There appear to be two major schools of thought on the possibility of a Gore candidacy in 2008:
- A Gore presidency in 2008 is crucial. No one else sees Iraq, the loss of civil liberties, and the climate crisis as clearly as Gore does. His leadership in the White House will be crucial in guiding us through the next decade.
- Gore will have more credibility, and have more freedom to rally the fight against climate change, if he remains a private citizen and adopts an advocacy role as an "elder statesman."
Gore, being more perceptive than most, saw a third possibility: that he could do a great deal of good fighting the climate crisis by becoming the world's leading eco-businessman.
Many people in both schools, however much they disagreed with each other, reacted in much the same way to Gore's announcement that he was joining Kleiner Perkins, which was followed by the news that his office had called a halt to efforts to put him on the primary ballot.
They thought he was selling out.
I am a supporter of a Gore candidacy, but I said I would respect his decision if he chose not to run. I don't think he's sold out, and I'll attempt to make a case in his defense.
In the history of this country, three presidents stand out as the undisputed greatest: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.
Those presidents possessed a number of qualities that made them great. Namely, vision, courage, integrity, concern for the people, a shrewd knowledge of human nature, and the ability to unify and inspire.
I am of the opinion that Al Gore possesses all those qualities, and that if he is elected to the office, he has the potential to be ranked among that very highest tier of great presidents.
But there is a spark that is missing. All three of those great presidents took office either during a major, all-encompassing national crisis, or just before such a crisis struck. It was those crises--the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression--that gave them the opportunity to demonstrate truly exceptional leadership. To establish the American form of government, to end slavery, to enact the New Deal.
As of right now, we aren't in the midst of such a crisis. And without that, there is little hope that a Gore Administration would be able to carry out the radical, sweeping reforms necessary to fight climate change. Such reforms will require nothing less than a restructuring of our entire economic system and infrastructure, as well as a sea change in public consciousness.
Unfortunately, while we might hope that people are smart and decent enough to see the threat of climate change long before it happens and decide to do something about it, the sad truth remains that unless there are immediate and dire consequences, people will be unable to see the need for change.
As an example, I give the following exchange on Larry King:
GORE: Don't think it's a good thing that the increases are going to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and the other suppliers of oil. Here is -- I have made what many regard as a radical and politically impractical proposal but I believe in it very deeply, Larry. Here it is what I think we ought to do.
I think we ought to eliminate the taxes on employment, the payroll taxes that discourage jobs and make it up dollar for dollar -- no tax increase, revenue neutral. Eliminate the payroll tax and make it up dollar for dollar with pollution taxes, principally C02 taxes and, yes, that would raise the price of gasoline but it would come back to the American people in the form of sharply reduced taxes on payrolls. And for those places where there was a difficult adjustment, make special provisions there because you would have the money to do it.
KING: Let's grab another call. Green Bay, Wisconsin...
GORE: See, that's considered so impractical, there's no followup.
KING: No, it's pretty practical. Green Bay, hello?
Let's take a minute to think about what happened there. Gore put forward one of his favorite policy ideas--one he's very excited about, and clearly given a lot of time and thought to--and what was the response from Larry King?
Was King interested in discussing the merits of Gore's idea? Did he even acknowledge it? No, he said, "Let's grab another call."
With a response like that, why do you think Gore would reenter politics, unless there was a serious chance that the people would give his ideas a fair hearing?
Be honest--how do you think most people will react to a carbon tax? Very few will see the rationale for such a tax. Many will protest at the idea of a new tax, even when they're told that it won't cost them another dime. "Taxes are too high," they'll say. "We don't want another one. The government's got its hand in our pocket as it is."
If such a tax were proposed in Congress, today, how would people react? Mass puzzlement on the part of citizens, combined with a flurry of lobbying by the oil and automotive industries, and the general indolence of legislators, would bury it. And there it would remain for a very long time.
Costly and sweeping initiatives such as the electranet and the Global Marshall Plan will require massive popular support and lots of federal money. The most likely public response now to such proposals is mute incomprehension, followed quickly by balky hostility at the idea of having to spend more of people's hard-earned tax dollars.
