On Power, Authority, & Al Gore

[H2O Man]

The excitement among progressive democrats are feeling as a result of Al Gore’s winning the Nobel Peace Prize is encouraging. In the years since the US Supreme Court selected George W. Bush to be president, despite the fact that Gore won the election, the former US Senator and Vice President has undergone a transformation.

His books "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Assault on Reason" were evidence that he had moved beyond traditional politics. One could not seriously think that Bush, even with the help of five Supreme Court Justices, could translate his political power into a Nobel Peace Prize.

It is evident that many progressive democrats would like to see Gore use his current status to re-enter the field of traditional politics. Yet even those who have been most hopeful in the past year recognize that something has changed.

I thought it would be interesting to take a brief look at the concepts of "power" and "authority," and to apply them to the current situation involving the 2008 elections, Al Gore, and progressive democrats.

Some basic concepts about power within the human community comes from the great German sociologist Max Weber. He wrote about three types: legal-rational authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority. The legal-rational authority is the type that we associate with bureaucracies. It could be the school you attend, the industry you work for, or even the United States. Legal-rational authority is based upon the rules and regulations that are used by those in power to make the system flow to their best advantage.

Traditional authority is best understood as the consistent, multigenerational way of life of groups of extended families, which we can refer to as clans or tribes. It has been found among hunters and gathers, pastoral groups, and agricultural communities. In our modern society, there are groups such as the Amish and some Native American groups that are traditional societies. In the 1960s, some of the hippies lived in communes which were attempts to reestablish traditional community lifestyles. The most recognized power in these societies are the traditions of the past.

Weber also wrote about charismatic authority, which is found in individuals who are recognized as having personal power by the group. Charismatic leaders are found from time to time within all societies. Their power, which can be disruptive within the context of either a legal-rational (bureaucratic) or traditional society, tends to be relatively short-lived.

As a traditional society is transformed by means of production, such as an agricultural tribe being introduced to industrial trade/influences, there is often a specific type of charismatic figure, known as a reformation prophet. These figures attempt to bring their society back to the basic values found within their traditions. Sometimes, these individuals attempt to balance tradition with change, and at other times they simply reject any change.

Now let’s consider some of this in a slightly different context. We can think of another German sociologist, Ralf Dahrendork’s ideas, which are most famously expressed in his 1959 classic work "Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society." Many people focus on his comparisons with Marx’s ideas on class conflict, but we will look in what might be a less focused way. He views "authority" as the ability to issue commands that others follow.

Unlike Marx, who was confident that class struggle could be successfully ended, Dahrendork viewed it as essentially on-going. There are groups within the larger bureaucratic system that will always be vying for the authority or control within that system. If one looks at the United States today, and thinks of the republican vs democratic conflict; or the conservative vs liberal vs progressive within the democratic party; or the wealthy class versus the middle class and poor, we find some evidence that his theories can be applied to a certain extent.

Add to that the bureaucratic, legal- rational system’s conflict with more traditional societies that happen to have resources the larger society requires – be it the gold in the Black Hills in the late 1800s, the uranium found there a century later, or the oil in the Middle East – and we are witness to the conflicts which, by their nature, bring forth charismatic leaders who fall into the reformation mold.

When we look at an environmental advocate like Al Gore, or his friend Robert Kennedy Jr., we see that they are effective to an extent within the confines of the legal-rational system. Gore worked within the legislative and executive branch, and Kennedy within the judicial branch of our federal government. But, in time, the system could not fully accommodate either.

In his book "The Riverkeepers" (with John Cronin), Robert tells of being exposed to Native American tradition, when Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons told him, "It’s vanity to say we are protecting nature for the sake of the planet. The planet is four billion years old. Its crust is forty miles thick. It has survived freezing and warming and volcanoes and earthquakes. Nature will survive without us. But what will we be without nature?"

