Al Gore Pins the Tail on the Donkey

"From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption."

Al Gore, New York Times Op-ed, defending more government action to combat man-made global warming, February 27, 2010

If serious people of faith ever needed a light to go on to help them understand the fundamental difference in ‘governance’ between what is currently labeled ‘left’ and ‘right’ in American politics, Al Gore just supplied it. He has captured the essence of left-wing Democrat philosophy; he has pinned the tail on the Donkey.

Put aside that theories of man-made global warming—propped up by fraudulent data, huckstered by Gore and parlayed by him into millions of dollars, a Nobel Prize and an Oscar—are well on their way to the next chapter of Charles Mackay’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. Think instead of the breathtaking arrogance, egotism, and yes, tyrannical potential represented by his statement quoted above.

“Our” ability? Whose? Yours? Mine? The Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia? The UN’s IPCC? The first 100 names in the Boston phonebook?

The rule of law as an instrument of human redemption? Let me get this straight—we humans can pass laws to accomplish our redemption? Is that ever cool! No wonder the left attracts no end of the anything goes, do whatever feels good crowd—they figure they’ll con their way into controlling some government (aka the Obama administration), pass a law saying ‘it’s all good’, and presto, salvation!

We’ll try to be gentle, Al, but the question of human redemption is above your pay grade. The Lawmaker’s job has been taken. And the only law that has anything to do with human redemption is the moral law, and that law has already been laid down, a couple of millennia before you showed up. You haven’t been asked to offer your opinion of how to amend that law; you’re not going to be asked. (Actually, your job is to obey it, but that’s a lesson you may have missed when you dropped out of the seminary.)

Human law at its best is reflective of the moral law, but in the final analysis, the moral law will control human affairs no matter what human law says to the contrary. Here’s a couple of examples—one big and the other small.

The big example: slavery was originally permitted in America as a matter of human law. But the spirit of the Declaration of Independence—a spirit that is as close to reflecting elements of the moral law as any ‘governance’ document ever penned by man—trumped that human law and eventually compelled its abolition.

The small example: South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford managed to negotiate out of his wedding vows any obligation to be faithful to his wife—a sort of ‘adultery is ok’ provision. The moral law says adultery is not ok, and he’s now divorced because of his infidelity, and his attempt at human law to excuse his behavior or even soften his post-divorce financial obligations seems to have utterly collapsed.

So Al, forget the idea that an exercise of the rule of law is necessary for or even related to human redemption.

Of course, plenty of people with a surface level of faith will rally to Al’s defense. “Gee, he just cares about the planet, and that’s his sense of Christian stewardship…he really thinks he’s helping to save life, not harm it”. But here’s the deeper point: Al Gore’s god, like it or not, is matter—CO2 gasses, to be precise. Their presence, absence, or rate of increase or decrease, controls and determines life. God may be a useful abstraction for some lightweights, but if we get down to brass tacks, life is all about CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Aw, c’mon, the Al-ralliers say, doctors try to cure matter all the time; Al’s just trying to be a doctor on a bigger scale—a planetary doctor.

There are a lot of deep questions inherent in that last point, but for now, the ‘slippery slope’ issue is probably best to consider. Recall Barack Obama from last August, making the case for government-run healthcare:

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.”

We said at the time: “No, you are not” and we branded this philosophy evil (and still do). That is precisely where government-run healthcare and ‘government-run climate’ lead: a government in place of God, telling us what we can and cannot do in every dimension and detail of life. This is evil and tyranny, and leads to more evil and tyranny.

It was this very idea of government as a substitute for God that the American founders rebelled against; in their day, the object of their wrath was human government in the form of a King. And their solution was a limited government with limited functions, and based on the consent of the governed—who themselves were endowed with inalienable rights by their Creator. Anyone voicing the idea that government’s job was ‘to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption’ would have been thrown out of the room for arrogance and blasphemy.

The founders were right then; they are right now. And in one sense, if Al Gore’s collapsing climate change science really did stop the idea that government can use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption, we’d actually advance toward the better world that Al Gore wants.

Freedom and individual responsibility under God. That’s all the law we need. The Democrat philosophy leads to tyranny—and that’s what is being felt and rebelled against all across this country. The rebellion is still building in intensity, and it’s not going to stop. The Donkey has been nailed for what it is and how it thinks. The Donkey is about to learn what it’s like to be King George.

Paul Gable

February 28, 2010