Al Gore: It sure is hard to walk with these feet of clay

Here’s Al Gore speaking at the Bali climate conference:

"I am going to speak an inconvenient truth," Gore told an audience of several hundred, playing on the name of his Oscar-winning documentary.

And in low tones he added: "My own country the United States is principally responsible for obstructing progress in Bali," spurring rapturous applause and cheers.

(Based on the accounts I’ve read, immediately after Gore finished speaking his face began glowing with an ethereal light while hosts of cherubim descended from the sky to anoint him as God’s second son.)

There’s just one tiny problem with Gore’s statement: the words "in Bali."  I have a quiz for you: did the following set of headlines come from the global warming talks in The Hague in 2000 or Bali in 2007?

  • "US Causes Split at Climate Conference"
  • "EU, US in Climate Deal Standoff"
  • "US responsible for blocking progress in climate talks"
  • "Bitter Divisions Exposed at Climate Talks"

Here’s another set of headlines.  Again: 2000 or 2007?

  • "U.S. Blamed for Climate Treaty Talks Deadlock"
  • "Climate Talks Fail to Close Rift with U.S."
  • "U.S. Blocks Attempts to Cut Global Warming"
  • "US Plays Dirty As Planet Chokes"

Can’t figure out which set of headlines came from which year?  Here’s a hint: the more egregious ones are from 2000 (in fact I left out some from 2000 that were even worse, to try to make the lists look more balanced).  And one more hint: I omitted the attribution "Gore:" from one of the headlines.

My main purpose here isn’t to expose Gore as the most shameless hypocrite in all of human history and quite possibly in the entire universe, as entertaining as that is.  I’m bringing this up because although Gore’s efforts to push for action now on global warming are laudable, his practice of erasing the key role that he and the Clinton administration (and the Democrats generally) have played in getting us to where we are now is deeply harmful.  It’s calculated to make US liberals believe that the Democrats are and have been the solution to this problem, rather than one of the primary roadblocks to real action.  And this only makes it more likely that if the Democrats do gain the presidency again in 2008, liberals will go back to sleep, comforted in the belief that the adults are back in charge and so the problem will again get the serious attention it deserves.  And the Democrats will continue to negotiate the planet to death just as they did during the Clinton administration.

Gore’s dissembling has worked, spectacularly.  Try asking any of your Democrat-leaning friends if they’re aware of some of the headlines above (and the actions that prompted them).  If you find even one who is, you’ll be one ahead of me.  Gore has sold this dishonest, self-aggrandizing version of his past so thoroughly that it’s difficult to convince people otherwise even if you show them the evidence.

Imagine what an impact Gore could have now if he’d admit his own responsibility for where we are today, point out that the effort to prevent any meaningful action on global warming has been entirely bipartisan, and call on both halves of the US political establishment to stop their posturing and empty rhetoric and–finally–put the future of the planet ahead of the short-term interests of themselves and their corporate constituency.  But that would require him to replace his vanity with the kind of humility, honesty, and genuine courage that should be the standard for anyone receiving a Nobel peace prize.

(The answer to the quiz is that the answer to the quiz doesn’t matter–but if you’re curious anyway, you can find it here.)

14 thoughts on “Al Gore: It sure is hard to walk with these feet of clay”

  1. Nobody with a lick of sense thinks the Democrats represent a solution to the climate dilemma. They’re just like the pukes in that regard: trying to kick the problem ahead to the NEXT generation.

    Like

  2. Nobody with a lick of sense thinks the Democrats represent a solution to the climate dilemma. They’re just like the pukes in that regard: trying to kick the problem ahead to the NEXT generation.

    Like

  3. if the Democrats do gain the presidency again in 2008, liberals will go back to sleep…
    I go back and forth on this one. The Dems winning the White House might not inspire liberals to go back to sleep, it might inspire liberals to get more active, because their expectations on a lot of fronts – climate change, Iraq, health care – are increased.
    A case in point: when the Dems won control of Congress, did antiwar liberals to go to sleep because they thought Congress would take care of things? Not if you judge by the number of people, nearly half a million, who came out to UFPJ’s national march on D.C. on Jan. 27. Apparently, a lot of liberals were thinking something like this: This new Congress, if pushed, might end the war. And the hope that their actions might make a difference, that someone might be listening, inspired greater activism – not less.
    The ruling class is always offering phony change as a substitute for real change, and sometimes that works. But sometimes it only whets the appetite for the real thing. I think it’s hard to tell which way it would go if the Dems win the Presidency.

    Like

  4. I go more back than forth, but I hope you’re right. But you were also bringing the war into it while I was talking about global warming. The nature of “action” on global warming makes it difficult to tell the difference between real progress and artful stalling, and I don’t doubt that the Democrats will exploit that. And I also don’t doubt that the vast majority of Democratic voters will suddenly be more open to those same old excuses again (too damaging to the economy, doesn’t ask enough of developing countries, evil Republicans are preventing us from ratifying any agreement, etc).
    I think you’re right that there’s a better chance that Democratic voters will keep the pressure on over the war, simply because it’s such a huge issue in their minds at this point. But I don’t think we can overestimate how effectively the Democrats will be able to sell minor adjustments as major policy corrections. And if they do just ignore their anti-war base, what then? Will those people vote Republican, or Green, or…? Not bloody likely. The Democrats have already seen in 2004 and 2006 that they can thumb their nose at the left and at the anti-war bloc and still get their votes, so why should they cater to them at all?
    I’d love to be wrong on this…I just don’t expect to be.

    Like

  5. Al Gore: It sure is hard to walk with these feet of clay

    Imagine what an impact Gore could have now if he’d admit his own responsibility for where we are today, point out that the effort to prevent any meaningful action on global warming has been entirely bipartisan, and call on both halves of the US politic…

    Like

  7. You mean this? Very good, as usual for Monbiot, and it fleshes out the details of what I was talking about. And it also has a useful mention of the bikini-wearing stewardess calendar.

    Like

  8. it also presents his actions more sympathetically, with the 90s rabid attack congress as a serious foil. monbiot’s explanation is more about the american system being rigged than gore being a patsy. also, the powers behind the throne feel differently now about risk and opportunity.

    Like

  10. Yep–he clearly based that on the FAIR alert (from which I took some quotes as well, but others are the ones I looked up for myself when I was writing my last Gore posting). And he did vote for Nader in 2000, but in 2004 he backed Kerry, going so far as to take a cheap shot at people who didn’t have a similar change of heart (comparing them to George Bush in terms of their refusal to “acknowledge and adapt to a changing situation”).
    I’ve always loved This Modern World, as any sane person would. But since 2004 I’ve noticed a steady Kossification of Dan’s positions (as reflected on his blog and in his cartoons), which isn’t a positive development. He’s still the best progressive cartoonist on the planet, though.

    Like

  13. Global warming is the solution. And human life as we know it is the problem it’s going to solve.
    I do at least get a wry amusement out of that fact, as we shuffle off to chaos and destruction. Politicians are acting like this is just another thing they can play political games with, posture over, pretend to solve while deferring it indefinitely to future generations—like a million other issues. But as a friend of mine likes to say, nature bats last. And I’d add: it’s the top of the ninth right now, and humanity already has two outs. Getting this wrong means that we are well and truly screwed, and insipid blather about what is “realistic and achievable” isn’t going to do a thing to stem the maelstrom that’s headed our way.

    Like

Comments are closed.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started