THE race for the White House has been a depressing experience for anyone foolish enough to have hoped for a rational debate about economic policy. John McCain, who is at least in favour of free trade, admits to being an economic illiterate, while Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have been united in their remorseless, largely baseless bashing of foreigners (especially the Chinese) and big business. Ordinary Americans may be the main beneficiaries of global capitalism, but it is more likely to be celebrated in Beijing than on America's hustings.

The topic that best showcases the candidates' appalling economic cluelessness is the surge in oil prices. American drivers are now paying well over $3 for a gallon of fuel. Both Mr McCain and Mrs Clinton advocate a “gas-tax holiday” over the summer to ease the burden for drivers. Neither of them bother to let their supposed concern for the environment affect their pandering. They ought to delight in higher gas prices—indeed, they should be arguing vigorously for further increases to help wean Americans off their addiction to oil.

AP

Of course, none of the three candidates mentions to the American public that drivers in most European countries pay several times what Americans do for their petrol.

Mrs Clinton is typical of the three candidates in railing against everything from the American government's ongoing purchases of oil for the country's strategic reserve (even though no expert thinks these make more than a tiny difference to the oil price) to alleged manipulation of the price by energy traders.

True, Mrs Clinton may have greater expertise about trading than the typical politician, once having famously made a tidy profit during her brief, controversial foray into pork-belly futures. But most experts doubt that speculators have driven up the price to its record highs, while almost everyone agrees that the traditional forces of supply and demand (growing strongly, especially in the developing world) and the plunging dollar have played major roles.

Besides, even if traders are to blame, it is not obvious what an American president could do to stop it, given that oil is an integrated worldwide market with a price set globally.

The policy likely to appeal most to Congress, and proposed by both Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama, is to levy a “windfall tax” on oil-company profits to punish them for the high price of oil. No matter that this might simply be passed on to consumers in the form of even higher prices at the pump, there are several other reasons why most economists think windfall taxes are a bad idea.

At the margin, it would probably discourage oil companies from investing in expanding supply—something that, all things being equal, would help to lower oil prices. The last time America tried a windfall tax, in 1980, it generated far less revenue than expected (though that would not necessarily be the case this time) and required the creation of a vast bureaucracy with mountains of red tape.

Mrs Clinton's other policy solution is more logical, though completely impractical. One reason the oil price is so high is the existence of a cartel run by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Unfortunately, breaking up that cartel is easier said than done.

Mrs Clinton, in a rare moment of enthusiasm for the institutions governing the global trading system, suggests action by the World Trade Organisation. But it has jurisdiction over only a handful of OPEC members, and has so far given no indication that it can impose antitrust rules on what is, after all, a cartel made up of sovereign governments.

Over the years, various attempts to sue OPEC have been made under American antitrust law. In 2007, even Congress voted to sue OPEC for engaging in a “price fixing conspiracy” that has “unfairly driven up the price” of crude oil and, in turn gasoline.

This lawsuit would also have removed sovereign immunity that protects the governments in OPEC from prosecution or having their assets seized as punishment. The trouble is, even if OPEC were found guilty of antitrust abuses in an American court, how would the cartel actually be punished or broken up?

Ultimately, there is no way to secure compliance with America's courts short of military action, which is one reason why even the Bush administration opposed last year's Congressional vote. But, if oil prices continue to rise and the election race remains close, how long before one of the presidential candidates proposes bombing OPEC, even though there could be no surer way to send oil prices soaring to new highs?