Schlepped over from the corpse of the other thread...
Here's my problem with your argument, which is far too technical, and slightly obtuse: if a politician is going to put heavy emphasis on an issue that he or she declares "moral", it would definitely help if they actually believe it themselves. I'm sorry, but I would like to trust my politicians on certain subjects. In Gore's case, he has deemed global warming a moral issue. He has received many awards for his great work on climate change. Yet, he certainly doesn't "live" what he preaches. Neither do the other presidential candidates, who fly in on a private jet or own a couple SUVs, or whatever.
While I certainly wouldn't dismiss Gore's arguments because of his hypocrisy, it is still a character issue to me, and I'm more likely to tune him out. Most Americans would like to have politicians who honestly believe what they're saying. Sadly our political climate is built by politicians who tell the people everything they want to hear, even when it contradicts. Think Hillary.
The most important thing about a politician, by far, is whether they will implement policies you think are good. So personal hypocrisy raises two questions: "Does this mean the policy isn't good?" and "Does this mean they will implement different policies than they say they will?"
The answer in both cases (remember, we're talking about private life instances of hypocrisy, not political reversals) is pretty obviously NO. So, unless you come by your opinions by parroting whoever seems to live the most moral life, why would you give a flip?
The Gore case in particular is pretty stupid. Besides the fact that he easily does more than the average American on the issue (his son was caught with drugs in a hybrid, remember), he's warning of a
tragedy of the commons, which requires collective action to solve. To my knowledge, he's never said individual actions could solve the problem, nor has he condemned SUV drivers et al as immoral people.
I'm sure he uses multiple times the carbon of an average citizen, since he's a rich dude who travels a ton and has at least one big house. But none of his proposals would exempt him or his family from the socially shared costs, and the positive effect he'd have by living a granola life is almost nonexistent to the structural changes that would require government involvement (which, in a democracy, requires public engagement).
It's unrealistic to expect advocates for reform to deal not with the world as it exists, but to act as if their programs were already in effect. That goes for public campaign finance advocates who take private donations, conservatarians who suck at the statist teat, etc.
