|
There is a meme which has emerged arguing against a Gore candidacy in 2008, namely that Gore would be more effective in his current role as a private citizen. Because I have encountered variations of that statement several times in the past few months, I want to address it. While I disagree with it, I don't discount it out of hand. Rather, I would like to present the rationales for it, as best I understand them, along with the arguments in the other direction.
Case for Gore as private citizen to combat global warming:
1. As a citizen, Gore can say what he wants. He can swing freely at the interests (big oil, right-wing think tanks, etc.) which continue to spread disinformation about the climate crisis. As president, he would have to be more circumspect in his advocacy.
2. As a citizen, Gore's efforts are untarnished by the appearance of partisanship. As president, many elements on the right would (and corporate media elements might) make ad hominem attacks, saying his advocacy was politically motivated.
3. As a citizen, Gore can focus entirely on climate crisis. As president, he would be distracted with other important issues.
Rebuttal to that case:
1. It is true that being president does place limitations on what one can and should say. However, the presidency is the "bulliest" (no Colbert copyright!) pulpit on the planet. Whether it is JFK on the Apollo project, LBJ talking about the need for a Great Society initiative, or Dubya talking about the need to confront an "Axis of Evil," when a president speaks, he can set the agenda in the US, or even internationally. Presidential pronouncements almost always have larger real-world consequences than that of any private citizen. We need a president who will be DEDICATED to setting the agenda on climate crisis. I believe Gore more likely than any other Dem to promulgate the presidential rhetoric needed in 2009. As president, his bullhorn will simply be much, much bigger.
2. The Dems are historically likely to take back the White House in 2008. No matter who that president is, the right wing will attack initiatives on climate crisis. In other words they will attack whomever we elect. Since that is by far the most important issue, why not have the one who is head-and-shoulders above the crowd in his qualifications to deal with the issue?
3. As president, Gore will certainly have other important issues to address. But so would any other Dem. Who is most likely to keep the necessary focus, Gore or somebody else? Gore has already proven that he can "walk and chew gum" at the same time as VP. When he held national office he was able to succeed at various initiatives in parallel. As examples, he was able to head the highly successful REGO plan (which reduced federal employee headcount to its lowest level in decades), be a strong advocate for US intervention against genocide in the Balkans, etc., and yet still save the Kyoto Accord in 1997. In other words, Gore is personally responsible (see below) for our current global framework for fighting global warming, despite his other impressive roles as Vice President.
MOST IMPORTANTLY...
It is day-and-night critical who occupies the White House, as to whether the world advances on climate change.
Example 1: The UN initiative to combat global warming, UNFCCC, is launched in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro. Bush 41 sabotages the meeting and no agreement is reached.
Example 2: At Kyoto in 1997, the talks break down and no deal is expected. On the next-to-last day, Gore flies to Japan (against the unanimous advice of his advisors: see The Prince of Tennessee by David Maraniss, pp. 287-288) and addresses the assembly, lobbies privately with key countries and gets the negotiations back on track. The result is the Kyoto Accord, implemented in 2005 and our current global framework for dealing with global warming.
Example 3: Bush 43* sabotages all efforts to combat global warming.
In other words, who is in the White House is historically VITAL to whether the world does or doesn't make progress in treaty efforts to combat climate crisis. No American politician, Democratic or Republican, has produced a major international treaty concerning global warming... except Al Gore.
We are all experiencing the frustration of having the wrong person in the White House. Private citizens are so far unable to stop the insane escalation in Iraq. Gore, although effective to a certain degree with what he is doing on global warming, is still largely held in check by the moron currently living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, especially with respect to international treaties.
Here is my question: in 2009, would you rather that Gore be a private citizen or The Decider?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
