes that the country is concerned about the economy and is trying to make income inequality a major theme for the upcoming elections. But any economic-inequality unrest will pale in comparison to voter unrest over spiking gas prices.
The reason is that energy plays a big role in our personal lives. Voters tend to put energy concerns on the back burner as long as they can get the gas they need at a price they think is reasonable. But if pump prices spike over $4 a gallon — as they did in June 2008, and nearly that high in May 2011 and April 2012 — the public gets very restive.
When that happens the question emerges: Why isn't the government doing everything it can to promote, or at least not stymie, energy production?
And that question goes double in several states with important Senate races, including Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Udall of Colorado, Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, plus two open seats in Montana and West Virginia held by two retiring Democrats.
Think about the political problems facing these Democrats. Montana, where Democratic Senator Max Baucus just retired, would be able to ship 100,000 barrels a day of oil from the Bakken shale formation through the Keystone XL pipeline — if the president would quit stalling and approve it.
But he's likely to sit on that decision until after November. That could be a key election-year issue for the states that could benefit from approving the Keystone.
Like Texas, Landrieu's Louisiana is big in the Gulf Coast refining business, and one of the primary goals for the Keystone XL is to ship heavier Canadian oil to the Gulf for refining.
Louisiana refineries have announced plans to expand and build liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals that could export natural gas to friendly countries that are under the Russian, Venezuelan or Iranian energy boot. But they have to get Obama administration approval to do so, and that approval has been very slow in coming.
Alaska is one of the most pro-energy states in the country, but drilling has been hampered because 62% of the state's land is owned by the federal government. And drilling on federal land needs federal approval, which has been very slow in coming — if it's coming at all. Begich has done nothing to challenge that situation.
So while the economy will likely be the driving force in the November election, energy is a big part of the economy. And it is especially important in several key states that could make the difference over whether the Senate remains Democratic or flips to Republican.
Matthews is a resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas.