Navigating US greenways: US political reflections in An Inconvenient Truth

Abstract

Environmental discourses resonate with certain intrinsic values over others and shape environmental behaviours. Political ideology offers a powerful values-based heuristic for evaluating environmental messaging. The USA is a major global producer of greenhouse gases and the greatest industrialized nation holdout to political reform. A deeper understanding of the specific political-ideological forces at play in the US environmental debate can yield greater understanding of domestic ideology-based tensions and international US intractability by offering insight to the evolution of the US environmental movement and its political supporters and adversaries at home. Understanding what occurs within the US mindset in environmental discussions can help representatives of other nations frame more effective arguments and lead to policy reform. A textual analysis of a US environmental artefact deemed key to raising US global warming awareness, the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (2006), reveals that US politician/creator Al Gore simultaneously appeals to each of the three disparate – and conflicting – US political ideologies (liberalism, traditionalist conservatism, and individualist conservatism). The result is a transcendence of global warming from its entrenched liberal identity to moral identity, beyond political ideology, making it more comfortably accessible by members of multiple political ideologies rather than just liberals. Understanding the inherent US political-ideological dynamics of global warming can help the progress of this movement by informing framing of policy-shaping arguments.

Keywords::

• An Inconvenient Truth
• US conservatism
• global warming
• US political ideology
• US political values
• policy framing

Global warming debates involve many countries, with leaders from industrialized nations largely deciding the entire world's fate. The USA is currently a major global producer of greenhouse gases and the leading industrialized obstacle to environmental reform. Their unique positioning renders US global warming discourse of scholarly intrigue. Such analysis can elucidate US ideological aspects that block environmental progress, and prove useful in framing policy-related debates.

The media and global warming

The focus of national and international politics, global warming's political significance, necessitates politicized readings of global warming media as powerful shapers of public thought (Carvalho 2007). Some such research examines the relationship between news media and ideological standpoints (Carvalho 2007) and political partisanship to perceptual differences (Kim 2011). Coleman and Dysart (2005) find that politically fractured messaging limits public discourse to a division of rationalities. However, few specifically political readings of environmental media exist.

One popular research area demonstrates that journalists and journalistic values obstruct accurate public global warming perception. Climate change reporters lacking basic scientific climate change understanding exacerbate public confusion (Wilson 2000), commonly misreporting it (Bell 1991; Henderson-Sellers 1998), and the news media construct scientific uncertainty (Zehr 2000; Corbett and Durfee 2004), partly through US journalistic illusions of balance and objectivity (Gelbspan 1998; Leggett 2001). Indeed, the norm of balance actually creates bias and “both a discursive and real political space for the US government to shirk responsibility and delay action regarding global warming” (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004, p. 134). Numerous news media obstacles to accurate climate change understanding render examinations of highly influential non-news media artefacts worthwhile.

Additional media research notes the importance of frames and narratives for public comprehension of complex issues (Nisbet and Mooney 2007; Nisbet 2010) and identifies emergent frames (Scholte et al. 2013). Some has focused on the success of reframing climate change as a health issue (Maibach et al. 2010), also carrying implications for other global warming frames. Others examine narrative in individual media artefacts including An Inconvenient Truth, finding its apocalyptic rhetoric (Johnson 2009; Spoel et al. 2009) cause for “inspir[ing] a wave of public concern about global warming” (Johnson 2009, p. 29).

The environment is a social issue caught in the political fray, politicizing it. Since no ideological neutrality exists, more research on the specific political-ideological perspectives undergirding environmental issues is necessary, particularly in powerful nations which exacerbate global warming yet block reform. The environment's political identity demands more research examining political infusion within environmental texts, thus enabling greater understanding of the role of the political within the environmental and more effective construction of ideologically appropriate earth discourses (Hunold and Leitner 2011; Murphy 2011). Informed political-based messaging may also help smoothen future political-environmental discussions, perhaps ameliorating the issue's intractability on domestic and global stages and aiding in environmental progress.

Despite the recognized importance in evaluating politics and the media in environmental discourse and the critical US role in international environmental politics, current scholarship lacks media research specific to US political-environmental foundations. By isolating and illuminating fundamental political-ideological underpinnings, political-ideological analyses of US environmental media can elucidate the US environmental evolution domestically, yielding greater international understanding of US intractability and informing policy progress.

