Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Remove all ads!

The idea behind awarding the Nobel peace price here is the conflict potential that climate change bears. To wit: The Norwegian Nobel Committee said global warming "may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the Earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states." To accept that requires a long term view, and of course, acceptance of the phenomenon of global climate change.

I think for a segment of the US right bashing Gore and the Nobel peace price committee for him getting the Nobel price for his engagement for preventing or at least slowing down climate change is a matter of principle: If they don't they legitimise climate change, which as all children know, is a fairy tale, and would through their silence undermine themselves, at least in their own perception.

martaug,
as for the nobel peace prize for Arafat, the "They honoured a terrorist!" line is apparently a pet accusation among the US and Israeli right used against the UN, or the noble peace price committee with untiring enthusiasm. As T2 said, the old adage rings true, whether he's a freedom fighter or a terrorist depends on your view, or on whose view you share. It is nothing short of remarkable that the public dispute on Palestine and Arafat is by far more diverse, open and lively in Israel than in the US.

[ October 16, 2007, 10:59: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

To answer the initial question, I do not think Gore will run. That's a little depressing though, because I think if he did, he'd likely win.

And that somewhat bold statement certainly requires some explanation. Here's my reasoning. First, while the Dems recent ineptitude in Congress proves to me yet again that they are capable of screwing up anything, I don't see any way for the Republicans to keep the White House in 2008. Even the evangelical christians are bailing on them. (Many evangelicals are considering backing a 3rd party canidate in 2008 if Guliani wins the Republican nomination as then the presidential canidates of both major political parties will be pro-choice.) The point - I see a Democrat in the White House in 2008. Therefore, I think that whoever happens to win the Democratic nomination will become the next president of the U.S.

That, however, is only half of the explanation. The second point that needs to be addressed is why I think he would win the Democratic nomination. My answer to that is while I'm registered as a Democrat, and I typically vote Democrat (although not exclusively - I have voted for Republicans in the past), I'm not particularly thrilled with the choice of either Clinton or Obama. Many of my friends who also tend to vote for the Dems feel the same way. While we all agree that Clinton or Obama would be better than Guliani/Thompson/any other Republican interested in extending the war in Iraq, none of us think that either Clinton or Obama are great canidates. We just happen to think that they are the better of two rather uninspiring choices.

Gore, while perhaps not inspiring, is still an improvement. There are a few things that I would support in a Gore canidacy. Since he isn't running at the moment, I can't know this for certain, but I believe he would begin bringing the troops home from Iraq. That is issue #1 for me come the fall of 2008. I also think that the U.S. has to start catching up to the rest of civilization and acknowledge some things about global pollution. Whether you believe in global warming or not, you have to believe that pumping hundreds of thousands of tons of toxins and carcinogens into the atmosphere every year - which the U.S. is currently doing - can't be good for your health. All countries do that, and the U.S. is currently the world's worst offender. (China and India will both pass us off within the next generation though, and it will be hard to point our finger at them if we don't do something to improve our emissions first.) The point here, I think Gore will help push us in that direction.

Finally, the big thing that all the Democrats seem to be pushing after Iraq is a universal health care system. While I believe that everyone under 18 and over 65 should have access to health care regardless of income level, I'm of the opinion that if you are between 18 and 64, it should be your responsibility to buy health insurance. If you don't have insurance - regardless if the reason is you chose not to purchase it or cannot afford to purchase it - that's not my problem. (I don't want to completely derail this topic and turn it to national health coverage, so I'll just sum it up by saying most people with jobs have health insurance, so if you don't have insurance, maybe you should get a (better) job. That's a standard people under 18 and over 65 can't be reasonably expected to be held to, so I give them a pass.) Anyway, there's no guarantee that Gore wouldn't attempt to introduce a new universal health initiative, I just don't think it would be at the top of his list.

 

For once, I think I have to disagree with Aldeth. I honestly don't think Gore will run, nor do I think he'd win if he did. The reason being, in my opinion, is his environmentalism.

Right now, all the major candidates are pledging decently ambitious environmental initiatives. Which is great. But if Gore runs, you can bet that nearly the entire environmental crowd will break his way, while the other candidates would have little chance of out-"greening" him. There are plenty of left-leaning voters whose top issue (or at least top 3 issue) is the environment and global warming. If Gore stays out of the race, his endorsement will be extremely valuable to whichever Dem candidate gets it. Entering the race would only muddy the field and make the environment a second or third tier issue for the other candidates.

In short, I believe Gore will have a much greater impact on the upcoming election if he stays out than if he gets in. And no one is more aware of this than Gore himself. Hence, I can't see him running.

@LKD,

I'm not sure what your point is. Few who win the Nobel are single-handedly responsible for their achievements, and they often receive it for their leadership role. And of course Gore isn't the first guy to address this issue. But can you name one person - just one - who has done more to shed light on this issue worldwide than Al Gore? He didn't win the Nobel for inventing global warming awareness, he won for being its tireless promoter.

I really will never understand the spittle-flecked hatred some people insist on having for the man. So little of it is grounded in reality or is even relevant.

 

Bob Somerby (dailyhowler.com) is really great to read on how the trashing of Gore in 2000 and beyond was a project not just of the right, but of the so-called "left-wing mainstream media" as well.

