Al Gore picks up a Nobel prize for providing commentary in a movie that wasn’t his idea. Why not give the Nobel to the person who created the film–activist Laurie David?
The Norwegians who awarded this prize were simply trying to make a political statement aimed at Bush, nothing more. And in doing so, they’ve created a global climate change leader who alienates 50% of the U.S. population. This isn’t Gore’s fault (yes, I’d vote for him), it’s just how it is. What we desperately need is climate change leadership who can bring into the fold 100% of the population.
Mind you, I’m not bashing Gore. But, as a leader of the global environmental movement, he’s absolutely ill-suited to reach everyone. He will never be viewed by half the U.S. population with anything less than distrust. The platforms he espouses will be ignored, brushed aside. Worse, when these same ideas are proposed by nonpartisan leaders, Gore will have polluted the waters. Not Gore’s fault, inherently, mind you. That’s just how things work when you once held the office of Vice President of the U.S.A..
This was a PERFECT time to elevate another great leader. The Nobel Committee did the planet a great disservice by missing the moment. Gore is already the global ‘green’ leader. This prize does little to make him more effective. What he needs is progressive peers to help him reach a greater audience. Not supporters, but bonafide peers. Let’s pull David, Brown, Lovins and others into the spotlight. The world needs all the help it can get.
Here’s a little Rogue Wave for you (once again):
Could this finally be the beginning of the end for fur coats? It would seem that high fashion’s top strategists are shitting bricks over the lack of definitive seasonal changes. Now that a warming planet has melted sharp distinctions between the seasons, couture designers ’round the world are hiring eco-advisors for advice and help (Mr. Bahama? Give me a call.).
“The whole fashion system will have to change,” Beppe Modenese, founder of Milan Fashion Week, told The New York Times last week.
“The fashion system must adapt to the reality that there is no strong difference between summer and winter any more… You can’t have everyone showing four times a year to present the same thing. People are not prepared to invest in these clothes that, from one season to the other, use the same fabrics at the same weight.”
Mr Modenese’s comments came as New York fashion retailers blamed a prolonged “Indian summer” for poor autumn sales. Who needs a woollen pea coat when it is 30 degrees-plus?
Believe me when I tell you that Beppe has been in a perpetual tizzy since Resort ‘06. Thank god Linda Loudermilk is going to save us all (it’s hard to drip thick enough sarcasm via a blog, but I tried really hard with that last sentence.)
Which nation is going to lead the global “sustainable revolution”? While I’m well aware that this revolution is a pipe dream, with ‘leaders’ like Clinton and Obama (both are total fucking disasters who mirror perfectly the ignorance of their ‘liberal’ constituency) in love with tar sands and liquid coal, it’s a fun thought experiment.
As a citizen of the United States, I tried to envision a revolution lead by Old Glory. But then it hit me: Her glory days are over. In fact, after doing a bit of research, I’ve come to the conclusion that the U.S. is no longer a first world nation. Here’s what I found:
INFANT MORTALITY RATE: The United States is not only last among first world nations, it’s way down the list in the middle of the second-tier nations at #37. Nestled between Croatia and New Caledonia, the United States is decidedly second rate when it comes to taking care of its newborns. (Source: U.N. World Populations Prospects: 2006)
LIFE EXPECTANCY: What do you think? U.S. ranks top five? Top ten? Not even top twenty. According to the U.N., the U.S. has fallen to #38, just above Portugal and Slovenia. First world nations ring in consistently with life expectancies three years longer than the U.S.. Could it be the water? The PVC? The complete lack of monitoring of our food supply for carcinogens, heavy metals and other nasty shit that isn’t allowed in the E.U.? Nah, it’s our health care system that Hillary will fix. Ahem.
PRESS FREEDOM: An important indicator for so many reasons. Here, the United States ranks #44, behind Namibia, South Africa, Benin and forty other nations. (Source: Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005). We in the U.S. take it for granted that our press is a shining example of freedom and democracy, but we rarely examine this notion for truth.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The U.N. measures Human Development using a fancy metric that combines longevity, literacy and GDP. Norway, Sweden and Australia top this list, with the U.S. coming in at number eight. Not too bad, but certainly lower than most U.S. citizens would expect. (Source: U.N. Human Development Report 2004)
LITERACY: According to the International Adult Literacy Survey, the mean prose literacy scores of U.S. adults with a high school diploma or GED (but no college), ranked 18th (tie) out of 19 countries. That’s awesome!!! A nation of semi-literates is expected to lead the green revolution? I think not.
