I would argue just the opposite, the left often wonders why people more and more are calling their policies fascists... in defining the term there are generally two strong points that are made about fascism, one being political and the strong push for national identity and the villainization of a minority or a subgroup of the society to rally the people behind, but the other key point in the definition of the term is governmental control of the productive resources of the economy... and it is this part of the definition that people associate with the progressive movement.

Why is it that it was the state department that had the final say so in the pipeline? The answer is is that it had met and passed all other permitting requirements and studies... So when it became political, the state department stepped in at the 11th hour and shut it down... Now you bring up the fact that that oil is already serving the locations in the upper Midwest and because of the limited distribution of that oil currently available that it that those markets are currently enjoying a price structure that otherwise would not be maintained... Well how does this relate to free markets and what we think is fair? It is the governments job to limit a companies abilities so that it is forced to sell its product below world market prices????? No, that is not the function of government and I would guess that if you owned a business and the government forced you into such a situation that you would find it to be unfair. More over the action limits other companies and refineries in Texas, and also limits the amount of oil coming in from those Canadian fields.

Oil is fungible, and you are correct that most of the oil flowing through that pipeline would be available to the world markets as well as our own... that is how the free market works, but at the same time it would be providing jobs, incomes, and profits to American companies and workers... Is it fair for the Midwest to expect the federal government to try and limit private business activity to subsidize the price that they pay for oil? Personally I do not feel that it is. Now we are faced with losing that oil as China now sees the intransigence of our federal government and our unwillingness to be a cooperative partner with our neighbors to the north and China is becoming more aggressive in its partnering with Canada not only in attempts to run the pipeline to the Pacific instead of Texas, in which case the Midwest really loses out, but also in purchasing companies with leases in both Canada and the Gulf of Mexico meaning even less oil being refined here for domestic use... We are losing because of the president's decision, and I know that the left seems to hate oil and oil companies, but I am sure that you still fill your cars and heat your homes... Many of the businesses in your state rely on these fuels to provide the energy that they use in their businesses.... yet here in this country we somehow think that it is acceptable to purchase our resources from overseas, $500 to $700 billion each year, and not have it effect our economy... Much of that money could be kept here in the states if we would allow our own resources to be developed... as it is we are only setting ourselves up for disaster as we know that there will again be trouble in the middle east and we also know that Venezuela will become involved and side with our enemies using their oil as a weapon...

Needless to say, I have a different take on the pipeline than you do.