Elephants, elections, and the environment

Despite a busy and crappy last week at work, I had a good gym week. I judge this by how many magazines I get through on the cardio machines. I usually do NewsWeek first, then the Advocate. If I get through those, I usually buy Time or US News. I had to get Time this week, so I read their cover story, "The Last Temptation of Al Gore". I highly recommend it.

I haven't really gotten active in any campaigns yet. I've been quietly supporting Sen. Edwards, watching to see if Sen. Obama is for real, and steeling myself to support Sen. Clinton if Giuliani looks like he's for real (because the Dems will have to win NY). I really had no interest in seeing Al Gore run. Until now.

I don't really have a soft spot for Gore -- I think he blew the 2000 election in a variety of ways. Most notably, he ran away from Bill Clinton's record and support. I find it hard to believe that Clinton couldn't have delivered Arkansas for Gore, and that would have been enough to win.

What intrigued me was the issue more than the man. It reminded me of two books that I read some time ago -- Don't Think of an Elephant (George Lakoff) and What's the Matter With Kansas? (Thomas Frank). Gore has done a wonderful job of bringing the issue of Climate Change (AKA Global Warming, Climate Crisis) to the forefront and organizing a broad coalition of interested parties, from the Sierra Club to investment firms. So wonderful a job, in fact, that the democrats may have a way to get the "heartland" back.

In What's the Matter With Kansas, Frank discusses how Kansas went from an open-minded old west state with a radical streak to a dependable victory for religious conservatives. Especially when the status quo requires people to vote largely against their own economic interests. To grossly oversimplify a good analysis (admittedly for my purposes), Americans have a desire to be part of something bigger or more important than themselves (which is great, by the way). Through a series of savvy moves and coincidental events, many people in Kansas decided it felt good to vote to protect fetuses, more so if it involved sacrificing their own interests.

Since VP Gore has pretty much sold the nation on the facts, I think there is now an opportunity to hi-jack the same American urge to benefit the environment, and thereby the democratic party. The Republican party can NOT highlight abortion this election cycle. Two of their top candidates are pro-choice (Mayor Giuliani) or used to be (Gov. Romney). In addition, the "partial birth" abortion decision by the Supreme Court (and the sexist "reasoning" behind it) might just remind the majority of Americans who support Roe vs. Wade what will happen if a Republican nominates John Paul Stevens' successor.

So fill the "cause" void with a socio-religious spin on the environment -- something to vote on and feel good about, even (or especially) if it involves a sacrifice. The nice thing is that if it works, even a little, it will just keep getting better. In Don't Think of an Elephant, Lakoff has already labelled the environment as a slope issue (or something like that -- I lent out the book and don't have it to look up). The idea is that it will create a positive political feedback for "liberals". It goes something like this:
-- People pick up the enviroment as a issue
-- Environmental groups get more money, which goes to liberal politicians
-- People use alternative fuels
-- Oil companies have less money, make fewer donations, and lose power
-- Other causes get included -- new products lead to better HEALTH CARE, jobs, etc.

VP Gore would likely be the most effective person to bring the issue to the front. And his conversion to a cause driven man of principle has done a lot to enliven his image from its boring, wooden, Naomi-consulted cellar. But is he the only one who can pull it off? Or would he serve the issue, and thereby the party, better as unfetterred issue teacher.

The problem is that there is another obvious top issue -- the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it's too splintering -- even within the party. Did you vote for the war? Did you vote for the new funding? Are you supporting the troops? Can you keep us secure if we pull out? Gore may be the only one with the clout to make the environment trump the war as an issue (or put them together) and make 2008 an easy democratic victory. Otherwise it will be a tight race, and polls out this week show that Sen. Clinton doesn't beat ANY of the top three republicans head to head.

Go Al!?!