EDUCATION: Among adults age 25 to 34, the U.S. is ninth among industrialized nations in the share of its population that has at least a high school degree. In the same age group, the United States ranks seventh, with Belgium, in the share of people who hold a college degree. Twenty years ago, the U.S. ranked first in both categories. This marks a RAPID slide. Just wait another twenty years! (Source: OECD.org)
++
So, there you have it. When it comes to leading the revolution, we’re better off looking at Norway, Sweden, Japan, the E.U.. The time for U.S. leadership has come and gone. What’s more, I think this is a good thing for the world. The Greeks and French–both second-tier nations–for example, have solid quality of life. And neither nation tries to hold the U.N. over a barrel when things aren’t going their way. A less dominating United States with a diminished consumer appetite will be a blessing. Sadly, I doubt we’ll slip a few rungs without trying to take down the rest of the world with us (this is exactly what is happening in the Middle East).
Maybe Gore should run for office in Norway, where he can do some good.
(I posted this originally back in March. I’m posting it again because neither Obama nor Clinton are worthy of your vote, if you consider climate change a critical issue. Edwards may be viable, but I don’t see him doing much to get the nomination from the Dems . . . mostly because the Dems are increasingly out of touch)
Yes, I know it is crazy to think of Al Gore as a third party candidate. Yet, just for fun, why not suspend your initial dismissal of this idea for a moment and walk through this thought-exercise with me? I’m betting the Republicans of 1912 would have dismissed the notion of a third party Theodore Roosevelt, but look what happened when they took Teddy’s supporters for granted - it cost them the White House.
I’ve polled sixteen friends and acquaintances with the question, “If Al Gore were to run as a third party candidate, would you still vote for him?” Of these sixteen, eleven said YES. The others were on the fence. Not one responded with an outright NO. My friend David responded, “I love the idea of him running so that he would get his ideas out there and so that the platform for his ideas would be made even greater. To have his notions raised and covered by the greater media channels is what we need.”
Take a look at the current situation: ‘Democrat’ Joe Lieberman is threatening to hand control of the Senate to the Republicans by switching parties if any legit anti-Iraq war resolution is passed. Party front-runners Clinton and Obama are both on record saying that they refuse to take the threat of NUCLEAR attack on Iran off the table. Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been unable to muster much of her promised ‘revolution.’ The Democrats, in a few short months, are coming apart at the seams. Has there been a better time for a liberal third party? Has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more critical experience than Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.?
Briefly then, as I’m really only out to foster debate and get this idea rolling, are some reasons that Gore would do well by running as an outsider:
1. Again, has there been a bigger name on the sidelines with more experience?
Flash back to 1992. Ross Perot leads the vote over Clinton and Bush with only a few months to go. The victory was his to give away and he did, by dropping out of the race. Why did Perot get so close to taking The Prize? Because he was the man the public believed had the most experience with the most pressing topic - the economy. Gore, too, has a grasp on the issue of the time - the environment. It’s a cakewalk for the right team (something Gore has never had) to tie environmental considerations into any arena - from resource scarcity (war) to agriculture (food) to economic stability (energy), and so on - making the environment the true focal point of the 2008 election.
2. A Gore run would give automatic credibility to third parties.
This would be very, very good for U.S. politics for so many, many reasons. As with Perot, the corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates would be forced to allow Gore into the televised debates, meaning the debates may turn into something worth watching for a change (as they would have been in ‘00 and ‘04 had Nader been invited). Hearing more than two voices on a topic is critical to developing an exchange that represents the full spectrum of the thoughts and ideals of the U.S. citizenry.
3. There is no strong candidate currently running.
Sure, Clinton may be the first electable woman to run and Obama the first electable (how I despise this term as it neuters the spirit of the left) citizen of African origins (the newest PC term), but a minority status has zero to do with whether or not one is fit for the Presidency. McCain, well, he’s a faux-maverick, back-peddling, pro-war candidate. Edwards is a bright spot, but Clinton and the Carlyle Group have squashed his chances. In a Clinton-McCain election, voters would be given (key word) the delightful choice between Warmonger A and Warmonger B. Throw Al Gore into the mix and these two will eat each other alive, leaving Gore a clear path to victory. Advantage, Gore, by a whopping margin.
