Ending oil subsidies and protecting democracy are both common positions among the left, and most frequently opposed by the right. Attacks on democracy, democratic institutions and the rule of law have in the US and Europe come primarily from right-wing parties, though that's fortunately not universal among the right.
Free education makes it accessible to poor people, which again makes it a popular issue with the left.
Explain it again. Ending subsidies ends market distortions. Why is this leftist?
What is your preferred adjective for a party that wants to pick winners (for one market sector, many sectors, all) and your preferred adjective for a party that wants to let new companies drive old ones into bankruptcy?
These are corporate subsidies to an industry that really doesn't need any further help. They're subsidies for pollution. Care for the environment is also often considered a left-wing issue.
The left is not in favour of market distortion, it's in favour of a fair market. Not one where profits are privatised while costs are socialised. Many people on the left want oil to be taxed rather than subsidised.
What makes it left or right is how you otherwise spend the money saved from stopping subsidies - not the ending of subsidies itself.
If you reduce tax then it's right wing, if you use the money to help the poorer in society deal with the short term price shocks that would result from spiking energy costs - then it's left-wing.
The latter is what my Copilot suggested when I addressed complaints about higher gas prices.
But ending oil subsidies gets mentioned a lot on the left without that. Because ultimately it's also a subsidy for oil companies, and it adds to pollution.
> The latter is what my Copilot suggested when I addressed complaints about higher gas prices
I would suspect this is because it is most mainstream recommendation from economists on how to disincentivize fossil usage without destroying your society & economic stability in the interim. Not because it's "lefty".
The yellow vest protests in France were basically what happens when you try to do A without also doing B.
It does also depend on why they are doing subsidies - is it the price of domestic energy security for example?
I don't know the situation in the US - and I suspect there are multiple factors - but you need to understand the goals, whether that be energy security, lower domestic prices, jobs or whatever.
ie the question isn't whether oil subsidies are good or not, in isolation - the question is what's the best method to achieve the goals.
( One goal you haven't mentioned is weaning the country off fossil fuels - which is probably best done via gradually rising prices ).
I don't know what parties were in front of general free education when that was a big issue many decades ago, so I can't assess that.