Aaron Keith Harris
2007-06-01 07:00:00.0
Current rank: Not ranked

BALTIMORE -

Al Gore is out promoting his new book “The Assault on Reason.” In it he laments the decline of reason, truth and logic in public debate. But while making media rounds for the book, Gore offers plenty of opinions about the media indicating a troubling lack of understanding of the conditions necessary for it to flourish. Even worse, he shows a selfish disregard for open informed debate when facts get in his way.

Gore blames “mass media distortions” for leading to bad decisions on the invasion of Iraq, and what he decries as costly inaction on global warming, or climate change, its rebranded incarnation.

But while vice-president, Gore supported the Clinton administration’s policy of regime change in Iraq. In a September 2002 speech, Gore said, “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Given his former position, it doesn’t seem fair for him to join the left in belittling the Bush administration for using that very reason as one of the justifications for ousting Saddam.

Since Gore seems to have no trouble disregarding his own inconvenient past opinions, his cold disregard for those who disagree with him on environmental issues comes as no surprise. His film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” cherry-picked some data here and massaged some data here, as one might expect from any sort of polemic. But Gore’s implication that any scientist who does not agree with his viewpoint is not a serious, unbiased scientist was simply stunning.

What could be a greater assault on reason than to declare yourself the sole arbiter of what and who is reasonable?

Gore seems comfortable with the role, though.

“And the first concerns among defenders of democracy arose with radio,” Gore said to Harry Smith of CBS Wednesday morning. “And that’s why the equal time provision and the Fairness Doctrine and the public interest standard were put in place here. Those protections were almost completely removed during President Reagan’s term.”

The government does have something to say about the allocation of the public airwaves, but a robust regard for First Amendment principles should make it highly undesirable for someone in the government to dictate who gets to say what once those airwaves are allocated.

If we allowed censorship, how long would it be until a future president would have the power to shut down one TV station and threaten another with the same for being an “enemy of the state,” as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is doing right now?

“I think that it is difficult for any individual to gain access to the public forum in the same way that was the case when the printed word was dominant,” Gore told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Tuesday. “I think that the Internet is bringing back not only the printed word but a public marketplace of ideas that is more accessible to individuals.”

Gore is partly right about access to television, but he, along with most of the Washington establishment, is part of the reason why. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws limit who can spend money at certain times on political advertising on television and radio. There couldn’t be a more blatant disregard for the First Amendment, written to guarantee freedom — not equality — of political speech more than anything else.

The media Gore criticizes even while he courts them still buzzes for him to enter the presidential race. Based on his understanding of what honest debate is and should be, Gore doesn’t seem smart enough for the job.

Aaron Keith Harris writes about politics, the media, pop culture and music and is a regular contributor to National Review Online and Bluegrass Unlimited. He can be reached at aaronkeithharris@gmail.com.