Political message; political ideas

The US vice-president in a Democratic administration (Clinton-Gore 1992–2000) and 2000 Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, created a computerized slideshow presentation about global warming. From it, Hollywood produced the documentary An Inconvenient Truth (Gore 2006; Guggenheim 2006), detailing anthropogenic global warming and its dire planetary consequences. The film swept the nation and the world, winning numerous awards, aiding Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize co-win (Norwegian Nobel Committee 2007), inspiring public concern and local action (Rootes 2007; Johnson 2009; Mellor 2009), and producing the “Al Gore Effect” (Jacobsen 2011). Many credit it key to raising US global warming awareness (Demos 2008; Galehouse 2008; Peirce 2008). Clearly, although a political film (Mellor 2009), it enjoyed widespread appeal. Though created and narrated by a clear political partisan, its mass US popularity suggests that An Inconvenient Truth likely appealed to members of diverse social groups, including perhaps multiple (US) political ideologies. A broad ideological appeal may have helped this film infiltrate and influence mainstream US consciousness towards global warming.1

Political-ideological values structures

The term ideology can be highly contested, with disciplinarily diverse conceptual definitions. The current study offers an analysis of a political film (Mellor 2009) by a well-known US politician on a highly contested US political matter. Therefore, the conceptual definition of ideology most appropriate to this analysis is that of US political ideology, and all references to ideology refer to US political ideology exclusively. Hence, for the most reasonably accurate definitions of US political ideology, I draw almost exclusively from US political science literature. The most common US political-ideological construct is the liberal–conservative, left–right continuum. US political parties typically map onto this continuum with Democrats2 on the liberal left and Republicans on the conservative right (Piper 1997).

Important differences exist in contemporary US liberalism and conservatism. Liberalism involves a view of humans' potential to shape their world through a mix of government involvement, social science expertise, and private endeavours, which is grounded in egalitarian and rationalistic assumptions. Liberal governance advocates social welfare and regulatory programmes, and most liberals seek to reform the social, economic, and political systems that shape human thought and life in efforts to improve it (McClosky and Zaller 1984; Piper 1997). All peoples are considered equal and the lesser advantaged are given voice by the more advantaged and are offered necessary institutional assistance (McClosky and Zaller 1984). Liberalism lies more on the communitarian end of an individualistic–communitarian spectrum.

On the individualistic end of this continuum lies conservatism, developed as intentionally antithetical to liberalism (Kirk 1953; Conover and Feldman 1981; McClosky and Zaller 1984; Blumenthal 1986; Zaller 1992; Edwards 1999; Schoenwald 2002; Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2004; Critchlow 2007). There are two main types: traditionalist and individualist. Traditionalist conservatism proffers an objective morality as set forth by divine law which governs social order and includes a class hierarchy, both mandatory for a civil society. The universe is God-centred and therefore ordered, and political problems are outgrowths of moral and religious problems. People long for tradition and leadership, ideals exalt tradition and are God-sanctified, and only through tradition can humankind's anarchic impulses be controlled. Political scholars of the Christian right further explain God's role in society, as moral behaviour upholds traditional social order and God's wishes and should govern all society (Conover 1983; McClosky and Zaller 1984; Hunter 1991; Wilcox 1992; Lakoff 1996; Edwards 1999; Fiorina et al. 2005; Goren 2005; Lane 2008). In summary, traditionalist conservatives adhere to a God-centred, morality-driven outlook and a traditionally hierarchical social order.3

Contrastingly, the values of individualist conservatism promote equal individual freedom to succeed and social placement based on personal success in a competitive, survival-of-the-fittest environment. Liberty is prized above all, and the moral compass points to respecting the freedoms of others to do as they please. The market is freely competitive and capitalism exalted; a strong economy is necessary to a civil society. It is the ideology of entrepreneurship (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2004); government is small and should not intervene in the affairs of individuals or business; society will work itself out provided everyone's freedoms are respected (Conover and Feldman 1981; McClosky and Zaller 1984; Blumenthal 1986; Edwards 1999; Schoenwald 2002; Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2004; Critchlow 2007). In short, individualist conservatism advocates lax governmental regulation and the rights of industry behavioural freedom in constructing a strong economy while encouraging creative business endeavours. Traditionalist and individualist conservatives partner for strength on the right, but coexist with tension.

Connecting US political ideologies and parties to specific issues, each major party “owns” particular social issues (Petrocik 1996; Petrocik et al. 2003/2004) – those generally consistent with its corresponding ideology. The party which “owns” an issue becomes primarily identified with and responsible for that issue (Petrocik 1996; Petrocik et al. 2003/2004). For example, Republicans own defence, religion/morality, and crime issues; Democrats own education, health care, and the environment. Because of the diametrically – and intentionally – opposite ideologies underlying US political parties, Republicans typically oppose all Democratic positions. Thus, Democrats are expected to advocate environmental protection, while ideological definitions predict Republican opposition.

