The Poverty of Conservatism vs. Gore's Nobel Prize
Congratulations to Al Gore and the UN IPCC for winning the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Isn't it interesting to see how quickly the American Presidency has diminished by another big step.
Liberal schadenfreude, of course, demands that I talk about conservative failures rather than Gore's successes. Conservatives today are galled (perhaps "gored"?) that yet another Democrat should win a Nobel Prize rather than someone really deserving, like man-god Reagan for single-handedly ending the cold war and the Soviet Union with one sharp lash of his tongue. Why oh why can't one of the good guys win a Nobel Prize?
For the obvious reason: conservatives don't do things; in particular, they don't do things that win Nobel Prizes. It is in the nature of conservatives not to have new ideas, since it is in their nature to conserve the status quo. While they may have occasional flashes of inspiration in repackaging old ideas that promote their most important values — "compassionate conservatism", say, or "free market" or "free trade" — these are not new ideas. Therefore, the most highly regarded conservative "ideas" do not lead to highly regarded new actions, things that actually help the world and its people live together more peaceably. Their mission, as they see it, is to slow down social and economic progress towards greater freedom and democracy.
You could make delicious vinegar from the conservative sour grapes about Gore's award, so busy are the conservatives trying to convince even those who won't listen that the Nobel prize is just a liberal popularity contest and an award that nobody values anymore. Of course, the intensity of their claims to the contrary underscore just how highly conservatives covet the Nobel Prizes.
Some people have just increased their clamoring now for Gore to enter the presidential race, but more clear-seeing liberals see the truth that the prize announcement creates: Gore can't run for president any more. He's too good for it.
I'm sure this says loads about our election process for choosing presidential candidates, but it also speaks volumes to the presidential culture of lowered expectations ushered in by Reagan and Bush I, but polished to a gleaming finish by Bush II. It now seems to be carved in stone that a president should not be smart, should not be effective, should not have good ideas, although I've never understood how it could be desirable to have an uncultured, anti-intellectual oaf as our nation's leader. Do you really want your auto-repair guy to do your brain surgery?
So, as indicated by the hyperbole of the rhetoric with which conservatives denounce the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize, we deduce that Gore is now considered by all to be too effective, too smart, and have too many good ideas ever to be president. Not to mention, of course, that with the remarkable devaluing of the office by Bush II, it is really out of the question for Gore to take what would be seen as a job demotion by running for president. As most now realize, he can be much more effective, much more smart, and make much more progress on his ideas from outside any elected office. "Statesman" does not seem to imply people of intellectual and moral stature these days.
Sure, I long for a smart, effective president who has ideas rather than an unthinking, stupid political oaf of either persuasion, but President Gore is not meant to be. His trajectory is taking him elsewhere now, and it doesn't pass through the Oval Office. This probably creates much consternation among conservative critics who would have a much easier time trying to smear his reputation if he'd just stay in politics, but so be it; perhaps it will lead them to develop smarter, more efficient tactics in character assassination.
Don't laud Gore by suggesting that being elected president (for the second time) would be assured and the highest honor he could garner. We all know better than that, even if we won't admit it yet. Instead, recognize the work he's doing and support his efforts to do it in a smarter, more effective manner of his own choosing.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 13 October 2007 at 15.41
Permalink
". . . like man-god Reagan for single-handedly ending the cold war and the Soviet Union with one sharp lash of his tongue."
Let's not forget that Reagan also threw hundreds of billions of dollars at the problem.
On the rest, I'm with you half way. Gore is probably too good to run for president, but I don't think he's too good to be president. There's a difference.
on Saturday, 27 October 2007 at 06.21
Permalink
Just because a Liberal comes up with a new idea doesn't mean that it is a good idea.
I would point out there is a difference between Conservatives and big government Republicans. Conservatism includes conserving natural resources, which is in line with some of Gore's ideas.
I don't see Conservatives losing too much sleep over the Nobel Peace Prize. We can embrace some of the pro-democracy activists that have won. But how much credibility does the prize carry? Especially since it gave the award to Yasser Arafat, someone who pretty much marshaled all his resources to make the world a less safe place.