6/14/00 3:15 p.m.
Al Gore, Slumlord
It's not really out of character.

By Jamie Sneider, editorial page editor of the Columbia Daily Spectator

ecent news of Al Gore's atrocious dealings as a landlord should come as no surprise, given his stingy record as a humanitarian. His tenants say they complained 30 times before going to the media, and only then did the Vice President agree to have the necessary repairs made. Even though Gore frequently preaches to the public about the need for compassion, he didn't even follow through oh the simple request of an impoverished and disabled family whom he was legally obligated to help.

Gore's dedication to government planning originates in his belief that liberty is "a risky scheme." If not coerced, according to Gore, individuals will not accept the burden of helping society's poorest people. Compassion is a characteristic, therefore, exclusive to government, because as far as Gore is concerned, his own lack of interest in personally helping others is universally shared.

Gore's politics reveal an overarching philosophy that mirrors his behavior. Consider his views on the environment, which are developed at length in his book, Earth in the Balance. He claims the doomsday consequences of global warming are inevitable if intrusive government regulation is not immediately adopted. He then says that protecting the earth, as opposed to preserving individual rights and freedoms, ought to be the "central organizing principle for civilization."

As a Democrat, he believes in centralized government that has the capability to regulate on a federal level. Instead of permitting each community to establish its own environmental standards, Gore attests to the need for national regulation. Instead of supporting a privatized Social Security system, Gore calls individual retirement accounts "a risky scheme" for permitting individuals the right to invest their money.

Instead of favoring voluntary charity, Gore prefers the welfare state. Instead of responding to demands for school vouchers with open arms, he says, "We shouldn't give up on public schools." And instead of opposing campaign-finance reform and holding candidates accountable for their decisions while in office, Gore has called repeatedly for an end to soft money (as if that would solve the problem of corruption in elected officials).

These government-mandated initiatives are intended to take the place of individually sponsored charity. While he is less than generous when it comes to helping others — in 1997, Gore had an income of $197,729 and gave only $353 to charity — he is willing to spend other people's money on his own needs: Last summer, in spite of the fear Gore has so often expressed about the depletion of natural resources and harm to the environment, he didn't hesitate to waste 96 million gallons of water (costing taxpayers $59,000) just for a photo-op of him canoeing down the Connecticut River. When it came time for Gore's children to begin their education, he appears to have lost sight of his previous dedication to public education — one by one his children were enrolled in private schools. And most recently, in the absence of government regulation (ignoring for the moment his characteristic disregard for the law), Gore broke his promise and spent soft money before George W. Bush.

Gore's political beliefs demonstrate that he regards liberty as too "risky" to be enjoyed by the populace at large. While he demands the freedom to send his kids to private school, he has no qualms about sacrificing other peoples' children to the incompetence of the teacher unions and indifference of the government bureaucracies.

In the hope of discovering meaning in a collective and compulsory end, Gore does not mind abdicating the freedoms of others. He is therefore unable to find meaning for our civilization in protecting the very freedoms that allow individuals to prescribe and pursue their own ends. Consequently, he is not fit to be president. In attempting to find some concrete destiny for society, Gore wants to replace true justice with a collective purpose outside of the individual.

It is therefore apparent that Gore lacks faith in freedom. The real risk to our collective future resides not in liberty itself, but from empowering individuals who hypocritically take advantage of the very opportunities they wish to deny others.