I think it is very likely that the government will fail to successfully mitigate the effects of peak oil. Even if the government tries it will likely be too late and maybe even take the wrong actions. Essentially this will mean extremely high prices on everything. The free market doesn't care. Everybody should have a Plan B for insuring access to food and shelter.

My general experience of the Right Wing on the internet is that appeals to 'sweet reason' never work.

Political alliance is an identity statement, not a policy statement.  So we are talking about emotions and how people organise themselves vis-a-vis the world, rather than intellectual debate.

By nature, Liberals see shades of grey, think things are amenable to reasoned debate-- we see problems and want to tinker with them and fix them.  Conservatives see overarching values and principles, which cannot be compromised.  They see black and white.

Think Jimmy Carter v. Ronald Reagan. The former reasoned and complex policy prescriptions (a la John Kerry) involving conservation the latter a certainty in positive outcomes, in the abundance of energy and the environment.  In the case of GWB, add an unshakeable religious faith, and a conviction of being God's chosen.

I have to say the latter mindset is much more aligned with the self-view of Americans as the optimistic 'country of the future' and with the instincts of the American electorate.  I would say the former, slightly wonkish outlook, is more how Europeans tend to see the world.  Obviously the West Coast of the US is home to many people of the former view (particularly Northern California, Oregon, coastal Washington) and so is the north east.

Having torn ourselves apart in two World Wars, the Holocaust, the Soviet Purges, etc. etc. we Europeans are by nature less optimistic ;-).  Also Europe is a small place with few natural resources.

(I am ignoring religious conservatives in this discussion, which is a different group again-- one of the most interesting developments of the last few years has been the rise of an 'ecological' evangelical movement.  Small perhaps, but when you have Pat Robertson saying he believes in man-made global warming, the times, they are 'a changing (I hope)).

On the net, there is a strong libertarian heritage (think www.janegalt.net) which is quite intellectual, but also quite dogmatic (sometimes).  Instapundit is a bit like that.

Conversely on FreeRepublic, you get the 'dark side' of the conservative mindset.  A degree of xenophobia/ homophobia sometimes creeps in, and certainly a 'kill them all and let God sort them out'.

*When people describe Global Warming as a 'conspiracy against America' one has to understand that, emotionally, they mean it.

Puts the Peak Oil crowd in exactly the same position.  Americans (of the conservative stripe) do not, by and large, recognise physical limits on human activity.

I don't think the FreeP types are amenable to reason.  What one has to wait for is tangible evidence in the outside world of a need to change behaviour.

* the left wing version of this is some of the conspiracy sites.  The 9-11 Conspiracy ones are exemplars of this, to my mind.

what someone said about the Free Republic - if people had trouble getting along when resources were plenty, why do we think they're going to get along when resources are scarce ?