Since winning the Nobel Peace prize last week, Al Gore has denied reports that he is mulling entering the 2008 presidential race. Still, media speculation continues over whom Gore may endorse in the Democratic primaries. I can't help thinking, however: Hasn't Gore transcended American politics, to some extent? Put another way: Is political power - democratic power - necessary for him to pursue his agenda? Not necessarily. This touches on a topic on which Christopher Caldwell wrote recently in the Financial Times:
If there is a refreshing lack of dogmatism in Mr Clinton's book, there is also an inattention to elementary questions of political legitimacy. He praises a retired financier who 'helped broker deals with the beverage and snack food industries to stop the sale of high-calorie beverages and snacks in schools.' Very good - but isn't this the business of the elected school board? Mr Clinton praises the rock singer Bono's campaign to obtain debt forgiveness for African countries. Whether this is a wise move or not, who elected Bono to do it? The answer is, capitalism did. Today's celebrity philanthropists are empowered by a society that specialises in movies and songs in exactly the way the robber barons were empowered by one that specialised in railroads and steel. Philanthropy is a route through which celebrity can be laundered into political power. It is also one means by which the responsibility for important tasks is being reassigned from democratic structures to less democratic ones.
Why would Al Gore want to be president? After all, he would have to face criticism and opposition from the likes of Sen. James Inhofe. And forcing policy changes from outside the structures of democratic legitimacy is a whole lot easier than that.