I had all these grand plans to actually post about something vaguely concerned with British politics…and then I was distracted by the Oscars (as I inevitably am every year, despite how much I claim I don’t care who wins) and the accompanying media diarrhoea about Al Gore.

Don’t get me wrong; I am a huge admirer of Vice President Gore. At the tender age of ten I staged a rebellion in my history class because my teacher was attempting to make us write ‘The day George W. Bush won the Presidency of the United States’ next to the date, hours before the Supreme Court made its fateful decision. Just last summer (and it seems hard to believe that it was only six or so months ago all this began) I rushed to An Inconvenient Truth as soon as it opened in the US. My problem is not whether Al Gore would make a good President, or whether, as all the media seem to care about, he can win a Presidential race. I care about something different entirely, as I commented briefly in response to Matt’s post – whether Al Gore actually should run for President.

It’s worth keeping in mind to begin with that rumours of a Gore run are likely to have been over-hyped for a purpose - James Carville uses every available opportunity to remind anyone who wants to listen to him that Gore will probably run for President (“Running for President is like sex. Once you do it you can’t stop.”), and Daily Kos has various theories on why such a prominent Clinton strategist is name-dropping Gore like a crazed fangirl who met him at his Keynote presentation (and, as a fellow Apple aficionado, I’d like to remind everyone that this is the programme he’s using, not PowerPoint). The field’s wide enough already – if any campaign can use mention of Gore as a distraction, they will.

So, with that in mind, does Gore have many obstacles in his path? There has been speculation Gore could finance a Presidential run entirely by himself, as An Inconvenient Truth raked in $45 million at the box office world wide, so the money issue is hardly a problem here, as it has been for some candidates. There is no doubt, too, that Gore has the popularity.

There are clear political boulders in his path. Barack Obama, for one. But there is a case for why Al Gore should not run for President again that has nothing to do with whether or not he can win the ultimate title – he can have far more influence without it.

Yes, ‘leader of the free world’ has a nice ring to it. But Gore’s been down that route already (and let’s not indulge ourselves with speculation over what our world would be like today had Gore claimed his rightful position, because it’s entirely self-defeating), failed, and is now in a far better position. Some might even call it fate. A couple of days ago Hillary Clinton acknowledged Al Gore when unveiling her environment plan. In January the Scottish Executive announced An Inconvenient Truth would form part of the secondary school curriculum. Gordon Brown has recruited Mr Gore as an environment adviser. He’s been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. He will testify to the US House of Representatives about global warming. How exactly will being President get him a better deal?

The argument that ‘he’ll be able to get more done’ is entirely false. Anyone who closely follows (never mind closely follows – ever watches the news) American politics can see that. Constitutional checks and balances are there for a system, and they almost work too well. Yes, a President Gore would probably (unless something goes drastically wrong for the Democrats, which is always possible) be faced with a Democratic Congress, but this is no guarantee of anything. Remember the Clinton healthcare plan? It’s true that to a large extent the Democratic leadership are in agreement about doing something about carbon emissions, but there are still a large number of political hurdles to clear, not least Congressman John Dingell, Chair of the House Committee on the Environment, who happens to come from Detroit – home of the Big Three car companies. He and Nancy Pelosi have already come to blows over the issue, and have managed to resolve their argument in such a way that the creation of a Select Committee on Climate Change will do nothing to diminish his significant power.

Gore has successfully painted himself since 2000 as a noble (apologies for the pun) superhero flying high above politics in an attempt to save human existence itself. While I’m sure it would be lovely to have a US President capable of doing these things, political reality makes it impossible. And there is always the very real possibility that he won’t win. While admittedly these results are skewed by the fact he hasn’t actually declared a run, poll numbers still show him trailing behind Clinton and Obama. If Gore decides (or is forced by ill-conceived advice) to run, not only does he risk losing absolutely everything he has worked for, but he would be forced to tarnish his currently holier-than-thou image – because, laudable an aim as it is, no Presidential campaign will ever stay negative-free. And then there’s the fact that all the candidates are busy polishing their own green credentials and modelling themselves on Mr Gore – far better for him to seek to exert an influence on the entire field of would-be Presidents than lose his God status.

Not to mention that he’d probably be stuck with that ridiculous nickname for the entirety of his campaign.

Al Gore, Rock Star [Washington Post]
What About Al? [Democracy in America]
Party Talk [New Yorker]

Filed under: election2008, uspolitics on March 1st, 2007