 

DR,

I a little confused by one of your comments:

I agree that a Gore endorsement would be valuable to any Democratic canidate. What I don't get is how a canidate whose top priority is environmentalism would make environmentalism a second or third tier issue for other canidates. You're right - they would have little chance of "out-greening" Gore, but when the environment came up in debates, the other canidates would have to trumpet that they too have environmnetal reform ideas that are similar to Gore's. Political stategies rarely involve giving up on an issue entirely unless your view is antithetical to your opponents. If you have a similar view - environmental reform but of varying degrees - to me the best strategy would be trying to minimize the differences of your strategies to the voters, not concede the debate to your opponent.

So I don't really see it as muddying the waters, but ONLY if this happens during the nomination phase of the elections. However, DR, your point has got me to thinking of a way the Republicans COULD retain the White House in 2008. That would be if Gore thinks it's too late in the process for him to win the Democratic nomination, but he decides instead to run as an independent (or for the Green Party even) in 2008. That would be disasterous. However, given that Gore got boned in 2000 by Ralph Nader essentially doing the exact same thing, I'd be hard pressed to think that Gore would consider such a strategy. Still, Gore running as a 3rd party canidate would be worst-case scenario.

 

@ Aldeth,

What I mean is, if Gore gets in, the other candidates will likely abandon any efforts to attract Green/environmentalist voters, and will try to change the scope of the debate so that environmental issues will all but vanish as a major themes in the debates and campaigns. They know they can't beat Gore on his turf, so they'll keep the focus elsewhere. Thus, no meaningful promises for environmental initiatives in a future presidency. The focus will change to areas where Gore may be vulnerable, such as national security and terrorism. In other words, assuming Gore runs, in the next 4 years of a Dem presidency, few new strides toward environmental action would be made unless Gore wins the nomination and pushes for them. The reception he's received thus far for winning the Nobel is a pretty good indicator to me that his chances in a general election are pretty slim, even against a foreign policy moron like Giuliani. Gore's personality hurts him more than just about anything, as he's generally viewed as wonkish and smug. Giuliani, racist barking lunatic that he is, tends to score much higher in the likability department than Gore does.

I think Gore sees that the only way to get any real progress made on the environmental front is to get a Democrat in the White House, any Democrat. The Republicans have proven time and time again that environmental issues come a distant second to the interests of the energy industry. This is why he definitely will not run as a third party candidate (because you're right - he won't screw us like Nader screwed him), and I highly doubt he'd jump in with the other Dems. He just wouldn't win, and it would ultimately hurt the overall cause of stopping global warming. He can do more by staying a private citizen. Plus, by endorsing another Dem, Gore, his donor base and his supporters will keep the pressure on whomever he endorses to actually promote a more aggressive environmental agenda.

This is all speculation on my part, but if Gore gets in the race I'll eat my hat.

 

DR,

First, I agree with you that Gore probably will not run (that was actually the first thing I said in this thread). As a result, all of the speculation on your part and my part will ultimately be moot if he doesn't run as we both expect.

I'm still not entirely sold on your explanation though. I've thrown it around in my head for a while now, and I certainly see how it could happen in the way you describe it. However, I also see the possibility of environmental reform becoming a bigger issue in the primaries if Gore did run. You're completely right about the other canidates not wanting to beat Gore on his own turf, but that presupposes that Gore wouldn't take the fight to them. If Gore made environmental reform one of the main platform points of his canidacy - and I see little reason why he wouldn't - his opponents would stop the environmental debate at their own peril.

In other words if the other canidates conceded that segment of the debate to Gore, they could be conceding the election to him. While the environment is not at the top of many voters list of top issues, if Gore had a similar view on Iraq, national security, and the economy as the other Democrats (and he likely would) then who's to say that the environment couldn't be a deciding factor if all other things remained equal?

 

It's possible, you're right. I just think it's a little less likely than his competitors focusing on his environmentalism and using it to call him, in effect, a one-trick pony. It would go something like this: "While we are all deeply concerned about global warming, a real President can't afford to be so narrow-minded in his focus..." blah blah. His biggest strength could be turned into a liability. He hasn't been connected to any other major or minor issue since he left office in 2000.

Plus, making environmentalism a bigger focus in the primaries would, in my estimation, hurt the Dems in general. You're right that the environment, sadly, is not a top priority for the majority of voters on both sides. The economy and the war are the biggies. A bigger focus on the environment would give the impression that the Dems aren't as concerned about either one, which would turn off some moderate swing voters. Not a majority, but enough to swing a sizable chunk to the Republicans.

Don't get me wrong - I like Al Gore. I think he's incredibly smart and capable, and after 7 years of Bumble the Boy Wonder, electing his polar opposite would go a long way to improving our image around the world. But I think Gore is too vulnerable to attack - competitively speaking - from his own side on several key issues to sure up the nomination. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.

 

I just saw this Newsweek article , and it talks about the potential benefits of a Gore endorsement. The author agrees that Gore likely will not run, but that an endorsement from Gore could only help whichever canidate receives it (and surprisingly to me that canidate would most likely be Obama). I did not realize the relationship between Gore and Hillary is evidently as poor as this author claims.