Robert told me that he recognizes that environmentalism and traditional Indian society are one in the same. That’s distinct from the concepts of reality as expressed by those with the power and authority in our legal-rational society. From a traditional point of view, leaders like Bush and Cheney are by-products from an irrational system. They are the definition of abusive power.

In "Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy," Robert tells about how when he speaks to audiences, both democrats and republicans respond positively to his environmental message. That power is muted by the legal-rational system’s media, which can distort anything that a Robert Kennedy or an Al Gore says. Watching a :15 second film clip on a tv screen is not the same as listening to either man in person.

It seems that Robert has endorsed, at this time, one of the democratic candidates for president. Reportedly, Al Gore may be about to endorse another candidate. This isn’t because one of the two is more honest, or more sincere, than the other. It means that they have different ideas on how to translate power during the primary season.

Far more important is the authority each has outside of the primary contest. And that is because they are telling all of us – you and me – that the power to transform this society isn’t found inside the halls of Washington, DC. It’s inside of you and me.

That’s real power.

[Patsy Stone]

1. Al is a global force.

And we, botht together and individually, are a powerful force.

I can't see him wanting the constraints of the presidency, and as much as I know he loves America, I think his vision is much too large to be contained.

K&R

[rosesaylavee]

2. We have real power

but its usually unfocused without a catalyst. Gore is a catalyst and if he choses to run, he will win it. I am sure of it. I think its all how he perceives the paths laid before him. If he thinks that they are two decidedly separate paths - that he can only choose one, then he will no doubt choose to work on the environment only. I personally think he is a very divergent and creative thinker and capable of seeing a future and recognizing its ramifications before most of us poor mortals think to look up and peer down the road. I think he can work it to both the country's good fortune and the earth's if he chooses to run.

[H2O Man]

3. Part 2:

Some of you may remember me writing about the Onondaga Nation filing a land claims suit in NYS two years ago. The suit doesn't ask for any non-Indians to be kicked off their land, or for a transfer of title, or for a gambling casino. The primary focus is to force the state and national government to actually honor the environmental laws. And clean up the state and federal "Super Fund" sites.

The NYS attorneys are demanding the case be dismissed. In part, they argue that it hasn't met the exact standards that are needed to move forward .... they want the case dismissed because the federal government hasn't done its part.

That would have required the Department of Justice to participate. Of course, Alberto Gonzales was focused on other things. But it wasn't simply Alberto. The head of the DoJ's environmental division was Sue Ellen Wooldridge, who resigned in January. The House Judiciary Committee has been wondering about her relationship with a lobbyist for an oil corporation, and her curious partial ownership of a $1 million beach house. That's the type of power this administration represents.

If you see reports on the case, you'll likely see photos of Chief Oren Lyons. If you get a chance, view or read the transcript of his interview with Bill Moyers.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

6. I just don't know, anymore. I sense we are facing absolute power.

All of the other types you speak of are rejected by the absolute kind.

The reason I sense we are facing absolute power is due to the present network that exists: BIG money, energy, media, former (now private) military. And this network isn't just within the U.S. but rather beyond its borders.

I know absolute power is a short-term status but can last for quite a long time.

[Me.]

7. Approx. 8 Years Ago

Al Gore was kicked to the curb, the butt of more jokes that we can count.

Thngs change, nothing lasts forever.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

9. I don't remember any jokes (well, unless you count the neocons' smirks).

What I do remember is great confusion, disappointment and anger.

Al Gore is "powerful" in and of himself because, IMO, he moved from fighting FOR a cause to BEING a cause for change, both in his personal trajectory and as an influence upon others.

On edit: his is still a very different power from what we face IMHO.

[Me.]

10. Ozone Man, Nerd, Invented The Internet. Lock Box Ha,Ha,Ha

not to mention how everyone in the beltway thought he should do the polite thing and concede because GW was so much more likable and fun, he would put adults back in the WH.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

12. I missed all that? I guess I was too focused on the battle,...

,...the battle of "THE VOTE", and the loss that ensued. DAMN!!!! I still can't believe the SCOTUS screwed the contest that determined our initiation into this new century.

