www-us.org

Chapter 85: The Price of Oil, The Price of a Planet

The endorsement from General Michaelson had given the campaign a powerful tailwind of legitimacy. But in politics, as in physics, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The world, it seemed, was not content to let the MARG campaign have a moment of peace.

A crisis erupted in the Middle East. A sudden, violent conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia flared up in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow, critical chokepoint through which a fifth of the world’s oil supply passed. Global energy markets panicked. The price of crude oil skyrocketed, jumping thirty percent in a single day.

For the American consumer, the geopolitical crisis was a distant abstraction. The consequence was not. Gas prices surged by over a dollar a gallon in a single week. The number, displayed in giant, angry red digits on every street corner in America, became the central and all-consuming issue of the campaign.

The political reaction was immediate, predictable, and deeply cynical.

President Trump, speaking from the White House lawn, blamed the crisis on a combination of foreign actors and a lack of domestic energy production, which he claimed his political opponents were blocking. “This is a disgrace,” he roared. “But we have it under control. We are the greatest energy producer in the world. We will unleash our power, and we will get those prices down so fast your head will spin!” His solution was a simple one: drill more, faster.

Vice President Harris, for her part, announced a plan to release millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and immediately began pushing for a temporary, election-season federal “gas tax holiday” to ease the pain at the pump.

Both were classic, short-term political fixes, designed not to solve the problem, but to survive the news cycle.

In the MARG war room, the atmosphere was one of pure, unadulterated panic. The crisis was a direct, existential threat to the campaign’s single most controversial policy: the carbon tax and dividend.

Marcus Thorne was practically vibrating with anxiety. “You have to walk it back, Julian,” he pleaded, his voice tight. “Right now. Today. You cannot, under any circumstances, be the candidate who is talking about raising the price of energy when ordinary families are already getting crushed at the pump. It’s not a policy anymore; it’s a political death wish. Just say you’ll postpone the plan until the crisis is over. It’s the only sane move.”

Julian listened, his expression a mask of unreadable calm. He looked at the frantic news reports, at the panicked faces of his own team. He did not see a political crisis. He saw a teachable moment.

“No,” he said, his voice quiet but firm. “We will not walk it back. We will double down. Ben,” he said, turning to his communications director. “Schedule a press conference. For this afternoon.”

The media assembled, expecting a major policy retreat. They assumed Julian, the pragmatist, was about to make his first great political compromise, to bow to the overwhelming pressure of the moment.

He walked to the podium and began.

“Today,” he said, his voice a sober counterpoint to the hysterical tone of the news, “every American family is feeling the pain of high gas prices. Your household budget, your ability to get to work, to take your kids to school, is being held hostage by a conflict thousands of miles away. You should be angry. But you should be angry at the right people.”

He looked directly into the cameras. “You should be angry at a generation of leaders, from both political parties, who have failed to tell you the truth: our nation’s addiction to cheap, foreign oil is not just an environmental issue. It is a profound and ongoing national security threat. They have subsidized it. They have fought wars for it. And they have left our entire economy vulnerable to the whims of dictators and the chaos of a world we cannot control.”

“Today,” he continued, “my opponents are offering you a painkiller. They are offering to drill a little more. They are offering to release some oil from our emergency reserves. They are offering you a temporary gas tax holiday. These are not solutions. They are illusions. They are a political anesthetic designed to get them through an election. They are a cowardly act that kicks the can down the road and guarantees that we will be in this exact same position a few years from now, held hostage by the next crisis.”

He paused, letting the indictment hang in the air.

“I am offering you something different,” he said. “I am offering you a cure. But the cure requires us to be honest. The pain you are feeling at the pump today is a signal. It is the market, the world, screaming a truth at us that our leaders have refused to hear. The truth is that the price of oil is volatile, it is unreliable, and it is controlled by people who do not wish us well.”

“My carbon tax and dividend plan is not about punishing you,” he declared, his voice ringing with a new and powerful conviction. “It is about freeing you. It is about insulating the American economy from these shocks forever. It is the fastest and most effective path to true, permanent energy independence. An independence powered not by foreign dictators, but by American innovation, by American technology, and by the common sense of the American people.”

The speech was a breathtaking political gamble. His opponents immediately and gleefully attacked him as a callous, out-of-touch elitist who was proposing to raise taxes in the middle of a crisis.

But as the days turned into weeks, and the gas prices remained stubbornly high, the shallow, temporary nature of his opponents’ “solutions” became obvious. The oil from the reserve was a drop in the ocean. The gas tax holiday was a pittance. The crisis dragged on. And Julian’s difficult, honest, long-term argument began to cut through the noise. People started to listen. They started to think. He had refused to offer them a painkiller. He had, instead, offered them a cure. And the nation was finally beginning to realize just how sick it was.

The Discourse, Chapter 85: The Courage of the Long Game

Section 85.1: The Politics of Crisis

A crisis, in politics, is both a danger and an opportunity. This chapter explores how different political actors respond to the same external shock, revealing their core governing philosophies.

• The Traditional Politician (Trump & Harris): Views the crisis as a short-term political problem to be managed. Their goal is to mitigate the immediate political damage and to appear responsive to the public's pain. Their proposed solutions—releasing oil from the reserves, a gas tax holiday—are what policy experts call palliatives. They are painkillers, designed to treat the symptom (high prices at the pump) without addressing the underlying disease (long-term energy dependency).

• The Systemic Leader (Corbin): Views the crisis as a "teachable moment." He sees the public's pain not as a political problem to be managed, but as a rare opportunity to educate the public on the root causes of that pain. He uses the crisis to make a powerful, real-world case for the necessity of his long-term, systemic solution. He is not trying to survive the news cycle; he is trying to change the entire paradigm of the debate.

Section 85.2: The "Courage" Frame

The chapter presents a classic "profiles in courage" narrative. Julian Corbin is presented with a clear choice between the politically easy and popular path (temporarily backing down from his unpopular policy) and the principled but politically dangerous path (doubling down on it). His decision to double down is a defining moment of his character.

This is a deliberate strategic choice. In a low-trust environment, voters are deeply cynical about politicians and assume that their positions are fluid and based on polling data. By refusing to bend in the face of immense political pressure, Corbin is making a powerful statement about his own character. He is signaling to the voter that he is not a typical politician. He is a leader who is willing to tell an unpopular truth, even at great personal political risk, because he believes it is the right thing to do. This act of political courage, while risky in the short term, is designed to build a much deeper and more durable form of trust with the electorate in the long term.

Section 85.3: National Security as an Environmental Argument

A key rhetorical innovation in this chapter is Corbin's framing of his environmental policy as a national security policy. The traditional argument for transitioning to clean energy is often framed in environmental or economic terms, which can be polarizing. Corbin makes those arguments, but his primary case in this moment of crisis is a patriotic and strategic one.

He argues that America's "addiction to foreign oil" is a profound national security vulnerability. It makes the country's economy and the daily lives of its citizens susceptible to the whims of dictators and the chaos of global conflicts. In this frame:

• The Carbon Tax is not just an environmental tool; it is a weapon to achieve true energy independence.

• Investing in Renewables is not just about climate change; it is about building a more resilient and secure nation, insulated from geopolitical shocks.

This is a powerful piece of political communication. It is designed to appeal to the security-conscious, hawkish voters in the center and on the right who might be skeptical of a purely environmental argument. It is another example of the campaign's ability to build an "impossible coalition" by finding the hidden common ground between seemingly opposed ideological positions.