[NYTr] Al Gore's Moral Imperative

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

SEE ALSO:

Nobel Win 'Would Boost Hopes of Gore Candidacy' The Independent 10/10/07
http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20071008/069966.html

"Mainstream Dems 'Implore' Al Gore to Run" Consortium News - 10/10/07
http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20071008/069880.html

Consortium News - Oct 11, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/101107.html


Al Gore's Moral Imperative

By Robert Parry

When Al Gore encountered New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof
at a recent conference on climate change, the former Vice President
lamented the lack of public urgency toward the looming catastrophe from
global warming.

“I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking
bulldozers … and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power
plants,” Gore told Kristof, who was accompanied by his teenage son.
[NYT, Aug. 16, 2007]

Yet, if Gore means what he says – that global warming is such a threat
to the future of mankind that young people should throw their bodies in
front of bulldozers – then the obvious question to him is: “Why won’t
you submit to the personal unpleasantness of another presidential
campaign so you can lead the fight to save the planet?”

Gore certainly can’t believe that Democratic front-runner Hillary
Clinton would make climate change a centerpiece of her presidency.
Already, she’s acting as if her party’s nomination is in the bag and
she can shift toward a general-election strategy that stresses
consensus, not controversy.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Sen. Clinton said her goal is
“to build a centrist coalition” on key issues like health care, energy
independence and national security. She vowed to steer clear of
polarizing positions or an over-reliance on the Democratic Party
“base.” [Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2007]

Though the New York senator does give a nod of concern toward the issue
of “climate change” during Democratic debates, she doesn’t show the
passion that she does for, say, health care – and certainly nothing
close to Gore’s commitment to the environment.

So, if Al Gore stays on the political sidelines and Hillary Clinton
wins the White House, he can expect some polite attention to his grim
warnings about global warming, but likely no dramatic action. Climate
change will have a spot on the list of priorities, though probably not
near the top.

Given the right-wing hostility toward the global-warming issue, it
certainly wouldn’t fit into Clinton’s vision of bipartisan consensus.
Any serious attempt to address the country’s reliance on fossil fuels
would stir a determined resistance from powerful forces, including the
oil and automobile industries.

Sen. Clinton is an unlikely champion for such a difficult fight,
especially if she models her presidency after her husband’s, which
often preferred what were called “micro” initiatives, such as putting
more school children in uniforms.

In her Post interview, Sen. Clinton likened her centrism to “what I
remember when I was growing up,” an apparent reference to Dwight
Eisenhower’s administration known for not rocking the boat too much on
controversial questions like racial integration and gender equality –
problems left to fester until the social explosions of the 1960s.

Clinton’s fondness for Eisenhower-like complacency certainly shouldn’t
be very encouraging to Gore, who has talked about the urgency to act
now on global warming before the temperature trends cannot be reversed.

In short, Gore would seem to have both a practical incentive – and a
moral imperative – to enter the Democratic presidential campaign. At
minimum, he could force the global-warming issue to the forefront of
the debate.

Plus, if he were to win the nomination, he could make Election 2008 a
referendum on whether the United States will confront real dangers to
the nation’s future – from global warming to the Bush-era assault on
reason – or continue to fret about exaggerated threats from al-Qaeda
and to accept the erosion of constitutional liberties.

On a moral level, a Gore candidacy would be putting his body where his
mouth is. Metaphorically at least, he would be throwing himself in
front of the bulldozers. He would be taking the personal risks that he
wants the young people to take. He would be providing real leadership,
not just words.

Al Gore may have plenty of excuses for not running for President again.
But he must recognize that he has some very compelling reasons to do so.

[For an investigative look at how Gore’s 2000 campaign was undermined,
see our new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W.
Bush]