[Me.]

31. More

"That was also the moment when it was most fashionable to ridicule Gore. He was described as "goofily bearded" or "sulking." Democrats were publicly declaring they were glad Bush, and not Gore, was in the Oval Office."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x314167

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

32. Ugh! I am very glad I did miss that crap. How, aweful!!!

Sheesh. Want to talk about "what is pathetic"? Behavior like that is PATHETIC! :grr:

[Me.]

33. This, To Me, Is What Makes Gore's Re-Emergence So Powerful

He went through the fire and literally came out whole. I still remember stories from Katrina, when a doctor from one of the hospitals was desperate to get his very ill patients out. He was the same doctor who saved the life of Gore's son and so he gave Gore a call. Gore arraigned for 2 private planes, flew in with it, and they made several trips out with the most sever ly ill. Didn't see that in many newscasts did you. What we saw was GW strumming a guitar, with a birthday cake and in his famous fly-over.

“One man who did care enough to "be about" leading people to safety was former Vice President Al Gore. Together with Greg Simon, head of the nonprofit FasterCures, Gore defied government bureaucracy, military regulations, and perhaps political interference to charter and accompany two airplane flights into New Orleans to rescue patients and bring them to safety at Tennessee hospitals. While other politicians appeared to be debating whether or not to leave their Labor Day vacations early or to be dithering with their consultants over the political ramifications of various actions and statements, Gore did what many of us watching television from our homes only wished we could do: He flew into New Orleans and rescued people.” Cont…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamal-simmons/remembering-al-gores-kat_b_17653.html

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

34. So little attention paid to such great and meaningful actions. eom

[Admiral Loinpresser]

37. "Loser" was one of their favorites.

This hypocritical couple in my district was elected as national delegates for the 2000 convention. I ran against them but lost, not being nearly as well connected locally at that time.

The next year they were referring to Gore as a "loser" whenever they saw me because I refused to take my Gore 2000 bumpersticker off my car and continued to wear a Gore button to Dem events.

I noticed this happen with lots of Democrats who heard the repetitive MSM attacks about how he was a serial liar, or didn't know who he was, stiff etc. Fortunately, I started reading dailyhowler.com in early 1999 (I didn't even know what a blogger was!) and so I knew that most of the press coverage was pure fiction even while more and more Democrats started criticizing Gore because of the relentless, daily spin.

It was an awful time in that regard but of course things have totally turned around now. I never lost faith in Gore because I was so inspired when I read Earth In The Balance in 1992 and realized he was an historic figure. He's a once-in-a-lifetime figure for me. The only politician I have ever loved, except Paul Wellstone.

[H2O Man]

13. Absolute Power:

Lyons: "Well, I go back to the center tree of peace, that spiritual center. That is the highest form. That's what everything has to come around. Because it's what we call the great law, the common law, the natural law. The law says if you poison your water, you'll die. The law says if you poison the air, you'll suffer. The law says that if you degrade where you live, you'll suffer. The law says all of this. And if you don't learn this, then you will suffer. There's no discussion with this law."

Moyers: "There's no mercy in nature. You can't get down on your knees and beg forgiveness."

Lyons: "There's no mercy in nature. And there's very much something that people should understand: that you suffer in direct ratio to your transgressions against the natural world. The natural world will prevail. You know, human beings are still a biological experiment as far as the world's concerned. We've only been here a short time. In the time of the earth and the world, the human being is here a short time. You see, when you're dealing in the time of an oak, or the time of one of the great sequoias, you can take a chainsaw and in ten minutes kill a tree that's four hundred years old, and there's no way you can make that tree grow back. You'll have to wait another four hundred years for another. So technology has overtaken the common sense of human beings, and the understanding of time. And just as the time of the ant is very short, the time of the mountain is very, very long. And if you don't have a good understanding of what time is, then you can get yourself and your people and your generation into a lot of trouble. And I think that's where we are right now."