These ideological distinctions bear light in a film created by a well-known political figure on a politically controversial topic. I argue that An Inconvenient Truth contains identifiable cues resonant with multiple ideological publics, not only liberals. In a sophisticated representation of global warming, Gore multiply appealed to members of competing US political ideologies. Furthermore, the morality view Gore promotes essentially removed this issue from political-ideological terrain (Sim 2006), a position bolstered by Gore's own public identity; in a politician's keen awareness of political-ideological dynamics, perhaps a politician is best-positioned to neutralize ideology-based issue tensions.

Method

Textual analysis and An Inconvenient Truth

Scholars analyse discourse with varying methods stemming from the premise that discourse constructs and reflects social reality (Phillips and Hardy 2002). Actors' discursive constructs and imagery choices reflect their values and assumptions, and aid in understanding politics (Hunold and Leitner 2011). Barry et al. (2008) assert that textual analysis helps identify the process of persuasive argumentation “by clarifying the resources, devices and techniques the originator deploys, […] the moral standing of the speaker/proposer, the justness or rightness of her argument and the unjustness or irrationality of other positions, arguments and viewpoints” (p. 71). Recurrent patterns, usually implicit, are identified and classified as themes. Rather than offering generalizations or causation conclusions, textual analysis permits in-depth examination of discursive choices and situates findings within personal and social contexts, elucidating both. Thus, textual analysis is ideal for identifying and understanding how diverse ideological appeals may co-occur within a single text.

The film An Inconvenient Truth is credited with having tremendous social impact on the global warming discussion – more than any other single media artefact in recent times – warranting it worthy of scholarly inquiry. Its political bent compounds its academic intrigue. As An Inconvenient Truth also exists in book form, in my analysis I first worked with the print version. I perused it several times, allowing general observations of images and content, and implicit themes began to emerge. I then read it carefully, noticing that the implicit and explicit messaging often seemed dissonant, yielding further intrigue. Subsequently, I examined language–image relationships, and considered content inclusion and exclusion. Working with the print version offered an ideal initial analytical approach because I could easily juxtapose different book parts and thus easily examine different sections together. I then viewed the film and noted that despite slight variations from the book, the implications I had noticed in the book remained – and were exacerbated with the inclusion of sound – in the film. As a third point of comparison, I also attended Gore's live lecture in Seattle, WA. Again, I found slight variations in this format, but the essential implications I had observed in my original analysis remained. From this comprehensive analysis, I was confident that I had identified consistent implicit and explicit themes in Gore's message.

Given its massive popularity, I then focused my analysis on a deeper review of the film format, transcribing the text alongside accompanying images, permitting closer analysis of visual–verbal juxtapositions. I noted what was present, and considered what was absent. I examined each instance separately with these questions, then aggregated my observations to identify patterns. Identified patterns seemed to correspond with specific values systems – but whose? From this grounded approach and armed with a recognizable set of values, I set out to identify which values system(s) Gore was representing, and, consequently, which particular audience he was actually, implicitly, targeting. I located US political-ideological values systems, which made sense due to Gore's political career and reasonable keen awareness of US political-ideological values systems. I then carefully examined the values systems of US political ideologies and determined that, indeed, Gore's message was far more ideologically complex than originally presumed, and US political-ideological values representations were entirely consistent with Gore's messaging.

Thematic analyses inherently carry certain, non-exclusive characteristics. First, as with any thematic analysis, the individual pieces of evidence to thematic construction can seem innocuous or have myriad interpretations when considered individually, or combined with different pieces of evidence to construct different patterns. None of this, however, negates thematic existence. When multiple individual pieces of evidence reflect the same idea, they form a pattern. When this pattern is virtually unbroken, they comprise a recognizable theme. Despite other possible interpretations of individual pieces of evidence, then, the identified pieces of evidence do indeed form recognizable, unbroken patterns – themes. Further, this research will show that the identified themes are entirely consistent with base US political-ideological values systems.

Moreover, recognized themes are not all-inclusive. Themes are derived from a preponderance of evidence that forms a recognizable pattern. The more pieces of evidence that work together to form a recognizable pattern, the stronger the theme's presence. Consequently, many of an artefact's individual components lie outside of the recognized themes and do not contribute to a thematic construction which forms the basis of a thematic argument. However, the fact that not all components work to form one or another theme does not negate the existence of the themes recognized. Such is the nature of thematic analyses.

