:shock:

Serious question. I realize PopIndy is currently caught in the intellectual headlights of arguing concepts that most of my riff-raff friends wouldn't be able to burn in their gas tanks :twisted: but....

I had an interesting encounter and I'd like some input (from some of the smarty-pantsyist people I've ever seen assembled on the web.)

A family member who lives in Idaho just saw Gore's presentation of "An Inconvenient Truth" in Boise. He emailed me with enthusiastic words about Gore that really surprised me. (Family member is a non-voter whom the pundits would accuse of laziness and "voting against their own interests," when they even bother to vote. tsk-tsk.)

What caught my attention in our exchanges was his vague, but adamant, association between

A) This Gore guy is trying to save the planet, AND
B) I think this Gore guy could save our country

Yet I know my dear family member has no use for Democrats or Republicans.

I guess my question is: I know that many intellectuals espouse that "the people" must rise up on their own and "lead" themselves.

But does it count when "the people" recognize someone who relates to their interests, and they turn out in record numbers to, finally, participate in the representative process?

(Give me a spellchecker, or give me death.)

As an independent? I suppose anything is possible, but where would he get the money and press coverage from? Maybe there's a way to avoid the impact of those factors, but I can't think what that might be, can you?

but I have never hid the fact that I could feasibly vote for Gore -though I don't consider myself an intellectual, so maybe I shouldn't chime in here. My guess is Gore will always be a Democratic party politician--it is part and parcel of who he is, but he does represent a potential shift in party identity. Funny that I got thrown off of DU years ago for badmouthing Queen Hillary ( more than ever she disgusts me with her little lady "chats")--and take a look at the consensus against her now. It is everywhere. Likewise, the support for a potential Gore run hails from all quarters. It is probably considered bad form to discuss such mundane pop culture electorial contests among such deep thinkers :P , but there are practical considerations that would indicate a sea change on the horizon.

Well, I frankly don't care about anything but the results. I think Gore is like Kerry, at bottom: just another overprivileged dud. But if I were convinced that he 'gets it' and would do the job in a good way, I'd throw out my 'never again' rule and support him.

So was FDR and he wasn't perfect either. Kerry is such the consumate loser, isn't he? He could never shed his class identity--he just reeked of elitism and never could really connect outside of being a soldier and they strung him up on that--not that he seemed to really mind, like that LaMont guy didn't seem to care and blew it off. Is it individual psychology of the players or part of a grander Bush-Clinton, ahem, vast right-wing conspiracy"? Bush, however played to that lowest common dum-dum denominator. If the AIPAC corporate media wasn't there propping them up or dragging them down, maybe someone could get their foot in the door. Doesn't seem to matter much what the people want--even if the people polled were 100%--whatyougonnadoaboutit?

:shock:

Serious question. I realize PopIndy is currently caught in the intellectual headlights of arguing concepts that most of my riff-raff friends wouldn't be able to burn in their gas tanks :twisted: but....

I had an interesting encounter and I'd like some input (from some of the smarty-pantsyist people I've ever seen assembled on the web.)

A family member who lives in Idaho just saw Gore's presentation of "An Inconvenient Truth" in Boise. He emailed me with enthusiastic words about Gore that really surprised me. (Family member is a non-voter whom the pundits would accuse of laziness and "voting against their own interests," when they even bother to vote. tsk-tsk.)

What caught my attention in our exchanges was his vague, but adamant, association between

A) This Gore guy is trying to save the planet, AND
B) I think this Gore guy could save our country

Yet I know my dear family member has no use for Democrats or Republicans.

I guess my question is: I know that many intellectuals espouse that "the people" must rise up on their own and "lead" themselves.

But does it count when "the people" recognize someone who relates to their interests, and they turn out in record numbers to, finally, participate in the representative process?

(Give me a spellchecker, or give me death.)

I suppose anything is possible, but given the set up it seems that a 3rd party can't do better than spoiler. To be sure he is doing some service by bringing the issue to the fore but the danger is in the acceptance of half measures. Gore's environmentalism accepts capitalism as a given and the planet cannot survive capitalism. Reading his Earth in the Balance compelled me to vote for Nader in 2000, it was so inadequate.

While I don't see anything coming of a 3rd party effort from Gore electorally speaking, I can however see usefulness in his rousing the public to the dangers. Not unlike the usefulness of Dean's 50 state strategy. The job of people like us is to not let half measures go unquestioned, to carry the discussion to it's logical conclusion.

As an independent? I suppose anything is possible, but where would he get the money and press coverage from? Maybe there's a way to avoid the impact of those factors, but I can't think what that might be, can you?

Thanks for responding. As for money, I believe he's already a bazillionaire. I think from his association with Apple, or Microsoft, or some tech company. Not really sure, and too tired to Google.

The press coverage would be a problem. I know he's building a grassroots "army" of trained global-warming presenters. They're going into the conference rooms and break rooms of American workplaces to give his presentation. If the vague "savior" message resonates the way it did with my family member, who knows what his armies could accomplish in the next two years.

but I have never hid the fact that I could feasibly vote for Gore -though I don't consider myself an intellectual, so maybe I shouldn't chime in here. My guess is Gore will always be a Democratic party politician--it is part and parcel of who he is, but he does represent a potential shift in party identity. Funny that I got thrown off of DU years ago for badmouthing Queen Hillary ( more than ever she disgusts me with her little lady "chats")--and take a look at the consensus against her now. It is everywhere. Likewise, the support for a potential Gore run hails from all quarters. It is probably considered bad form to discuss such mundane pop culture electorial contests among such deep thinkers :P , but there are practical considerations that would indicate a sea change on the horizon.