[mmonk]

17. Excellent.

And yep, that's where we are right now.

[Me.]

4. The Power Within You & Me

May be what's fueling the draft Gore campaign. These people are responding to a visceral feeling they have and looking to fulfill it with their most viable candidate. The one they view as most likely to answer their concerns and a lacking or missing authencity they detect in the others.

One thing I found interesting today is when they spoke about the 2000 election, most were careful to note that Gore won the popular vote. In the past they always said he lost the election. And if someone did say that today, they were

[bleever]

5. This helps me get beyond the visceral desire to see Gore as president,

and to look at the bigger picture and the greater good.

I have no question, myself, that Gore has the drive and the fire in the belly to take it on.

But I recognize that I don't see the landscape of power and possibilities that stretches out from the place he stands.

And I do feel good to be talking about how a real statesman, and others like him, will find the best ways to use their own leadership, and that their leadership is all about getting people to claim and exercise their own power.

It bodes well.

[Swamp Rat]

8. k&r

[Uncle Joe]

11. Well maybe we can be as the Ancient Romans taking on the attributes

of the Greeks, same gods, different names. Like wise we as a society need to wake up and become more respectful of the role nature plays in our existence, personally I don't care if the Native Americans thought of it first.

When you mentioned charismatic leaders, I thought of Theodore Roosevelt; our nation's very first environmental President. (Edit for the rest of this, I hit post by mistake.) Coincidentally he became aware of the importance of nature as the Indian Wars had ended and the Native Americans virtually wiped out. He then trusted a conservative Taft and endorsed him for President only to come out later and oppose him during Taft's reelection, this helped Woodrow Wilson come to power.

I believe this is the ultimate risk of Al Gore leaving what he knows to be an issue so grave as to threaten life as we know it to some one else in legal rational power. The stakes being even higher today than they were in Roosevelt's time.

P.S. Ironically he was also the first American President if not the first American period to win a Nobel Peace Prize.

[KoKo]

14. K&R....

[zonkers]

15. Gee, I feel so much better now, thanks. Al Gore and his charismatic power will save the day.

[H2O Man]

16. clown

[DefenseLawyer]

18. Keep selling, but I'm not buying.

The President of the United States can do more to change the course of would events than all the activists, hollywood producers and Ralf Dahrendork quoters in the world put together. Back to the wine and cheese party, professor.

[H2O Man]

21. Presidents

can do a lot to change world events. A fair observation is that the presidency can be used to do as much harm as good, and the presidencies of the past 40 years might be viewed as indicating that the office tends to be used more for the needs of one limited group within the bureaucracy we call the United States.

The ability of a democratic president to do good is directly tied to citizen participation in our Constitutional democracy. The ability of a republican president to do damage is, likewise, tied to the tendency of citizens to attend your wine and cheese party, expecting some heroic figure to save them. Sober up, and save yourself.

[bleever]

19. When you draw insults

from both sides, you might be getting at something.

[H2O Man]

20. "If the way which,

as I have shown, leads hither seems very difficult, it can nevertheless be found. It must indeed be difficult, since it is so seldom discovered. For if salvation lay ready at hand and could be discovered without great labour,how could it be possible that it remains neglected by so many people? But all noble things are as difficult as they are rare." -- Spinoza

Our country isn't in the fine mess it is simply because George W. Bush was forced upon an aware and mature electorate; Bush could not have become president in a country where the citizens were fulfilling their part of the deal. Hence, one can hardly be surprised when some people -- even many people -- find this article nonsense or worse ..... because the very idea that Al Gore or someone else isn't going to save democracy single-handedly is threatening to what they identify as their wants and needs.

[malaise]

22. While I understand that unity among the people gives

them power, the reality is that power is the ability to get others to do what you want with the threat of sanctions. I accept Ralf Dahrendork’s definition of authority as the ability to issue commands that others follow. Of course the fundamental issue of legitimacy comes into play here, so that until the rug of legitimacy is removed from Bushco's grasp, that group of goons maintain power.