Analysis

The following detailed thematic analysis of An Inconvenient Truth demonstrates the presence of particular ideology-based themes. Certainly, ideologies are complex in actuality, though in principle, they can be cleanly identified and categorized. In this vein of clean distinctions, for the clear recognition of present themes, the following analysis resides. As ideologies are simplified here for the purpose of clear illustration, so are their representations. In fact, Gore often appeals to multiple ideologies within the same frame – perhaps he admonishes individualist conservative values with his words while appealing to traditionalist conservative values with his accompanying images, or asserts the validity of his argument through the credible sources he cites while implicitly reflecting traditionalist conservative values embedded within the very sources he chooses. In these ways, the film is complex and appeals to multiple audiences simultaneously. For the purpose of clarity, this analysis separates and categorizes these representations within their respective ideological camps.

Explicit cues: admonishing (some) individualist conservative values

In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore both challenges and appeals to individualist conservative values through explicit argumentation. He interweaves presentations of science with personal stories and logic-based arguments. He presents causes, effects, and solutions to the current global warming crisis. These explicit cues are primarily present in spoken argument content and bolstered by visual frames. Gore offers a central thesis of a large scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming, necessitating regulation and other governmental intervention. The truth, he contends, is that extant scientific findings prove global warming posing a huge threat; such information is inconvenient as it challenges our behavioural freedoms and conflicts with US free-market capitalist economics. These themes align with liberalism and directly challenge individualist conservatism, which prioritizes personal and corporate liberty and lax governmental intervention.

Gore's argument challenges individualist values of utter behavioural liberty. His explanation of how the sun's heat enters the earth's atmosphere and reflects off of the earth, and the human role in that phenomenon, evidences these challenges. He buttresses these words with photographs of factories billowing thick clouds of dark smoke. In this verbal–visual juxtaposition, located towards the beginning of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore links global warming with industrial air pollution. This posits global warming not only as human-caused, but as an outgrowth of irresponsible economic and regulatory systems. Here he challenges the efficacy of an unregulated free market – the heart of individualist conservatism – and by extension blames individualist conservative values for inducing global warming. Gore buttresses his position of human-caused atmospheric damage with an anecdote of viewing an ice core in Antarctica, noting that the US Congress passage of the Clean Air Act was clearly distinguishable on the ice core.4 With this, Gore further asserts the human role in causing global warming. Gore argues, then, anthropogenic global warming, governmental regulation necessity, and current regulation inadequacy – striking at the core of individualist conservatism.

Later in the film, Gore again challenges individualist conservative values in calls for increased governmental intervention. He asserts the need to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions, and praises individual US states and cities that have independently done so; he promotes increased regulation on industry-produced environmental hazards. This explicit call for increased governmental market intervention directly contradicts the core individualist conservative value of minimal governmental intervention in personal or business affairs (Blumenthal 1986; Edwards 1999; Schoenwald 2002).

Further opposing individualist conservatism's untethered behavioural liberty while reflecting liberalist social values, Gore also calls for increased socially responsible individual behaviour (Blumenthal 1986; Edwards 1999; Schoenwald 2002). Thus, he requests consideration of others in behavioural decisions rather than asserting an ethic of an individual's rights for self-gain. Gore calls to the greater good by requesting “more energy-efficient appliances. More end-use efficiency. Higher mileage cars, renewable energy, [and] carbon capture” in addition to political will. He claims that “each one of us is the cause of global warming but each one of us has the ability to change that”. Environmentally responsible urgings are also interwoven with the final credits. In these ways, Gore calls for more socially responsible behaviour, with the onus on the individual. Here, he encourages audiences to identify the problem's source as a consumer consciousness that should demand more environmentally responsible alternatives – from industry and government alike. In other words, contrary to individualist conservative values, the individual should be driven by an ethic of social responsibility rather than personal gain. However, Gore simultaneously appeals to the individual to address the problem, providing an opportunity to circumvent governmental intervention and allow the solutions to rest with the individual – coinciding with individual liberty absent governmental restriction and appealing to this mindset.

