Albert Gore, Kingmaker?

So the Nobel committee has seen fit to select Gore and the IPCC as winners of this year’s peace prize. And the question in minds ‘cross the land is: will he run?
Probably not.
He doesn’t really seem to want it badly enough to go through the hell that is a 2008 Presidential campaign. (Which is probably a good indication of his sanity) But he now has the ability to, if he choses to do so, exert heavy influence on the primary process. Gore’s prestige among democratic primary voters is probably now greater than that of any other individual, save JFK brought back from the grave. An endorsement of Hillary Clinton would probably mean the effective end to the contest. Throwing his weight behind Obama would effectively turn this contest into a two-way race. The question is, would he? Most likely not just yet. No one has quite forgotten his 2004 Dean endorsement. I doubt he wants a replay of that situation. At the same time though, my guess is that what Gore cares most about nowadays is the environment. If he feels that he ought to endorse a candidate for the sake of the planet, then so he shall. He’s a post-politician now. I think Gore was in the belly of the beast for so long that he’s realized that sometimes, just doing what’s right isn’t a bad idea.

The Golden Age of Poverty

I wonder if the pundit class, sometime between now and November 2008, will begin to realize how inequality is the driving force behind all the lesser issues on the shopping list of political concerns. From immigration to healthcare to terrorism, the issues of our time arise from extraordinary disparity.
The conventional wisdom was that globalization would allow for the gap between the rich and poor to dwindle, but precisely the opposite has occurred. For the first time in human history, we are all connected, and yet global inequality is greater than it has ever been. Not even in the darkest periods of serfdom could it be said, as a study last year by the World Institute for Development Economics Research found, that an adult in the global top 1% had, on average, 13,000 times the assets of the average member of the bottom 10%. What elites have never been able to do in thousands of years through conquest, coercion, and slavery was done in a few decades thanks to modern technology and trade policies: today’s inequality would boggle the mind of the most oppressive czars, who lived like kings, but never dreamed of living like gods.
We all know the identity of our deities. Names like Gates, Walton, and Murdoch come to mind. Men so wealthy that luxury is an afterthought. Men who, through their fortune, have the ability to define their universe. But then, who are our dispossessed? They are young people, anonymous, who have lost all hope and all fear. The face of my generation is not YouTube or MySpace, rather it is manifested in the images we see of teenage boys throwing a stone at a tank, or young refugees behind a wire fence. It is the dispossessed, products of modern inequality, who will shape most of the issues of the coming years. Because while the global economy features increased inequality, it also features a lack of protection from the effects of it for those of us who were once removed from the poorest of the earth.
Even among the Democrats, there seems to be a feeling that inequality, in its truly global sense, is not our problem. Maybe that position was tenable several decades ago, but no longer. The resentment of the youth who make up the largest part of the underclass was once manageable, but no longer. It has crept to our own shores. The September 11th attacks amply demonstrated that the young and disaffected (with the help of some wealthy Saudis) can wreak more destruction than most conventional militaries. This new generation, from unemployed residents of France’s impoverished suburbs to the children of undocumented workers in California, finds itself in an unprecedented position: they are both powerless and supremely powerful. As a group, they are the poorest and weakest assortment of persons on earth, and yet for this same reason, the rest of the world fears them.
Granted, the young will always be a volatile crowd of characters. It is in the nature of youths to revolt. Upheaval almost always comes from the young. And as Jefferson would say, a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. But I fear that the inequity of the current system has become so inhumane that any correction would be closer to a global version of la Terreur than the daisy chains of 1968. I guess I’m a Burkean at heart. But how, then, should candidates address the specter of inequality? Global disparity is a devilishly complex phenomenon. Dealing with a challenge like inequality makes other policy issues seem relatively simple. Even measuring its precise extent is a daunting task. It would be easy to say that the issue is just structural – make a few adjustments in trade policy and poverty would vanish. But the causes of disparity are far more fundamental. Inequality exists increasingly within nations as well as between them. Look at the supposed successful growth models of China and India. I know that growth in inequality usually accompany economic growth. But if Louis XVI tried to explain that to the mob outside Versailles, I doubt they appreciated the message. To be honest, I don’t think anyone knows the answer to this conundrum. Economic distribution patterns are pretty far out of control by any one government nowadays. The forces at work are too complicated, and too numerous manage with much success. The problem is, who’s to blame? I fear that in their search for an answer, we’ll just find another scapegoat.