It's all connected, if you are smart enough to see it

Al Gore's big issue is the environment. He says he is not running for President. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But no matter what happens, it is obvious that the environment is Gore's passion and that he will spend the rest of his life fighting for it. His passion is what drives so many people to push him to run for office again.

John Edwards' big issue is poverty. He is likely to run for President again. Maybe he will win, maybe he won't. But no matter what happens, it is obvious that eradication of poverty is Edwards' passion and that he will spend the rest of his life fighting for it. His passion is what drives so many people to full-heartedly support him in his bid for Presidency even before he has officially announced.

On the other hand, Newt Gingrich' big issue is getting power for himself. So, he promises big ideas (again!? Please no more Contracts On America!) because he thinks it is hip these days to have a passion:

I'm going to tell you something, and whether or not it's plausible given the world you come out of is your problem' .... 'I am not 'running' for president. I am seeking to create a movement to win the future by offering a series of solutions so compelling that if the American people say I have to be president, it will happen.'

So, what exactly is this passion of his, what ideas, apart from wanting to live in the White House?

What Newt does not understand, and both Gore and Edwards do, is that one cannot fake passion. Also, passion for dismantling the edifice of the state is not something that one can sell to the American people any more. After Katrina, everyone figured out what railing against Big Government really means.

Another thing that Newt thinks, in his immense reaches of egotism, is that suggesting a complex, all-encompassing program of reform will paint him as sophisticated as opposed to single-issue Gore and single-issue Edwards. If his monumental plan is anything like Contract On America, it is a laundry list of policies that the rich would like to see implemented so they do not have to worry about their money any more.

On the other hand, people who have watched Gore's movie (or speeches, or read his books), as well as people who are paying close attention to Edwards' activities, speeches and writings, understand that both of them are much more sophisticated thinkers than Newt can ever hope of becoming. For each, the main issue, the one they are passionate about (environment and poverty), is just the focal point of a much broader reform.

Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is not a long-term strategy that can eliminate poverty. Short term, it is good for the poor - they can buy houses, cars, food, health insurance, etc. As they buy those things, where does that money go? Back to the rich, the people who sold them the houses, cars, food and health insurance. And we are back to where we started...

For poverty to be eradicated, the structure of America has to change. We need to rethink and reform the structure of our economic and financial system. The tax code needs to be given a good, long look. Universal health care is a must. The way we produce food is in a need of some radical restructuring. Energy independence, apart from eliminating the need for further Middle-East adventures as well as obvious positive environmental consequences, is also neccessary for the elimination of poverty. Environment itself is an important determinant of poverty. Breaking down the power of megacompanies to influence the lawmakers to enact legislation that protects the Big Fish from the dangers of competition from midsize and small businesses, in other words allowing the free market to freely operate, is also neccessary for elimination of poverty. Changing the infrastructure - the sprawling cities built for cars, the faceless suburbs and exurbs, the little hamlets and hollers isolated from civilization, millions of people living in mobile-home tenements, the lack of trains and cable internet - all of that needs to be adressed in order to address the problem of poverty. Education and science are neccessary for long-term plans for eradication of poverty. For any of those reforms to happen, the way government operates needs to change, and this can happen only if the election rules change. And election rules can change only if the media gets a few electroshocks. So, everything is intertwined.

Gore knows this - the environment is his litmus test. If the environment is improving, this means that everything else is also functioning properly. Edwards knows this - the poverty is his litmus test. If poverty is going away, this means that everything else is also functioning properly. Voters can sense this sophistication. Many other leading Democrats do not "get it" just as well yet and campaign either on a laundry-list of policy proposals (many of which sound quite recycled) or on an anti-Iraq-war sentiment, not realizing that Iraq is just one of many symptoms of a much bigger problem. I have yet to meet a Republican who has any idea what I am talking about in the above paragraph. Certainly not Newt.