As the film ends, Gore calls for creative change, appealing to the entrepreneurs within individualist conservatism, by urging individuals to join the political process in efforts to combat global warming. Individual appeals include: “Vote for leaders who pledge to do something. […] Join international efforts. Reduce dependence on foreign oil. Raise fuel economy standards. Call power company”. In these final comments, Gore cements his core position that we need to pressure political and industrial institutions for change towards combating global warming. In reasserting the need for increased governmental intervention and more corporate responsibility, Gore challenges a free-market, limited government values system espoused by individualist conservatism. However, he simultaneously urges change, calling out to entrepreneurs – individualist conservatives (McClosky and Zaller 1984). Thus, in admonishing some fundamentally individualist conservative-driven behaviours while embracing others, Gore both criticizes and appeals to individualist conservatives. I contend, however, that he admonishes the behaviours of this ideological segment more strongly and clearly than he appeals to them. After all, it is the values of individualist conservatism that have primarily caused this problem, and keep it from being resolved.

Notably, Gore's argument omits certain common liberal environmentalism tropes, further evidencing his conservative appeals. Omitting social justice arguments of environmental equity in terms of race, class, and place (Cox 2006; Gunter and Kroll-Smith 2007) – distinctly liberal tropes (McClosky and Zaller 1984; Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2004) – supports the position argued here. In their distinct liberal tone, these inclusions would likely offend individualist conservative audiences, who contend that everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed through the willingness for hard work and therefore generally oppose social equality arguments. Gore has not attacked individualists with distinctively liberal arguments; he has targeted the morality of their behaviour – a position beyond ideology.

Implicit cues: supporting traditionalist conservatism

Gore may have aimed his arrow at individualist conservatives, but at the same time he was courting the traditionalists by implicitly incorporating core traditionalist values. Recall that traditionalist conservatism holds to maintaining a traditional (white paternalistic) social order while individualist conservatism and liberalism are, at least in theory, colour- and gender-blind. Thus, the following depictions fit soundly within a traditionalist conservative frame. Though implicit, his appeals to traditionalist conservatives were much stronger than those to individualists, as Gore only reinforces traditionalist values without overtly challenging any.

Gore reflects a traditional social order, and promotes morality and religiosity in the film – both fundamental to traditionalist conservatism. This manifests in part via traditional gender role depictions, within both society and the family5 – heavily emphasized in visual frames: men and women are almost solely depicted in traditional gender roles. All professional and public figures Gore cites are male: novelists Mark Twain and Upton Sinclair, British Prime Ministers Winston Churchill and Tony Blair, Harvard professor Roger Revelle, scientists Carl Sagan, Lonnie Thompson, and Charles David Keeling, artist Tom Van Sant, and Gore's father, Al Gore, Sr. All scenes depicting the US Congress and congressional events depict men only, with the exception of a female court reporter – a traditional female professional role – in a photograph of an early Congress.

Gore's personal images include men-only images of Gore and his Harvard classmates, which admitted only men until 1973 (did he never interact with women during college?). Further, in a strategically ambiguous moment – where a speaker crafts a message for different interpretation by different publics (Ceccarelli 1998) – Gore says “we Americans” have the capability to end global warming because we ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. Some might interpret this as “all Americans”. Others, however, might interpret it more specifically: if “we” ended slavery, men in government ended it, and if “we” allowed women to vote, men in government permitted it. Even in apparent national solidarity, traditional gender role depictions with men as socially and intellectually superior were embedded in the film.

As men are represented as strong and dominant, women are weak and confused. Gore recounts the story of his sister, who died of lung cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. The only female to receive any emphasis in the film, Gore's focus solely on her illness and death highlights her weakness and vulnerability. Further, a photograph of three women – not men – looking puzzled at a piece of paper during the controversial 2000 presidential vote recount subtly suggests that women, even in important roles, have difficulties solving problems. Together, these representations play into a paternalistic theme of women as weak and less intelligent.

The film also highlights a traditional family gender conceptualization. For example, Gore describes his childhood home as his father's farm, not that of his parents, hearkening to a time when only men could possess land. Several images of men working reinforce a traditional proprietary role for men within the family structure. Finally, traditional men's roles include emotional fortitude as well, manifesting in images of Gore comforting his wife and daughters – not the other way around and not his son – upon his losing the 2000 presidential election. Taken together, these images reproduce and reinforce a male-dominated family structure, aligning with traditional familial gender roles perceptions. Though certainly not conceptualizations exclusive to traditionalist conservatives, for traditionalist conservatives, these gender messages struck a chord that suggested Gore was one of them, or at least understood them.

