Fit To Print

To Al or Not to Al

October 13th, 2007

In the last few years, Al Gore has greatly repaired his image, becoming respected and beloved internationally, as well as among American progressives and people who believe in science and all that nonsense. He has dramatically increased awareness and the potential for action on global warming, but has done so in a shrewd and dignified manner that has largely inoculated him from the kind of criticism that has pushed other progressive advocates like Michael Moore to the fringes of public debate.

Gore’s remarkable success since 2000 has left many wishing he’d take another crack at running for prez. There are several strong arguments against the idea. Allow me to briefly roll them out.

The Hillary Juggernaut is nigh unstoppable at this point, running against her would merely diminish Gore’s possible influence in a future Clinton Administration, divide the party, and distract from Gore’s mission. As Dave Roberts of Huffington Post puts it, Al has managed to transcend the “glorified high school of U.S. politics”. He can engage Americans and the world on a higher level than he would be able to as a mere political candidate. Why regress now?

Another point: a lot of Gore’s failings as a candidate are still there. He doesn’t talk like Pete Farmer, he doesn’t act like Pete Farmer. A nobel peace prize and an Oscar, far from a launching point for a presidential bid, can actually be negatives in the world where Pete Farmer resides. P.S., fuck Pete Farmer.

Many also feel that it is too late to enter the race. The funding and organization needed to seriously compete in the early state contests take months to cultivate.

I’m not entirely sure these obstacles can be overcome, but I think the possibility is worth considering.

America is ripe for a strong progressive candidate, and yet the three top-tier candidates are all hesitant to offer bold, inventive solutions to our country’s growing problems. Not since the 1960s have American politicians been so unwilling to latch on to overwhelming public sentiment.

The argument that Gore doesn’t want to run for president is just hogwash. No doubt he enjoys the great reception he’s been getting over the last few years, and knows much of it will evaporate should he run for office again. And his real strengths do not lie in campaigning. But if he thought he would win, he would run in a heartbeat. And I am much of the same mind. He has a lot to lose, but if it’s doable, it should be done.

We aren’t going to see real change in the Democratic Party until the Clinton stranglehold on the party establishment is forcibly released. Gore is the only one with enough star power, credibility and leadership, to make such an attempt with the least amount of mud-slinging.

There is an apt parallel here. James Dobson has voiced the reluctance of Christian Conservatives to back a pro-choice Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani. They worry that nominating an “abortion lover” for both parties would effectively kill the pro-life movement. Similarly, progressives are worried that nominating Hillary takes many important issues- genuine universal health care, speedy withdrawal from Iraq, a carbon tax - off the table, possibly for the next 8 years. The difference is that Democrats have a mandate from the electorate for real change. The conservatives have a mandate to return back to the realm of the sane. Dems and Republicans should take two very different lessons from the threat of mutiny (or at least apathy) by the party base on each side.

As a Jerry Springer final thought, I think it is unlikely that Gore would win. But I think he is the only possible Democratic nominee worth campaigning for, and I think he would make a great president. If he does choose to run, I think we should see it less as a sign of his unchecked ambition, and more of an acknowledgment that his kind of leadership is desperately needed in the “glorified high school of U.S. politics”.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized