If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
However, on this side of the Atlantic the focus is entirely on Al Gore and his mounting achievements in the field of climate change. In spite of painstaking research over the years by many scientists, the effects of climate change have only recently made it to the public consciousness. Al Gore’s documentary-movie, An Inconvenient Truth along with his travels and lectures around the world has been largely credited with the awakening of this just cause. Since people are waking up to the threats of global warming, Gore’s supporters have been insisting that he run for President in 2008. Their requests (or demands) are understandable. The current President who got lesser votes than Gore in that error-riddled election in 2000 is at an historic low in terms of popularity. The current crop of candidates on either do not evoke similar sentiments of feverish fan following. And finally, Al Gore enjoys an enviable reputation around the world and has built up significant political capital that he could leverage to catapult him to the White House. A website, DraftGore.com has been set up solely for that cause and has gathered nearly 100,000 signatures in favor of its cause. But is that all that is required to win a President’s race?
Personally, I think that Gore would do more harm than good if he decided to run for President. Not just on a personal front but also for the sake of his environment movement. By effectively contextualizing his movement as a moral and spiritual imperative rather than a political necessity, he has risen above partisan politics. Admittedly, the President of the United States wields enormous power in dictating policy in the country and subsequently for the world. The actions or lack thereof of the current President are proof enough. But we also know that you don’t necessarily have to be the President to influence the actions of whoever is, be it by legal or dubious means. Not everyone is placated by a night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
Also, being a President or running for one requires one to voice or hold opinions on a multitude of issues which necessarily aren’t important in the long run. For e.g. the immigration, health care and Iraq war seem to be the top issues right now but Al Gore apart from having no role in sanctioning the Iraq war has no real contribution in the advancement of either policy matters. In fact, in his eyes these issues might not be influenced by his opinion in a manner that he has managed to influence the environment movement. He manages to project a strong and confident image in the global warming debate because he seems to genuinely believe in its cause. no matter how passionate and dedicated you are, you cannot manage to be passionate about a multitude of issues that aren’t always related. However, the person running for President is expected to be exactly that. Even the most avowed Gore critic will admit that he did more for the environmental movement after he lost the Presidential race even though he was in the White House for eight long years.
The political campaigns in the United States are driven by personality and charisma of individual candidates rather than core issues. The candidates opinion on hot-button topics are influenced by the manner in which they manage to spin it. This also makes the candidates vulnerable to personal attacks which the current Republican party seems to relish in. Trivializing global issues by focusing on individual habits to dismiss the issue is not new to Al Gore. Having contested against Bush whose cronies don’t think twice about smearing their own party men (John McCain) or distinguished war veterans (Kerry & Clelland), Al Gore is well aware of the dirty tactics of contemporary politicking. Yesterday, I discussed the tactic of attacking political props in order to dismiss the larger issue at hand. Would he want to risk his much-respected environmental movement to such attacks in a national race?
Further, candidates on either side of the aisle are expected to toe the party line or ideology in certain issues like national defense, religion, or civil liberties even if you consider them insignificant for discussion. A candidate’s belief in science over religious dogma is in fact, a political liability in this country that benefited immensely from science. Ashutosh points out how U.S. policy on energy and climate has been dealt another blow by this Nobel Prize committee. Although the Chairman of the committee emphasized that their decision was in no way an indication of criticism of the Bush administration, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to scientists who discovered the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs is no coincidence. Also, Nobel Peace Prizes have always been somewhat political statements. Remember the fiasco when they awarded it to Yaseer Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994? Gore has wisely decided to donate his prize money to the foundation for climate change to avoid any attacks of financially benefiting from his cause. Gore has probably tried the political route and his belief in science may have been ridiculed or considered not justifiable enough for a major policy change.
So in conclusion, although I think Al Gore would make a great President I think he shouldn’t choose to spend his political or business capital by running in this current horse race for President. He has devoted the past few years to a cause that is clearly dearest to his cause and conscience. We rather have him do that well than have to defend himself against mud-slinging and mouth political advisor-written memos on immigration, abortion, and Iraq. I’m sure Americans can find another capable person to run for the highest office of the land. History already has a place for Al Gore.
Was Hillary Clinton a victim of sexism?
- Yes (50%, 8 Votes)
- No (50%, 8 Votes)
Total Voters: 16
Loading ...
by Patrix | on Friday, October 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm | 
Current Affairs, Environment, Politicking, United States . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm reply
I agree with you in that Al Gore is doing a great job being on the fringes of Washington. I doubt he would be so effective being in Washington and having to deal with hot button topics which are relative non issues like gay marriage, prayer in school, flag burning, etc.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:00 pm reply
I completely agree with you. I can think of someone living in the year 2100 who reads the history of these years. I think (and I hope) that when he thinks of Al Gore combating the climate crisis, he will be immensely satisfied. If he thinks of Al Gore combating conservatives on gay marriage and stem cell research, I think (and I hope) he will be left scratching his head and asking “Why were these even issues??” Al Gore should continue to work on an issue that holds far greater portent for humanity and he should not give up this work.
