Matt Stoller is irritated that Al Gore is advising kids to block bulldozers and use peaceful protests to disrupt the construction of new carbon sources. "I like Al Gore," writes Stoller. "He's really smart, and he's probably one of the best leaders of his generation. But still, 'someone else should take the risk' is the mark of his generation." I'm sympathetic to Matt's general point (there's little I loathe more than 45-year-olds happily advocating a mandatory draft, national service or otherwise), but in this particular, seems wrong, if only because it was Gore's generation -- though not, so far as I know, Gore -- who really did take risks engaging in civil disobedience in the '60s and '70s. As they've aged, their stratagems have become less love-in oriented, and for good reason. Ring-around-the-bulldozer protests work better when conducted by 17-year-olds: There are fewer consequences. The young, both legally and culturally, can get away with disobedience and indiscretions that adults can't. They operate in a semi-protected sphere, and can thus act as the radical wedge of a larger movement. Now, I don't think a lot of protests outside of coal plants will be very effective, but tactically, if someone's going to carry them out, it makes sense that it's the folks with the least to lose, who will get a pass for such actions. And on the more specific topic of Gore, he'd substantially degrade his authority as a "mainstream" leader if he were to chain himself to a bulldozer. So I'd really prefer he resists the temptation. --Ezra Klein
