Will President Obama's Decision on Oil Drilling Divide the Democratic Party?

Recently, President Obama reversed a 2008 campaign position by authorizing the expansion of oil drilling off American shores after a 20-year prohibition, much to the dismay of environmental organizations and activists who traditionally support the president's Democratic Party.

But will the anger expressed by the environmental left disrupt order within the Democratic Party or affect 2010 mid-term election outcomes? The chances of this, in my analysis, are slim to none.

First, these environmental groups and activists usually have other reasons for supporting Democratic candidates. That being said, it's unlikely they will show up at the polls in support of Republicans, which would be counterproductive on two fronts: they would be casting ballots for candidates who disagree with many of their other core beliefs; and Republicans support American oil drilling, too, and would most likely take it even further than the president's plan if presented with the opportunity. And supporting the Green Party where available is not a viable option because casting a ballot for a Green would be the equivalent of voting for a Republican in this scenario, given the dominance of the two-party system mentality.

They could, if they really want to, attempt a national effort to nominate Democrats that are a little more sympathetic to the cause for congressional seats in order to challenge Democratic incumbents. This tactic is identical to what Tea party activists are doing to challenge Republicans in their primaries this year. But doing this would pit Democrat against Democrat and cause an incumbent to spend funds that may prove precious in the general election if there's a serious Republican challenge. And this tactic, we know, doesn't always achieve the ultimate goal. In 2006, anti-war activists in Connecticut, angered by U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman's positions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other views, nominated Ned Lamont as a Democrat for Lieberman's seat. Lamont defeated Lieberman in the primary, but went on to be defeated by Lieberman in the general election, who ran as a third-party candidate.

Second, the labor left and allies coming from the isolationist school of political and economic thought, with the former holding perhaps the most sway within the Democratic Party as far as main voting and lobbying blocs are concerned, are likely to warmly embrace the president's plan because it's creating and maintaining jobs -- American jobs -- and using American resources and materials, even though some or even all of the work may not be unionized. And given current unemployment rates, creating more jobs is a pretty attractive rallying cry right now, one that transcends partisan politics and hits home in a very personal way for the American voter.

Presented with the options and facts, it is most likely that the Democratic Party is safe from an electoral attack launched by the environmental left.