There have always been questions about Bushco's legitimacy since the Supremes handed state power to Bush in 2000 however these questions were shoved into the background after 9/11, but as Bushco started threatening the Constitution, it was Al Gore who first seized the moment in January 2006 with that famous speech

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN BREAKING THE LAW
REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY. - Al Gore, January 16, 2006

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x153771

There is no doubt that Al Gore has commanded the attention of progressives since that wonderful Monday morning, but his speech was largely ignored by MSM.

His non-stop campaign about Climate change which climaxed with An Inconvenient Truth has given him authority worldwide and The Assault on Reason (a superb expansion of that 2006 speech) is without doubt the most serious book written by an American politician in decades.

Gore also earned unbelievable respect and demonstrated power when he headed to New Orleans to rescue injured citizens after Katrina. Indeed he defied the men with power:

This must-read is a factual, shocking inside-gaze at the federal "rescue" effort. FEMA tried desperately to stop this mercy mission. ("Over the next three hours...I was called by an array of Majors and Lieutenant Commanders telling me to stop. Major Webb from GPMRC , Grant Meade from ESF. Major Lindquist from TRANSCOM all telling me they would not cooperate and they did not know how we had gotten permission to land.")

One big challenge of this mission of mercy was to obtain landing clearance in New Orleans. It took Gore's connections to make it happen. According to blogger Greg Simon, "Sen. Barack Obama called Gore and asked how had Gore managed to land in New Orleans when the Senator had been refused landing rights to help."
http://usliberals.about.com/b/a/202095.htm

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/9/7/164747/4155

Gore demonstrated that he is not afraid of the men with power and there is no doubt that he has authority, but to achieve real power he will have to enter the race and attain state power on his terms. I believe that he is above the fray and will no longer tolerate the shallow debate promoted by MSM and their corporate owners, but the people will have to join him in demanding reason and depth over superficiality.

Yes Al Gore has authority over the climate change debate, but at the end of the day Gore and the people need state power to change every aspect of the current environment. This will only be achieved if he enters the race and if the people join him in standing up to men who will do anything to maintain power. It is my belief that step one is to remove any notion of legitimacy from this bunch of goons. There is no other way.

Sp.

[H2O Man]

23. A Gore presidency

would be a very good thing for the United States (and the world) now.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

26. Whew, I gotta' tell you,...when he gave that speech,...

,...I broke into tears, not sad ones, either. Unlike most others in exceptional positions of influence, he fully acknowledged the criminal abuses of power by this administration. I felt RELIEVED!!!

Whether he runs or not, his participation along with all of ours would certainly be helpful in the possibility of tearing down the current wall between government and the governed. At least, that is what I believe.

[malaise]

29. And outside of bloggers and progressive radio

he was the first person to expose them. Yes that was his 'State of the Union' speech. Still H2O man has a point -the people will have to be as fearless.

[bigtree]

24. But that 'real power' you describe has been remarkably ineffective

in actually advancing many of our deep concerns into action or law. It's clear that we need more folks to vote for candidates who will follow through on their campaign convictions, but there's no guarantee that they will find themselves in a legislative majority in which they are able to effectively manage their concerns into action or law on their own volition.

I think that we all should aspire to hold firm convictions and act on those in an uncompromising way. But our political institutions -- where we rightly expect many of those concerns to be addressed -- are designed for compromise or argument. There really isn't a smooth mechanism for partisan or autonomous power in our political institutions. I believe those institutions exist because of a faith Americans have that those we represent will be able to reconcile the myriads of different views and positions from the many diverse regions of the country into legislation or action which advances our concerns.

Any 'power' Americans may have in our democracy depends less on their ability to maintain their individual positions or stands, and more on their ability to persuade others to adopt their positions. Going into such an endeavor, a firm conviction of your own position is essential, but to take your view and apply it to the rest of the country without some sort of compromise often manifests itself as an imposition rather than a universally recognized benefit.

