We Need Al Gore to Run for President
barunsingh.com
This country needs a change. A drastic, swift-kick-in-the-ass sort of a change. It’s Iraq, true. But it’s also the constant hypocrisy; the neverending doublespeak; the sheer impotence of politicians who aren’t willing to take a stand on anything, and the utter idiocy of those who are; the increased expectation of lies and corruption as the norm; the Rovian tactics of division and isolation as a means of participation; the seemingly nonexistent distinction between truth and truthiness.
First and foremost, it’s the abysmal vacuum of inspirational leaders.
We need to find someone to fill that vacuum. Someone who understands government, but understands the world outside of politics as well. Someone who understands how to negotiate and work with opposing parties, but also has the courage to stand for something. Someone with a strong sense of morality, but also the ability to view all the shades of gray in between the light and the fire. We need Al Gore.
I feel the need to bring some context in here. I’m not formally affiliated with any political party, and keep my distance from either wing. Though I lean left on the majority of issues, I could and have voted for Republicans (proudly not Bush). I was not a strong Gore supporter in 2000 and in fact, were I to have voted (I couldn’t because of timing issues) it would have been for Nader — since my vote would have been in Alabama where Bush was virtually guaranteed to win, my purpose in a Nader vote would have been to help provide enough votes to allow a third political party (any third party) to receive federal funding in the ‘04 elections. I cast my vote to Kerry in 2004, only as the better of two poor choices, and my visceral reaction to Bush’s reelection was in line with the Guardian: “Oh, God”.
I am in my mid-twenties, born and raised in this country by parents who immigrated from India, well educated, relatively well-informed. I’ve grown alongside and sympathized with cultures on both sides of the aisle: Southern conservatives and Boston liberals. And I’ve never felt such a strong longing for something to believe in in our political system.
All of that context is meant to preface this statement: I look at Al Gore, and I am hopeful. And I’m not alone.
This is not the same Al Gore of 2000. That Al Gore was willing to shape himself to match the vision of image consultants, undone by his own inability to connect with people. That Al Gore wasn’t willing to put up a fight when he was cheated out of his rightful election victory. That Al Gore didn’t seem to have the courage of his convictions. That Al Gore is not who I see today.
Today’s Al Gore understands his past: “I am Al Gore, and I used to be the next President of the United States of America”. Simultaneously a statement of his victory and his weakness in holding on to it. His stint on Saturday Night Live (where he gave a ‘pretend alternate universe’ State of the Union address) was funny, but also a somber reminder of what we have to deal with today.
Gore’s work on global warming has been nothing short of revolutionary. He didn’t come up with the idea, or contribute to the science, nor was he even the first one to openly discuss this issue as a global problem. But he has been the most effective messenger on this topic by far. In many ways, he was the one who forced the right wing’s hand to finally accept that global warming is an incredibly significant problem and that we must find a way to deal with it.
The indirect effects of Gore’s Inconvenient Truth are perhaps as significant as the more obvious impact. It proved that when presented with an honest portrayal of the science and logic behind an issue, people can and will be able to understand and come to their own conclusions. Compare this to the standard political approach of today “This is complex and hard work. My people tell me this is the way to go and I agree. Don’t worry yourself about the details, just trust me and follow along.” An Inconvenient Truth was a message directly to the people, built on grassroots efforts. It didn’t require an evangelical pastor to act as middleman, and it didn’t insult our intelligence.
Gore’s work has been a rare example of the truth that moral imperatives in government do exist, and they do not require evoking the New Testament. The left has for years been too weak to stand firm on the notion that while religion may shape one’s morality, a discussion of morality in government policies can be had without forcing everyone into camps of “true believers” or “atheists”. A handful of 2006 candidates were able to walk that tightrope, and since winning back the House and Senate the Dems have gotten a little better at communicating issues of morality, but not much.
Perhaps most importantly, Gore has shown that you can talk about true terror — literally the end of the world — without taking advantage of the politics of fear. Gore’s work presented a stark and chilling portrayal of the situation, but it also fostered hope that there is something to be done. What’s the difference? Fear mongering thrives on ignorance and blind followers. Gore’s approach thrives on thorough understanding of the issue, and the creation of a common goal. There is a difference, and it is relevant.
But what about all the rest of the candidates? The Democrats like to say they have an “embarrassment of riches” in their lineup of presidential hopefuls, and there are many Republicans who have joined the fold has well. Gore hasn’t even indicated that he’s going to run yet.
But look at the plethora of potential candidates and for the most part you find a whole lot of the same. Republicans have ceded so much to this administration and moved this country in such a negative direction, that a Republican candidate has little chance of sending any sort of positive message. There was a time when McCain would have been seen as an exception to that rule, as the maverick who was willing to break with his party to follow his conscience, but he has become so dependent upon securing approval from the conservative base that he’s a pale reflection of what he once was.
Among the Democratic candidates, Hillary is leading the pack. But there are few politicians as contrived (Lieberman comes first to mind), and her position regarding Iraq is so vague it is virtually indefensible. Were it not for having a very well-liked husband and a portion of the population eager to have a female commander-in-chief, she would be nowhere in this race. There are some, including Edwards and Richardson, who may well garner support for their views and rational approaches, but neither of them can be described as truly inspirational.
The one person in the race who does inspire people to believe in a chance for real change is Obama. Aside from Gore, he also happens to be the only one who has been on the right side of the Iraq war from the start (namely that there never should have been one). But Gore happens to have those inspirational qualities plus the experience that Obama lacks.
Together, A Gore/ Obama ticket would be virtually unstoppable. There is a whole generation of people like myself who are so cynical about the political process that many of us have lost hope that change is even possible. After all, we’ve only ever seen it get worse, and things were never that great to start. We are confronted with worldwide problems on a scale like never before — global warming, disease, genocide, poverty, terrorism — and we happen to have the wealth and technology to do something about it. But our leaders seem simply incapable of removing themselves from their own egos and Cold War ideologies long enough to do something productive about any of it. We need someone who can show us that it’s worth it for us to care. Al Gore can do that, and Obama can help.
A Gore/ Obama ticket would make this generation care, possibly for the first time. It would make us want to do something to take our government back. |
