I think it's easy for this kind of discussion to go astray, because it's really about an idea, but an idea advanced by somebody who provokes a lot of partisan backlash. It's not really about Gore; my post was a follow-on to an earlier one about the idea Gore advances in his book "The Assault on Reason" that American politics is so thoroughly screwed up because television completely dominates political discourse, and that salvation for American politics requires returning to an earlier style of Americans talking to each other about civic issues, rather than passively being fed our beliefs by television. Gore advocates that American politics should be based a free marketplace of ideas, rather than the present system of manufactured consent through sophisticated marketing campaigns based solely on emotional manipulation.

The style Gore advocates is the style of places like the HabitableZone, in fact. That's what I was sure would resonate strongly enough with Zoners to overcome prejudice against Gore. You may not like Gore, but I'd like to think that his ideas in this area are harmonious with our values.

Because Gore inspired the thought, and there are damn few serious politicians pursuing the high road, I've been using "Gore versus X" to illustrate the idea of two independent Presidential candidates, of opposite political polarity, debating real ideas and high concept. It doesn't have to be Gore, but I can't think of anybody else on the Liberal side as well equipped to slug it out in an intellectual arena. So the question has been, who on the Conservative side would be a match for Gore, and balance the books so that one independent isn't just a spoiler. I think that two independents have a real chance of putting the parties in their place, if not actually winning the election. I think that that's worth doing. Don't you?