A diary about Al Gore
earlier today wondered "whether this focus on a potential Gore run in 2008 is distracting us from keeping the pressure on for the mid-term elections." I wonder whether we should be pushing Gore for president
at all and whether such a push might be detracting us from keeping pressure on developing a role for Al Gore outside of traditional politics to attend to his natural portfolio: the environment, energy policy and global warming. Meanwhile the midterms can be viewed as an opportunity to elect people who will have sense enough to
empower Gore as an independent spokesman and leader to head up this huge job of dealing with energy policy, the environment and global warming in a short amount of time. The analogy is more to a military campaign than a political one, with Gore as our Eisenhower -- before Eisenhower became president.
This diary expands upon a
May 30 diary by Do Tell that asserted "Gore might be more valuable if he doesn't run." While there is overlap in premise, this outlook for Gore -- not running -- leaves lots of room for further frame-out, along with the structure of Gore's role. I hope other diaries continue to build on an independent option for Gore because I believe it is quite likely he will in fact not run. Working in consonance with his own inclinations, we should make the best of that eventuality by conceptualizing a new political vessel for Mr. Gore and a stage of empowerment for him created by the newly elected 2007 Democratic Congress as in, for example, a Joint House-Senate independently appointed
Gore Commission on Energy Policy, Environment and Global Warming. While Bush is in office he will have nothing whatsover to do with this commission.
Gore is conceived as an "Ambassador to the Future" and elements of his ideas folded into the Dem Party platform. Gore himself, however, should remain a resource, not a partisan. He could still critique the Bushites because they're not real Republicans or even true conservatives. They are extremists, thieves and liars who require the strongest opposition. They are very much part of the problem while Gore is part of the solution, and from time to time I'm sure Mr. Gore will see fit to cream them properly.
Let me walk you through my thinking thus far and you can take it further.
Now that Gore has made a well-regarded film about global warming, it's tempting to wish he would run again for president. I had fallen into wishing that myself. But a few things have occurred to me about Al Gore.
First, being a presidential candidate is not Gore's strength. He's failed at it twice and, more important, he can do better than be president. Gore is stronger, more effective -- and more needed -- as an environmental gadfly from outside rather than inside the political system. As an independent figure Al Gore is well positioned to function as a voice of America's intelligence, empathy and conscience at a point in history when we vitally need all three. He is ideally suited to be a one-man non-partisan third party -- think of Ross Perot without being crazy -- with a single system of issues: sustainable energy, global warming, the environment -- in short, the planet. In short, the future.
Most of us know we're rapidly approaching a tipping point in terms of global warming, the climate crisis, energy resources, and the environment in general. Stepping back we can see we're facing corporatism which stands like a giant one-eyed Cyclops saying NO to reason across this broad front. Exxon-Mobil has already taken pot shots at Gore's film, making fools of themselves by asserting false information everybody sees through. A lot of average people are finally getting the global warming message. If Gore were running for president some of the Exxon-Mobil lies might stick because votes -- and hence power -- would be at stake and corp media would be invested in making them stick for the false conflict value to pump ratings. Instead, although he'll never be entirely immune, by not running for president Gore stands in a less partisan frame where the environment and global warming -- and even corporatism -- belong, where votes are not at stake. Only the planet is at stake. People are beginning to see the truth and the truth needs a minister, a keeper, a leader to carry it forward into action. That would be Mr. Gore.
The corporatists have successfully framed the view that "regulations on pollution or fuel efficiency are bad" because regulations cause corporations to spend extra money which means corporations make lower profits and (they say) they will lay off jobs, not hire as many workers, outsource jobs and/or cut wages and benefits. This is one very real -- and very stifling -- frame that controls the debate about the environment, global warming and energy policy right now. One way Al Gore can break this spell is to champion a "Moon Project" to develop and manufacture sustainable energy technologies to lead the world would be a job creator of monumental proportions.
The global warming problem is making itself plain in so many forms and pulling together such odd compatriots (like fundamentalist Christians along with Greens, traditional tree huggers and any average nature lover) that Gore will have an easier time carving out a niche for himself as an independent with common interests among all parties. The effects of global warming are independent of politics, and where global warming interfaces with politics -- as in energy policy -- the imperatives of change are likely to dominate, especially if an articulate spokesman for well thought out change is in the forefront to keep the whole complex problem framed up properly, somebody like Al Gore.
Here's a problem to consider in the public perception of things: That which is corporate is painted as "mainstream," "normal," "American," and "good," while advocating for the environment is associated with Greenpeace and "radicals" (although many radicals like Socrates and Orwell form a proud tradition as important gadflies). Gore, up against the Goliath of corporatists, would be cast as a "radical" without the benefit of being portrayed as David. Radicals don't do well as presidential candidates. Gore needs to be outside the political realm so that his radicalism can be viewed more positively than negatively, so that he is not seen as an extremist but as a reasonably ruthless leader on behalf of all parties and interests, even those of corporatists who will die a horrendous death along with the rest of us if we don't get this act together pronto.
Gore has emerged as the strongest spokesman for the environment and sane energy policy at exactly a moment in history (maybe a bit late) when we need an Ambassador to the Future. And "An Inconvenient Truth" amounts to one helluva campaign ad -- without being a formal political campaign. It's a moral, educational campaign for a unique position of leadership. In his film Gore lays out the stakes and educates viewers, and every human being on the face of the earth can see this film on DVD and see what we're up against. Al Gore has done the first half of his job as Ambassador to the Future very effectively.
But it's only the first half. He will need power to make things happen.
One idea: As soon as a Democratic Congress takes their seats in 2007, the House and Senate would be smart to create a Joint House-Senate Gore Commission to help craft legislation addressing global warming, sustainable energy and the environment. When a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, the president would be smart to tap Gore as a special advisor and also act as an emissary of the president on the environment, energy and global warming within the U.S. and as an ambassador at large internationally to represent the president in conferences and treaties affecting the environment, energy policy and global warming. The effort involved would be on the scale of World War II, the Manhattan Project and the Apollo Mission to the Moon, with Gore and his commission in the roles of Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Churchill, Oppenheimer and Groves, and the first Moon astronauts.
A Democratic Congress (and perhaps later a Democratic president) would create a power base for Gore to operate from. Not being president, Gore will not be without power, and yet would be more effective as an empowered champion of the environment and thus the future. If Al Gore didn't exist for this special leadership position, it would be necessary to invent him.