P.S. In fact my own reaction as I sure is yours about gay marriage and stem cells is pretty much like that of our 21st century descendent.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:09 am reply
> Even the most avowed Gore critic will admit that he
> did more for the environmental movement after he lost
> the Presidential race even though he was in the
> White House for eight long years.
If there was a Nobel Prize for Good Intentions, Gore deserves it. But the Nobel? Oh well, about as good a choice as Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger. (Although in Gore’s favour he didn’t actually kill anyone.)
We had Mike Hulme over on Channel4 news yesterday commenting on this and I have to say I agree with his take: that handing the Nobel prize to Gore trivializes the work serious scientists do on climate change to glib policy pronouncements given on the basis of of rather inaccurate Powerpoint slides.
And oh: there’s no “spiritual crisis” in global warming, unless you buy into the notion that our way of life is somehow god-given and immutable. The earth’s climate changes all the time — we have had mini-ice ages in Europe as recently as the middle ages. Deal with it.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pm reply
Prasenjeet, I don’t wish to argue again about the validity of climate change research. It has been proved many times over. Regarding awarding the prize to Gore and trivializing the science, that simply isn’t true. Note this year’s Chemistry Nobel winner. The peace prize is generally given for promoting a cause and I think Gore has done more to promote the issue of climate change. those who hold personal grudges against gore are bound to find fault so I’m not surprised.
October 14th, 2007 at 7:41 pm reply
Prasenjeet: About Hulme’s comment, I want to note that in awarding half of the prize to the IPCC, the committee far from trivializing the science and scientists, completely validates them and honours them and the science.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:19 pm reply
Ashutosh: that’s a very generous way of looking at it. Another, less blinkered way might be that making a glib Powerpoint deck and publicizing it is equal to the work that the world’s top climatologists do.
And Patrix — “argue again about the validity of climate change research. It has been proved many times over” … hmm, where did *that* come from (although if you say “the science is settled”, then clearly the experts are field are out of work — clearly that’s not so!)
As for personal grudges against Gore — I am not sure what “personal” grudges one could hold against him (especially Mike Hulme, who is a noted anti-pollution advocate and respected climate researcher himself). Perhaps people like me have something against self-pitying publicity-seekers like him?
Anyway, my point here was that when Gore talks about a “spiritual crisis” he is talking bunk. It doesn’t matter whether the God delusion is being peddled in the name of Yahweh or Gaia, it’s a delusion all the same.
October 15th, 2007 at 7:35 pm reply
Prasenjeet, “self-pitying publicity-seekers like him?” QED. I used to wonder what is it about Gore that gets conservatives so mad but no more.
October 16th, 2007 at 5:35 pm reply
It’s not quite as QED as you’d believe, unless you’ve now come to the point where any criticism of Gore is verboten (so much for liberalism!)
Self pitying: he grew a beard and went into hiding after the 2000 polls, even as his supporters counted and recounted the Florida votes. This man cannot take defeat sportingly (which Kerry for all his faults did). I do appreciate that he’s found something above the fray to do post 2000, but that does not change what he is.
Publicity Seeker: My carbon footprint is much, much smaller than this mansion-dwelling silver-spooner. And he has the temerity to (a) lecture me on how to lead my life and (b) propose public policy by cloaking it in a halo of holier-than-thou eco-spiritual mumbo-jumbo?
October 16th, 2007 at 6:13 pm reply
And oh, I’ll put that that NYTimes article in context by noting that Gore’s fan base is quite skewed towards the affluent and the celebrity/chattering classes. So (thankfully!) the amount of purple prose he receives in the press has no real bearing on his stature as an actual leader (Ironically, Blair has probably done more for the environment than Gore, including actually bringing down Britain’s emissions, but we can’t say nice things about Bush’s poodle now can we.)
If he is this towering irreproachable figure in American politics, maybe he ought to do something that matters about his cause, like run for President.
Oh wait, that won’t happen because he’ll be skewered by Hillary and Obama even at the primaries. Actually, the other reason I hope he runs is — I’d really like to hear a *hard* set of proposals from him — apart from unaudited carbon offset programmes — that would actually measurably decrease global emissions. For that matter, so would many EU nations who’re struggling to keep up with Kyoto while managing their often greater than 10% unemployment figures. (Oh, for added joy, remember than from 2007-8, China will be the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.)
But hey, what do actual workable policy measures matter when you can get a Nobel Prize for a Powerpoint deck.