In the face of this, Gore has weighed his options carefully and chosen another path. He has decided to try to bend capitalism to the service of the environment. He is attempting to show that alternative energy is better than the old, dirty energy sources, in the only way that businessmen will understand: by making tons of money at it.
Our current, dysfunctional, oil-based economy can't be reformed just by activism or political means. The oil and coal companies, while moribund, still wield enormous political and economic influence (especially in the US) and have been very successful in mounting a disinformation campaign to convince people that climate change is a myth. And as long as they can continue to turn a profit, and oil remains reasonably cheap, it is unlikely that there will be the political will to break their stranglehold and move towards sustainable energy sources. Only when it is conclusively demonstrated that alternative energy and sustainable technologies are profitable, will there be the incentive to begin a large-scale transition to a more environmentally friendly economy.
I suspect Gore would prefer being president and implementing a Green Deal over his current route, but unless the entire system crashes catastrophically, exposing the rotten heart of our addiction to cheap energy for all to see, there won't be an opportunity to do that.
Some people insist that Gore has sold out. But if he were in it for the money, he could have taken a much easier road. His brand is one of the hottest in the world. He could easily have taken sinecures on the boards of a dozen corporations where he could get a fat salary just by sitting on his ass.
But that isn't what he's doing. Instead he's making a huge gamble. There are serious risks inherent in attempting to demonstrate the economic viability of alternative energy and sustainable technologies. This area--green technology--is very new and untried. Furthermore, unlike the tech industry, massive initial investments of capital and infrastructure are needed to develop any promising ideas in this field.
For businessmen, nothing fails like failure. If Gore and his partners make the wrong bet and invest in an idea that loses tons of money, it will set back the drive for green energy by several years. The oil and coal companies will pounce and use this golden opportunity to trash the very idea that alternative energy can be profitable.
If Gore stumbles, his celebrity and credibility will work against him. Everyone will be scrutinizing every move he makes, and a failure by him will mean a lot more than a failure by someone else. After such a failure, businessmen will be more reluctant to back further ventures into environmental technologies. After all, if someone of Gore's famed prescience and abilities couldn't turn a profit in green tech, how could they?
No, Gore has taken on a path fraught with difficulties and risks, very far from the easy and comfortable path he's accused of having taken.
For all these reasons, I am inclined to give Gore the benefit of the doubt, and to trust that the wisdom of his latest choices will, as they have many times before, become apparent in the fullness of time.
And finally, despite his new ventures, his current path is not incompatible with either a future reentry into politics, nor with continuing his role as a globally recognized environmental advocate.
As for the latter, I fully expect he will continue as a citizen activist, criss-crossing the globe to speak out on climate change to the public. His current agenda numbers a visit to the climate conference in Bali in December and moderating a presidential candidate forum on the environment in NH. He has met with world leaders, both privately and in groups, to advise them on how to meet the threat of climate change, and I don't expect him to slacken in that role either.
Gore has established a nonprofit organization, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and he has donated to it his profits for An Inconvenient Truth, his Nobel Prize winnings, and now his entire salary from Kleiner Perkins. This organization will no doubt play a crucial role in further raising consciousness among the general public regarding the need for environmental stewardship and sustainable living practices.
As for Gore's future in politics, it is my gut feeling that, one way or another, Al Gore will be unable to avoid the presidency. Greatness is already his, but it will be thrust upon him nonetheless. This country, and indeed the world, is headed for a major crisis in the next decade, and leadership in the political realm, not just in the realms of business and advocacy, will be sorely needed. Gore is a political leader of the very highest caliber, and we will no doubt be calling on him, one last time, to provide that leadership.
In closing, let me repeat Gore's words from The Assault on Reason:
We are by nature a courageous and adaptive people. Our forebears overcame great challenges, and so will we. We are already seeing the emergence of new and innovative defenses against the assault on reason. It is my greatest hope that those who read this book will choose to become part of a new movement to rekindle the true spirit of America.