4. Environmentalism finally gets a real platform. To date, neither major party has announced ANY plans for a truly ambitious program to combat climate change. Pelosi and company have done better than the Republicans, but they’ve still yet to put forth anything that moves anywhere near the accelerated timetable required (for more information, read ‘Plan B 2.0′ by Lester Brown). The Green Party in the U.S. is still far from the militant, hyper-organized machine that it needs to become to be taken seriously. It has some great people at the top, but it’s local chapters are rag-tag and riddled with tired ex-hippies who are more concerned with repeating the tired chants of the 1960s than embracing real change. No, Al Gore could single-handedly create a Party that is strengthened by its commitment to the ethical stewardship of the planet.
5. Gore needs separation from the Democrats. (I know, he’s not enough of his own man to leave his father’s party behind, but . . .) For so many reasons. For starters, he has been working feverishly to craft bipartisan support of his mission. Signing on to the home team will only ruin the advances he has made. If he is brave enough to show the citizenry and the world that he actually walks the walk, then his tarnished history will be burnished like never before. Remember, he more or less sat on his hands for eight years as a dem V.P., apparently waiting for ‘his turn’. This time he can put his passions ahead of career advancement, spurning the safe road of partisan politics while distancing himself from the cigar-sucking conservative Clinton administration that usurped his soul.
6. He could avoid partisan politics. Related to #5. Gore has spent so much time coming off as nonpartisan that it would be a real shame to see him throw this away by running as a Democrat. Aligning himself with a party that has a poor track record where his expertise is concerned is a questionable tactic. As an independent, Gore would be able to play the role of a true bipartisan peacemaker, a real man-in-the-middle. This would also free him from toeing a party line on numerous divisive issues. Now more than ever, the American citizens are starving for a President who will make decisions based on the good of the people, not the party.
7. This would allow him more time to weigh his options. As a third party candidate, Gore can afford to let his rivals smash each other publicly, exposing one another’s weak points in the process. He would also be able to see what develops in domestic and international politics. For example, if we nuke Iran, environmental considerations are off the table for the rest of the decade, if not longer as the world as we know it devolves into infinite chaos. In which case, Gore’s candidacy bid suffers immensely. It’s strange to me that, with two years+ to go, some are already saying that it’s “late” to get into the campaign. Pffft. That’s nonsense. Give me a candidate, a bunch of money (Warren? Bill?) and six months and I can promise you that s/he will be elected.
8. He has the organization and grass roots campaign in place. With Gore’s network of organizations, friends and supporters, he could get on ballots in 50 states in three days flat, without a doubt. What’s more, he can tap into people he needs with very little effort. I’m betting that the past few years have taught him that relying on D.C. advisers is a bad idea and this time around, he’d be more than willing to work with image makers and publicists who are actually a part of his constituency. Given this, he’d have another big advantage over Clinton/Obama/McCain/Giuliani who will all turn to the same out-of-touch strategists who so badly play each and every hand.That’s all for now. There are a number of other reasons but I’m going to table them until I hear back from you, dearest friends and readers on just the inanity/genius of mulling this option. What do you think?
Oh, the daily song! Almost forgot: I hereby decree ‘Revolution’ by The Cult as Al Gore’s official theme song.
Photography credit goes to the hyper-talented James Rexroad, whose permission I did not seek but whose forgiveness I very much do. Click the link and hire James for something, already - if only to help assuage my guilt.
Al Gore picks up a Nobel prize for providing commentary in a movie that wasn’t his idea. Why not give the Nobel to the person who created the film–activist Laurie David?
Could this finally be the beginning of the end for fur coats? It would seem that high fashion’s top strategists are shitting bricks over the lack of definitive seasonal changes. Now that a warming planet has melted sharp distinctions between the seasons, couture designers ’round the world are hiring eco-advisors for advice and help (Mr. Bahama? Give me a call.).
Which nation is going to lead the global “sustainable revolution”? While I’m well aware that this revolution is a pipe dream, with ‘leaders’ like Clinton and Obama (both are total fucking disasters who mirror perfectly the ignorance of their ‘liberal’ constituency) in love with tar sands and liquid coal, it’s a fun thought experiment.