But "An Inconvenient Truth" isn't just about global warming, of course.
It's also about Mr. Gore. And it is, implicitly, a cautionary tale about what's
been wrong with our politics.

Why, after all, was Mr. Gore's popular-vote margin in the 2000 election
narrow enough that he could be denied the White House? Any account that neglects
the determination of some journalists to make him a figure of ridicule misses a
key part of the story. Why were those journalists so determined to jeer Mr.
Gore? Because of the very qualities that allowed him to realize the importance
of global warming, many years before any other major political figure: his
earnestness, and his genuine interest in facts, numbers and serious
analysis.

And so the 2000 campaign ended up being about the candidates' clothing,
their mannerisms, anything but the issues, on which Mr. Gore had a clear
advantage (and about which his opponent was clearly both ill informed and
dishonest).

I won't join the sudden surge of speculation about whether "An Inconvenient
Truth" will make Mr. Gore a presidential contender. But the film does make a
powerful case that Mr. Gore is the sort of person who ought to be running the
country.

Since 2000, we've seen what happens when people who aren't interested in
the facts, who believe what they want to believe, sit in the White House. Osama
bin Laden is still at large, Iraq is a mess, New Orleans is a wreck. And, of
course, we've done nothing about global warming.

But can the sort of person who would act on global warming get elected? Are
we — by which I mean both the public and the press — ready for political leaders
who don't pander, who are willing to talk about complicated issues and call for
responsible policies? That's a test of national character. I wonder whether
we'll pass.