"Though I don't consider myself an intellectual..."
We need a spanking icon here. :D

Thanks for the input. And you get it. There are practical considerations here. A sea change, within the framework of our busted, corrupted twoOneparty corporate system could have far-reaching consequences.

Gore's environmentalism accepts capitalism as a given and the planet cannot survive capitalism.

That's a very good, if not sobering, point blingpig.

Thanks for giving me an extra perspective.

Interesting, rws. I went back and checked some of my references on the start of the Republican party in the 1850's. Seems to me the movement comes first, then the candidate. The best and most important candidates for the Republicans joined after there was already a movement, the movement didn't form around personalities. Movements that have formed around or been defined by personalities have always failed, it seems, or at least the list is long - William Jennings Bryan, Teddy Roosevelt, for example, and more recently Ross Perot, George Wallace, and Ralph Nader. A good movement will always attract good candidates. The very best candidate doesn't guarantee a good movement, or even any movement at all. Nothing happens in politics without a popular movement, except what the wealthy and powerful want to have happen.

:shock:

Serious question. I realize PopIndy is currently caught in the intellectual headlights of arguing concepts that most of my riff-raff friends wouldn't be able to burn in their gas tanks :twisted: but....

I had an interesting encounter and I'd like some input (from some of the smarty-pantsyist people I've ever seen assembled on the web.)

A family member who lives in Idaho just saw Gore's presentation of "An Inconvenient Truth" in Boise. He emailed me with enthusiastic words about Gore that really surprised me. (Family member is a non-voter whom the pundits would accuse of laziness and "voting against their own interests," when they even bother to vote. tsk-tsk.)

What caught my attention in our exchanges was his vague, but adamant, association between

A) This Gore guy is trying to save the planet, AND
B) I think this Gore guy could save our country

Yet I know my dear family member has no use for Democrats or Republicans.

I guess my question is: I know that many intellectuals espouse that "the people" must rise up on their own and "lead" themselves.

But does it count when "the people" recognize someone who relates to their interests, and they turn out in record numbers to, finally, participate in the representative process?

(Give me a spellchecker, or give me death.)

Who's Al Gore Anyway(s):

"In 1989, a neoconservative primer entitled The Democratic Imperative: Exporting the American Revolution was published.* According to Richard Nixon’s blurb on the book jacket, “Isolationists of both the left and the right will not like Fossedal’s conclusions: that if the Democratic trend is to continue, it will be because the United States ensures that it does by pursuing an activist, even interventionist, foreign policy.”* Who else praised the book?* Republican Jack Kemp and Democrat Al Gore also commended this work.* Both Kemp and Gore had run for their party’s presidential nomination the previous year.* Seven years later, these men would compete against one another as vice-presidential nominees.* By the 1990s, Kemp, a “Neoconservative,” and Gore, a “New Democrat,” represented the bipartisan legacy of Humphrey-Jackson Cold War liberalism.* Gore’s words of praise for the Fossedal book—“a forceful analysis of what American foreign policy should stand for, and how it can prevail”--cast doubt on the widely held assumption that the Iraq War and broader war on terror would not have occurred after 9/11 had Gore been in the White House.* Given Gore’s own neoconservative philosophy, his support for the first Gulf War, his anti-Iraq stance during eight years as vice president, and his choosing of hawk Joseph Lieberman as a running mate, we cannot assume that Gore would not have initiated an attack on Iraq during his presidency.* Or he may have chosen instead to launch full-blown military intervention into Colombia, a country linked to both “the war on drugs” and the Gore family’s extensive ties to Occidental Petroleum. (8)* It is inaccurate to see Gore as a principled opponent of interventionism or war."

Who's Al Gore Anyway(s):

"In 1989, a neoconservative primer entitled The Democratic Imperative: Exporting the American Revolution was published.* According to Richard Nixon’s blurb on the book jacket, “Isolationists of both the left and the right will not like Fossedal’s conclusions: that if the Democratic trend is to continue, it will be because the United States ensures that it does by pursuing an activist, even interventionist, foreign policy.”* Who else praised the book?* Republican Jack Kemp and Democrat Al Gore also commended this work.* Both Kemp and Gore had run for their party’s presidential nomination the previous year.* Seven years later, these men would compete against one another as vice-presidential nominees.* By the 1990s, Kemp, a “Neoconservative,” and Gore, a “New Democrat,” represented the bipartisan legacy of Humphrey-Jackson Cold War liberalism.* Gore’s words of praise for the Fossedal book—“a forceful analysis of what American foreign policy should stand for, and how it can prevail”--cast doubt on the widely held assumption that the Iraq War and broader war on terror would not have occurred after 9/11 had Gore been in the White House.* Given Gore’s own neoconservative philosophy, his support for the first Gulf War, his anti-Iraq stance during eight years as vice president, and his choosing of hawk Joseph Lieberman as a running mate, we cannot assume that Gore would not have initiated an attack on Iraq during his presidency.* Or he may have chosen instead to launch full-blown military intervention into Colombia, a country linked to both “the war on drugs” and the Gore family’s extensive ties to Occidental Petroleum. (8)* It is inaccurate to see Gore as a principled opponent of interventionism or war."

chlamor, I didn't know ANY of that.

You are a walking, talking encyclopedia of information!

I'm tempted here to insert that I voted for Reagan - because that's what was done back then, in these parts. But I've changed. I woke up.

Maybe I'm too eager to project my own awakening onto Gore.
I think I'm probably not alone. SOMETHING has to be done.

Interesting stuff!
Thanks

. Seems to me the movement comes first, then the candidate.

But, Mike, we're an "American Idol" society. Whether we like it or not. We dial our phones, or press our remotes, based on individual personalities - not movements.

Americans have been brainwashed.

What can be done?