A second area of significant traditional appeal depicted whites in (all) leading social positions (Blumenthal 1986; Sniderman et al. 1991; Sears 1993; Kinder and Sanders 1996; Dawson 2001). In subtle language and image choices, Gore reinforces a traditional hegemonic cultural structure placing whites alone at the top, and invokes this heuristic in viewers. All sources explicitly cited by Gore and noted above are white as well as male. Photographs of scientists and guests on site visits are all white or ambiguously white.6 All images of Gore's college days include only whites. Further, Gore takes viewers to and through his family farm – a 250+ acre tobacco farm in Tennessee. Declaring his father had been farming all of his life suggests lengthy family land ownership, perhaps evoking considerations of the racialized history of farming such a plantation in the US South, and pondering the role of Gore's family in that history. Finally, his declaration that “we Americans” ended slavery and “we Americans” allowed women to vote again is noteworthy, as solely white Americans had this power, further highlighting the appropriate role of whites in powerful positions. Here, whites only bear their rightful place at society's apex.

The representation of non-whites further reinforces whites' clear position at the top of a hegemonic social order (Sniderman et al. 1991; Biernat et al. 1996; Sears et al. 1997). The urgency in African-American New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin's voice during and just after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans (2005) suggests fear and desperation; the static in the audio track suggests inferior quality and lack of clarity – both suggest lack of strength and power. A clip of young Senator Gore depicts a man of African descent behind him in a lesser role. Images of China and the Pacific Islands all depict inferior infrastructural and social conditions, flooded streets, and factories billowing dark smoke – all suggesting inferiority of non-whites. Clips of Gore's address to a Chinese audience wearing headsets highlight the audience's poor English. Language reinforces the governing class; English is a modern lingua franca and its spread maintains hegemonic dominance (Gramsci 1985; Parijs 2004; Ives 2009). The headsets demonstrate that this Asian audience is not of the governing class and that Gore, speaking English, is. A second linguistic difficulty with Chinese businessmen supports this view. This is again offering a worldview of white (and English-speaking American) superiority. In any one of these instances, the skin colour of the particular people in the film could be explained by myriad factors; however, when instances become an unbroken pattern, they assume greater significance.

A final traditionalist conservative appeal is Gore's regular invocations of morality and religiosity (Wilcox 1992; Edwards 1999; McGirr 2001; Domke and Coe 2008). Gore opens the film asserting that global warming is a “moral issue”, invoking an imperative he repeats throughout the film. His concluding comments begin with “I believe this is a moral issue”. In both opening and closing the film with language of morals and ethics, Gore bookends his message within a framework of moral righteousness, positioning this matter as a-ideological, an issue not partisan but rather about right and wrong. Further, in using the word “moral”, Gore adopts a favoured terminology of US traditionalist conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives. In fact, he taps a central traditionalist conservative chord in invoking morality as a centralizing and driving force (Hunter 1991; Wilcox 1992; Lakoff 1996; Edwards 1999; McGirr 2001; Fiorina et al. 2005; Goren 2005; Lane 2008), well-played in a message perhaps partially aimed at traditionalists within conservative culture. In striking this central traditionalist chord, Gore aims at the heart of traditionalist conservative value structure, offering his argument for resonance with this powerful social group. In redefining this matter as moral, it no longer belongs exclusively to liberalism – it can now belong to traditionalist conservatives as well. Thus, this issue is removed from its ideological identity and becomes accessible to anyone holding morality as a base tenet, which, in US political-ideological terms, strikes primarily at traditionalist conservatives.

Religiosity and morality are also embedded in the film's words and accompanying visuals. In Gore's first lecture scene, he asserts that the picture “Earth Rise” – the first photograph of the earth taken from space – “was taken on Christmas Eve 1968”. In this moment, Gore transforms this scientific event into a religious one. Rather than simply stating that this image was taken during the Apollo 8 mission or giving the date, Gore uses a Christian reference, “Christmas Eve”. Within this religious frame, the image takes on a distinct spiritual dimension because it is an image not attainable from earth's boundaries. Coloured by the religious language, the image invokes the suggestion of a heavenly perspective, seen by an unearthly being – the vantage point of God. That the argument begins with this reference establishes an underlying religious – and distinctly Christian – base for the film. Other religious references and implications occur throughout the film, including Biblical invocations and language. An example is the assertion that global warming can produce “catastrophes like a nature hike through the book of Revelations”. This reference is visually bolstered with an image of automobiles in seemingly weightless disarray, having been lifted, rolled, toppled, and tossed together – accompanied with the deeply religious reference, this presumably occurred at the hand of God. Message recipients concerned that science and faith might be placed at odds, as often occurs within Christian conservatism, and are put immediately at ease in the suggestion that this story is fundamentally congruent with Christianity.