I think that it's fine and correct for Gore and others to pursue their ambitions with a purity of purpose and with an uncompromising bent. But, that may not result in anything other than their own personal edification if there isn't some effort to attach them to some legislative vehicle to propel their ideals into action or law.

There is, of course the benefit of the persuasive effect of such uncompromising advocacy. Voters come to the polls with ideas and energy as a result of strong, unflinching advocacy. But in our democracy, many uncompromising ambitions have languished in our political institutions because of the proponents' failure to forge a consensus among the existing legislature. Some issues and concerns can wait for a friendly legislature, but many can't bear waiting for the prospect of an ideologically symbiotic body.

I think our citizens' ultimate 'power' is in their ability to take a stand and to vote; and in their elected representatives' ability and will to reconcile their (often) different views into action or law. That reality shouldn't preclude holding and keeping strong convictions, but it is a recognition that our democracy allows and encourages different convictions to stand side by side -- without any diminution of any position, except in the imposition of those views on others. Persuasion is the key. That persuasion requires, demands the power of strong conviction. As the Brit, Samuel Butler wrote, "Virtue knows that it is impossible to get on without compromise, and tunes herself, as it were, a trifle sharp to allow for an inevitable fall in playing."

[H2O Man]

25. Respectfully disagree.

For just one of the more obvious examples, those of us who are old enough remember the civil rights movement. King had charismatic authority. He helped pressure the congress, which passed some of the most progressive legislation in a century. And these progressive changes would not have taken place if people waited for the bureaucracy in Washington, DC to do it on their own. And that's just one example.

It's interesting to note that many of the progressive folks were pressuring Martin to run for president 40 years ago.

[bigtree]

27. well, you do realize that the legislative remedies regarding Civil Rights were compromises

which were not immediately accepted by King and others?

As I wrote, there is a definite need for individuals to take strong stands and have strong convictions. But those don't always find accommodation in our Democratic system. And while I certainly don't believe that any of those remedies would have been possible without King's uncompromising stances, there certainly would not have been any legislative movement without compromise among legislators. So, I think these two have to exist together. There can be no effective legislative remedy without strong outside advocacy, and no effective legislative movement without compromise (unless you can manage an ideologically pure legislature; an impossibility I believe).

[H2O Man]

28. Well, yes.

Of course they were compromises. It took real power to be able to force the system to compromise. That is distinct from the current congress, which compromised it's integrity when it provided the administration every penny that the president requested to fund his surge in the war in occupation of Iraq.

In the 7th paragraph of the OP, I believe the 3rd sentence notes that charasmatic authority tends to be short-lived. And almost without exception, once the charasmatic leader is removed from the scene, his followers accept the leadership of the top bureaucratic aide .... for example, Ralph after Martin. The important thing is how much impact that leader has on the group, which pushes the system to force compromise.

[bigtree]

30. Without accepting that stopping the temporary funding bill which contained Democratic priorities

and was effected only after all groups and individuals failed to get the necessary amount of support necessary to effect any anti-occupation initiative, proposal or strategy into action or law would have effectively confronted Bush and caused him to end his occupation . . . I would agree that our Democratic leadership has not demonstrated much ability (or apparent will) to manage or influence our majority into adopting a unified, effective response to the abuses, crimes, and malfeasance of this administration. Their deliberately engineered 'compromises' on several important issues have actually been capitulations.

I would also agree that it will be the will of Americans, as demonstrated in the next election cycle, which will determine the shape of future compromises. That makes advocacy of the type that Al Gore has committed himself to in his citizen's role as important and critical as ever. It also makes that power inherent in us as voters and advocates important and vital as well.

You've written a very thoughtful piece and I thank you for it on this Saturday morning.

