It's convenient to hate Al Gore, not to believe him

Coffeyville Journal ^ | June 29, 2006 | Tommy Felts

[presidio9]

In today's complicated world, precious few truly black and white, cut and dry issues remain. For me, however, there are at least two: Al Gore really is a dislikeable [expletive deleted] — and the destruction of the Earth by human hands would be an incredibly bad thing.

Within a rational environment, these two ideas could be compatible. Sadly, our political and cultural climates aren't ruled by anything close to reason or rational thinking.

This spring, filmmaker Davis Guggenheim unveiled "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary following former Vice President Gore's campaign to bring about worldwide awareness of global climate change. The film mixes the science of global warming with the story of Gore's commitment to the environment. Unfortunately for Guggenheim (and the planet), the documentary's star attractions — global warming and Gore — make it hard for many conservative Americans to swallow the message.

The film is, of course, propaganda. Its purpose is to persuade audiences into thinking that global warming is real and a threat. The main difference between the documentary and, for example, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is that the underlying subject — the environment — is not a partisan issue, though some would like it to be. (For those that missed the Republican and Democratic talking points, liberals are pansy tree-huggers and conservatives are eco-terrorist monsters.)

Generally speaking, it's not difficult for "red state" voters to believe that humans could, in some way, be to blame for the Earth's worsening health — but throw Gore and global warming into the mix and things get dicey.

To understand this, we have to start with Gore.

As a conservative, albeit a fairly moderate one, I really, really don't like Al Gore. Most Republicans feel the same way, although they might admit to something stronger — hating him. It's not just his association with former President Bill Clinton. It's not even that he was one of the first to vocally oppose the war in Iraq. But for some inexplicable reason, Gore is right up there on the GOP "enemies" list — somewhere between Jesse Jackson and Osama bin Laden.

Personally, I don't hate Gore, although anything he says or does certainly gives me suspicious pause. That said, I confess I'm not above hate.

I hate that Gore was involved in shady fundraising on the back steps of the White House.

I hate that when he had the power of the vice presidency, he did nothing with it.

I hate that he ran for president in 2000 with little more than his "lock box."

I hate that he conceded the race, then declared himself the "real" winner.

I hate that the choice was between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

Most of all, however, I hate that Gore, his cronies on the Left and their opponents on the Right have turned the environment into an "us versus them" issue.

Both sides have used the theory of global warming — essentially that increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels have caused a significant change in global temperatures — to divide the electorate. It was an easy task.

For non-believers, it's hard to accept that their cherished lifestyles — the indulgent, energy-wasting ways of life passed down by their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents — could be destroying the world that they love. Taking responsibility and moving toward change would be like admitting guilt (and, for big business, losing money), so they deny and deny some more — grasping for any alternative theory to explain away obvious climate change.

Believers, on the other hand, are more often saddled by hypocrisy than guilt. Although they accept global warming and the human role in it, they do little to curb its causes other than extolling the virtues of hybrid cars. More often, they complain during even-numbered years about the complicity of Republicans, pointing fingers rather than pushing for real reform.

Does global warming exist? The "inconvenient truth" is that it doesn't matter. Even if the theory is hogwash, there are still many other ills caused by the burning of fossil fuels, as well as hundreds of other human activities that are killing the planet. When our soil, air and water are all saturated with toxic wastes, the rainforests are gone and cattle are the Earth's most exotic animals, we may long for the days when someone was blathering about the heat.

Al Gore isn't destroying the Earth — we are. Don't be so blindly vindictive that you kill the message because of the messenger.

[rockrr]

For those that missed the Republican and Democratic talking points, liberals are pansy tree-huggers and eco-terrorist monsters.)

There, I fixed it!