Gore shares personal spiritual experiences as well. He recounts the near death of his son at the age of 6 years, the outcome of which gave Gore's life new focus: to ensure a future for his children. This suggests that the connection between his son's accident and fighting global warming is causal. Such profound insight followed by driven dedication to a cause suggests that Gore senses the hand of the divine in this new-found path, which would give his life new meaning and significance. Finally, there are Gore's concluding sentences. Of his early exposure to the dangers of global warming, he says, “It's almost as if a window was open through which the future was very clearly visible. ‘See that,’ he says, ‘see that? That's the future in which you are going to live your life.’” The “he says” invocation suggests a providential intention and voice, and implies the hand of a male God in clarification of one's destiny, higher purpose, or God's will. In religious terms, Gore is implying that he has received a vision and “calling” for his current path. Such a presentation of this learning process forbears powerfully religious beliefs and suggests reverential awe. The placement of this reference at the very end of the film both confirms the film's overall message as a religious one, reiterating the Christian base established at the film's beginning with “Christmas Eve”, and leaves like-minded message recipients impacted by the gravity of Gore having received and revealed a provident vision. Further, in sharing this message about environmental advocacy with his audiences, Gore invites his audiences to join his divine calling. For religious publics, these messages could not be more profound. Because religiosity, particularly Christianity, offers a point of identification for many Americans regardless of religious identity or partisanship (Domke and Coe 2008; Albertson 2011), this theme's dominant presence encourages diverse publics to view the issue as a-ideological, transcendent of politics and of a higher, perhaps divine, moral order. Such a move effectively neutralizes the ideology-based tensions surrounding it.

Discussion

In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore appeals to each of the three main US political-ideological publics simultaneously. He reinforces the entrepreneurialism of individualist conservatism by calling for creative solutions and individual action, but blatantly challenges individualist values of market freedom and limited government by asserting the unregulated free market culpable for this current crisis and calling for increased governmental intervention. As liberalism and individualist conservatism directly contradict on this point, in challenging individualist values Gore simultaneously reinforces liberal values of governmental involvement and regulation, appealing to liberal publics. Gore also calls for behavioural change, both reinforcing liberal values of social reform and challenging traditionalist conservative values to maintain the status quo. However, Gore reinforces these same traditionalist conservative values of adhering to tradition by subtly reflecting a traditional social order of white male dominance. He promulgates morality and religiosity, implicitly appealing to traditionalist conservative publics, especially Christian conservatives, and demonstrating his values as fundamentally congruent with theirs. Most cues supporting traditionalist conservatism occur via strategically ambiguous visual content, offering multiple publics consistency with their own values simultaneously (Ceccarelli 1998). Thus, while reflecting traditional racial and gender social hierarchies and appealing to traditionalist conservatives, Gore's personal images can also be viewed as sharing personal content and innocent of ideological bent, thus not off-putting to other viewers. Therefore, these same images reinforce both traditionalist conservatism in their racial and gender-role content, and Democrat-ism (often equated with liberalism) in their personal content as Democrats identify with Gore the Democrat.

In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore uses implicit cues that subtly yet resoundingly tout cherished traditionalist values appeals particularly to traditionalist conservative-leaning members of the public. By presenting frames imbued with traditionalist conservative values, Gore accesses, reflects, and reinforces this value structure, providing cues which are available, accessible, and reliable to these publics, and offering a path of decreased resistance in accepting the overall message (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). By presenting cues that reflect conservative value structures, Gore may have overcome some message resistance and gained open-ness to the film by this public. To paraphrase Burke (1955), Gore provides traditionalist conservatives with the raw materials to persuade themselves. The film supports traditionalism in several ways, permitting traditionalist conservative publics to identify with the film and be amenable to its influence. Inviting traditionalist conservatives to join his cause, Gore blurs the environmental-ideological divide. In reclassifying global warming as a moral issue, its political-ideological identity dissipates (Sim 2006) and it can re-enter conservative discourse with renewed legitimacy as not rejecting, perhaps even aligning with, conservative values. Under this new environmental representation, the film brings increased attention to the anti-global-warming movement in the US and may have helped move this issue from its crippling liberal identity into mainstream US consciousness, thus contributing to the movement's evolution.

Extant research supports these positions. Since the 1980s, US presidents increasingly infuse their public communications with religious rhetoric (Domke and Coe 2008; Albertson 2011), cuing religious values in message recipients and establishing greater connections with multiple groups. As Clinton's vice-president and the 2000 presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, Gore is firmly embedded in this era of presidential politics. That Gore employs faith-based references particularly as bookends in the film makes sense when viewed in this light, as Gore may be attempting to use religion as the strongest of his rhetorical tools.