[H2O Man]

35. If each of us

registers one voter per month, we will increase our numbers by 12 before the election. If we register one each week, we are 52 times stronger. That's part of the strength that comes when the grass roots flexes its muscles. Al gore can't come to each of our neighborhoods, but we can each bring the strong points of the traditional democratric message to those around us.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

36. Very interesting and provocative.

As to the idea of charismatic authority it is true that figures like King and Ghandi (or say, Joan of Arc) have been able to effect great change by inspiration. But these instances in my view are more about liberation movements.

But in the modern world, there are certain systemic issues which require more than simply charismatic authority. Rather, what is required is the synergistic action of great leadership and the reponse of the people. For example, Teddy Roosevelt's leadership (and legal authority) was necessary to save the buffalo, preserve remaining American wilderness, engage in trust-busting and labor reform. His legal/rational authority and the response of the people to pressure Congress were both necessary as a response to the oppression of the robber barons. The charismatic authority of environmentalist John Muir was necessary but not sufficient.

Or after WWI, the leadership of Wilson was necessary to begin the process of systemic international cooperation as an alternative to the clash of empires. His work laid the foundation for the establishment of the UN after one more world war.

Or the leadership of FDR, who kept the British resistance to Hitler alive by the Lend/Lease program at a time when isolationism was still popular in the US. In each of these cases, without visionary leadership, necessary progress would not have occurred.

Today, we face the greatest in the history of civilization. What is required is not only the willingness of people but a visionary who can begin a transmogrification from the power/extraction paradigms which have existed from the beginning of civilization 10,000 years ago until today.

Al Gore outlined this change in his seminal work, Earth In The Balance. We must move to a global system which takes into account environmental impact in every economic transaction, a system of sustainability where future generations are accounted for in the development of policy.

But from the most practical point of view, we need a leader who will act as if "his hair is on fire," as the Buddhists say. In other words, we need an immediate carbon freeze as soon as practicable after Bush leaves office. We need to establish an ElectraNet, where consumers can generate and upload energy for sale on the power grid, so that we can quit building power plants. And we need to move the next global talks on climate change from 2012 to 2010 because the melting arctic icecap is way ahead of schedule, as is the Greenland ice shelf.

Only Gore has proposed these things. Only Gore has experience in actually negotiating such an international treaty (Kyoto). Only Gore has the depth of understanding and international contacts for optimal implementation. Only Gore has demonstrated the willingness to risk his own political future to do the right thing in this regard (as he did in the last week of the stalled Kyoto talks) when he personally intervened in the stalled Kyoto talks, against the recommendations of his political advisers.

On a global scale, systemic action is needed. This requires both charismatic and legal authority as well as a major response from the people. But the people cannot do it alone. The greatest anti-war marches of all time were massively conducted in Europe, Asia, the US and across the globe, yet Bush's response was simply "I don't care how many protest."

Al Gore himself referenced an African proverb yesterday "if you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." He then added, "Now we must go far and quickly."

The 2008 election may well be the most critical election in the history of civilization. Why not elect the greatest person possible? I close with an Old Testament quote which has appeared in many Gore speeches in the last several years. "Without a vision, the people perish."

[nam78_two]

38. K&R.nt

[Cha]

39. That's what Dean always

tells the People, too. "YOU HAVE THE POWER!"

[Raksha]

40. Interesting...you seem to be thinking along the same lines

I have these days, although it isn't exactly the same. But you seem to be making same basic distinction between power and authority. I tend to avoid the word the "authority" because of my deep dislike of authoritarianism. So I substitute the word "legitimacy" or "sovereignty," which should give you a clue as to what I've been thinking about right there. Basically it's the difference between the legitimate and illegitimate excercise of power, in other words the RIGHT to exercise the executive authority.

What I've been calling "sovereignty" (in my own mind if nowhere else) can't be bought and it can't be acquired through brute force or fraud. It has to come through a recognized channel of transmission or succession and works very much the same way in a monarchy as in a democracy. The only thing different is the means of determining legitimacy, but the principle is the same. That's why I often refer to Shrub as "the Usurper" and Al Gore as "the once and future President."