|
Because he thinks that solving global warming is more important than being president.
My guess. I have no inside track into Gore's mind. But I've been thinking about this a lot. Here's my analysis:
If he were to challenge the political/global corporate predator establishment's "made" candidate (Hillary), he would alienate powerful people whose cooperation he needs to slow global warming and save the planet. His candidacy would also likely expose the fraudulent vote counting system they installed for the Iraq War and other purposes (voting machines and central tabulators run on "trade secret," proprietary programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations--all over the country). It IS possible to outvote the machines, in some cases. I think a Gore candidacy could blow these rigged machines away, before they catch up with it. They will try to stop him--and likely they would succeed (they have direct, secret control of the vote counts)--but not before even more Americans become aware of the rigged e-voting system. This would be another affront to the global corporate predators whom he feels that he needs to convince to stop global global warming.
In a way, it is a contest--in Gore's head (my opinion)--between democracy and saving the planet. He can run for president, and maybe help save American democracy, or he can step back, let them have their "made" president, and curry the empress's favor to stop global warming. If he opposes her, he will earn her undying enmity, and this very, VERY important matter--the fight against global warming--may be lost. If he stays above the fray--in a lofty, "wise man" position--he has a chance to get the U.S. on board. If he makes it a political fight, against the "made" monarch, he will lose both the global warming battle, and the presidency (once again).
My background is in environmental activism, and I remember joking, at one point--in the highly frustrating context of trying to get government to enforce its own environmental regulations--that what we need is a Queen, who will enforce environmental protection by fiat. It was just a joke--harking back to the days of old, when Kings were associated in peoples' minds with the fertility of the land, and when Kings literally owned the land (and in some mystical way WERE the land) and protected the land from rapacious uses (by nobles and merchants).
Well, we had a bad king installed for purposes of war and enhancing fascist/corporate power; and now we're about to have a queen installed, for consolidation of those gains, but who COULD, conceivably, order environmental protection--and, in this case, literally saving the entire planet--by fiat. And I think Gore plans to use this situation for just this purpose. He hopes to convince the Queen and her corporate sponsors to save the planet.
The reason I say that it's unfortunate is that I don't think global warming can or will be solved without democracy. Corporations LIE. It is their M.O. And whatever promises they make will be broken. They have become much, much too powerful, and accountable to no one. They must be held accountable, and strongly regulated--and, in some cases, busted (their corporate charters pulled, their assets seized for the common good). And the only way that can happen is in the context of democracy, by the will of the people. Further, I have experience of how Bill Clinton's EPA worked (or, rather, didn't work)--that is, the insincerity of his policies--and Hillary has given us no reason to believe that she will be any better. The Clintons' environmental policies are shuckin jive. Gore knows them better than anyone, and is surely not naive on the difficulties of forcing corporations into the drastic changes needed to save the planet. But I think he's betting that he can do more to solve this crisis by gliding with the establishment, rather than challenging them head on.
I could be wrong. I hope I'm wrong--because I firmly believe that there is no "working with" the global corporate predators who have destroyed our democracy, in their greed for oil, power and ungodly profits. Accountability to the people is the only way to bring them to heel. We've lost that, and we must get it back--first of all by restoring transparent vote counting--or it's all over for us, our democracy and the planet (given the U.S.'s outsized--25%--contribution to global warming).
And I think that a Gore candidacy would go some way to restore democracy in this country. It would be a "Restoration" of the proper order of things. He won in 2000. He was the peoples' choice. Almost everybody knows that by now. And we would all be infinitely better off if the Bushites and the Supreme Court hadn't stolen that election. (And, interestingly, Dan Rather has recently revealed that one of the big e-voting companies--ES&S, brethren to Diebold--was involved in setting up the "hanging chad" business. See Rather's "The Trouble with Touchscreens" at www.HD.net.) It would be a great relief to the people of this country--and a great energizer of democracy--if that wrong was remedied by a successful Gore run in '08. (Can you just imagine? There would be dancing in the streets!). I think this is also true of Kerry--that he was unlawfully deprived of the presidency--but Kerry is more tainted by the acid rain of corruption that falls on one and all, in Washington DC, these days--whereas Gore has been away from it, and is more representative of the country we once were, in a symbolic way. He represents the prosperity and optimism of a previous era in a way that Kerry does not.
All of this argumentation (about Gore) is based on the premise that Hillary WILL be installed as Queen/Empress. I think there is a lot of evidence for this, but I won't argue it all here. Some say that she's "unelectable" because the rightwing christianists hate her, but, a) I don't think the rightwing christianists are all that big or powerful--they've just been a minority tool of the global corporate predators, and b) it's smart, it's clever, and I think it's the global corporate predators' plan, to head off revolt here by installing a "liberal"-seeming regime that does their bidding, and that has acquired (from Bush) draconian powers to smash any rebellion.
HOWEVER, I also don't want to contribute to the war profiteering corporate news monopolies' "talking point" (already pushed by CNN), that a Hillary's candidacy "is inevitable" and that Gore knows this, and will not run because he can't win. I think that's a misinterpretation of Gore (--if, as seems likely, he decides not to run). I think he is thinking ONLY about global warming. He is NOT driven by presidential ambition. He really and truly wants to save the planet. IN THAT CONTEXT, he sees that a run by him would alienate the "liberal" moneyed class which is contributing big to Hillary--in the assurance that she will protect their financial interests--and the corporate/military-industrial, prison-industrial complex interests that are counting on her to stifle a leftist (majorityist) revolt. I think that, if he thought he could do more for global warming by running for president, he would. It's not about her "made" status. It's about how effective can he be in saving the planet.
I hope he DOES run--in a bid to save both our democracy and our planet. I think he could win, despite the rigged voting machines. He is probably the only potential candidate who can be beat the machines. But I don't think he will risk the loss of influence with the coming Clinton queendom--and I think he may also fear politicalization of this vital issue. (This latter is a mistake--the Bushites and their oilcons have already politicized it.)
Prove me wrong, Al!!!
---------------------------------
For those in despair, just keep thinking of that 70% of the American people who oppose the Iraq War and want it ended--this staggering, epochal anti-war majority--up from a significant 56% who opposed the war from the beginning (Feb. '03). 56% would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). Now this 70% gets a choice between two candidates who support the war, after watching the 'Democratic' Congress they elected to end the war, re-fund it and escalate it instead. Your job, as a conscious, well-informed American, is to help re-enfranchise and re-empower that great, peace-minded, justice-minded, progressive American majority. It may be a long and difficult fight, but it is well worth every minute you spend on it, and future generations will bless our names for making the effort, even if we cannot restore democracy here in our lifetimes. Even if we lose, in the short term, we will have passed along the example of real patriotism, dissent, love of democracy and passionate commitment to it, and ideas such as transparent PUBLIC vote counting, the public good, equality, fairness, peacefulness, compassion, human rights, and government and corporate accountability, as our gift to future generations. Let us never forget. Pass it forward.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
