Word is Al Gore is getting a prime speaking slot on the final night of the Democratic Convention. Those of us concerned about climate change, or even the role of science in presidential politics and governance in general, should welcome this news, right? Maybe not, if you pay attention to the polls. At least, that's Matt "Framing Science" Nisbet's contention. I would like to disagree with him, but want to spend a few minutes examining the issues, because I think it's an important one.
Matt's point is that, no matter how much good Gore has done in his campaign to enlighten the world about the dangers of global warming, so many Americans hate him so much his appearance can only undermine Democratic hopes:
As long as Gore continues to be both the lead spokesperson on climate change and also a major Democratic activist, it is all too easy for the miserly public to continue to reach judgments about climate change relying almost exclusively on their perceptual lens of ideology.
Matt has made this argument before, when he opposed the idea of a presidential candidates debate on science issues:
... an actual debate would only send the strongest signals to date that complex solutions to the problem can be conveniently understood by relying almost exclusively on the cognitive short cut of partisanship.
The common theme seems to be "Keep science out of politics. People are stupid. It will only make things worse."
To be fair to Matt, who lives in a social sciences world of poll analyses, there is a certain logic to the argument that you don't want to turn off potential allies by associating your cause with the more extreme representatives of another cause. But if you take this to its logical end, you end up with mealy-mouthed spokespeople who never say anything controversial, or challenging, or daring (Obama would use the word "audacious"). In other words, you wouldn't take any chances.
That's not how one becomes a leader. I say, Gore should take to that stage next week and make the most inspiring, couragous and audacious speech of his life. And we shouldn't worry about whether he can change the minds of people so confused by their ideology that they are willing to dismiss an entire field of science because one former politician from the opposing party has embraced it. They're never going to change their minds regardless of who's speaking, leaving us free to concentrate the much-valued middle-grounders who have yet to take sides this time round.
- Log in to post comments
I think he should tap dance. There's not enough tap dancing any more.
I get a bit tired of the "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" style of Nisbett's energy and politics posts. McCain's views are wrong (drill for more oil, cut taxes on gas) but opular, so he's winning. Obama's views are too mushy, so he's losing. Gore's views are radical and disliked, so he's out.
The result is reinforcing a frame, rather than actually making an attempt to reframe or shift the debate; that McCain is "winning" on energy policy. What's the incentive for persuing alternative energy plans if the "wrong" version is the "winning" version? All that does is encourage the Democrats to push towards the Republican position of ecological devastation in the pursuit of an unsustainable policy.
Should that be the focus of framing? Pointing out that McCain's plans are unsound, and we should seek better energy policy? Which is why I completely support Gore's plans for a radical energy policy. The best way to move public opinion on a policy is to push the Overton window, so that we see this mad rush to exploit dwindling resources is a radically unacceptable solution, and that shifts toiwards green energy sources are the moderate, compromise solution.
I fixed the quotation...
It's flat wrong. Gore will not cause anyone to vote republican who was not already going to vote republican.
The only people that hate Al Gore are people that weren't going to vote Democrat, anyway.
"I think he should tap dance. There's not enough tap dancing any more."
He tried that, but he kept falling into the sink (Pah-Dum-Pum!)
"The only people that hate Al Gore are people that weren't going to vote Democrat, anyway."
I think this is exactly Nesbitt's point. Al Gore's stated goal is to "solve the climate crisis" not to get people to vote democratic. If he truly wants to achieve his goal he will have to engage partisan republicans in the development of policies that offer benefits for partisans on both sides and accelerate the shift away from greenhouse gas emitting technologies. As long as Al Gore continues to make overtly partisan speeches as an affirmed democrat he impedes his own ability to broker such bipartisan solutions. The empirical evidence backs up this view. As time goes on fewer republicans see climate change as a serious problem. Real solutions are only likely once this trend is reversed, and right now Al Gore is not helping to change that trend.
You shouldn't give him the oxygen of publicity.
No, not Gore, Nisbet.
In fact, I'm not pleased at hhm having the oxygen of oxygen.
thanks