In terms of the greater societal dynamics prompted by this film, Warner (2002a, 2002b) explains that a public is organized by and addressed in discourse. In this sense, a public is a discursive space – one that exists only through the circulation of texts. In the discourse of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore provides several points of identification to liberal, traditionalist, and individualist conservative publics, and invites each respective public into his message by offering cues that reflect the defining values of each ideological identity. Thus, in offering discourses consonant with multiple ideologies within a single text, that text, or at least various aspects of it, can enter the discursive space of each respective public and help (re)organize that public. In its congruence with core values systems of each ideology, each respective ideological public is invited to support environmental advocacy on its own terms. In this way, the traditionally liberal environmental position furthered in An Inconvenient Truth enters the discursive spaces – and indeed the publics – of individualist and especially traditionalist conservatives.

Entering the discourse of conservatives, the global warming debate has crossed the liberal-conservative ideological divide, blurred the ideological identity of global warming and reduced its sheer leftist orientation, and ignited traditionalist-individualist intra-conservative tension. In positively reflecting traditionalist conservatism, Gore potentially gains traction with traditionalist conservatives to combat global warming. In presenting behaviours of individualist conservatism (significantly contributing to global warming) as violating traditionalist values (immoral and against God), traditionalists are encouraged to admonish their individualistic conservative brethren. Thus, Gore encourages an intra-conservative values conflict driven by moral consciousness. He also taps various individualist conservative values, offsetting entrepreneurial creativity against environmentally destructive behaviours. Thus, he encourages individualist conservatives to reconsider current courses of action while remaining true to core values driving profit-seeking behaviours. In these ways, Gore's message enters the discursive spaces of these publics and becomes part of the discourse which accesses and organizes these publics.

An Inconvenient Truth is a political film created by a politician about a political- ideologically divisive issue, rendering political-ideological evaluations crucial to illuminating its core messaging strategies. My analysis of An Inconvenient Truth revealed a sophisticated and complex intertwining of US political-ideological representations and appeals. Reflections of all three prominent US political ideologies coupled with a morality emphasis helped neutralize global warming's political-ideological identity in the US, transcending it into an a-ideological, morality discursive space (Sim 2006) accessible to all, regardless of political-ideological identity. The individualist conservative coalition is extremely powerful, and makes obscene amounts of money benefiting from lax government and the right to untethered profit-seeking behaviour – they have a vested interest in fighting global warming alarms. Addressing this coalition with logic-based arguments not only falls flat, but also inspires this group to develop counter tactics to protect their interests. Traditionalist conservatives may not always agree with their individualist brethren, but join them in recognition that a divided conservative coalition means neither faction has a voice. Thus, traditionalists may hesitate to criticize individualists' behaviour along ideological lines. However, in offering a morality identity, all people could freely relate to this issue without concern for violating their political-ideological principles. In its equal access by all, regardless of ideological bent, the new morality identity essentially moves this issue beyond ideology, rendering it a-ideological.

This examination answers the call for more politically based evaluations of environmental discourse and demonstrates that specific and consistent values reflections may have contributed to its infusion into mainstream consciousness. (Shortly after the film, the evangelist community, a loud voice for traditional conservatism, advocated a shift from environmental devastation through the right for dominance to environmental protection via stewardship, both Biblical principles.) More of this sort of research is needed, as such an analysis can lend considerable insight to US environmental political tensions and US positioning in global environmental politics, perhaps proving pivotal in US-related global policy discussions.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank David Domke, Mark A. Smith, Christine Harold, James Tweedie, and the DRG of University of Washington, and the anonymous reviewers for their contributions to this work.

Notes

^1. National polls just after 2006 showed an increase in global warming concern, while more recent polls show it consistently trailing other social issues (Gallup 2010). Nonetheless, many credit this film for awakening the discussion on global warming and bringing the issue into the public sphere.

^2. Historically, liberals outside the South supported the Democratic Party (Piper 1997). Al Gore is from the South, suggesting that though he is a Democrat, he may not be liberal.

^3. The traditionalist conservative values system denounces women's liberation and civil rights due to their dramatic divergence from the traditional social order (Blumenthal 1986).

^4. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, with major Amendments in 1977 and 1990.

^5. Until the 1960s, traditional gender roles were axiomatic to the social order. With the women's liberation movement came resistance by traditionalists for the movement's threats to the status quo.

^6. “Ambiguously white” is defined here as one who may or may not be non-white or racially mixed; it is impossible to discern due to camera lighting or angle.