Gore

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6811719312494990925.post-50380723679521535752006-10-17T05:59:00.000-07:002006-10-17T09:35:33.873-07:00Gore <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5709/831508705138548/1600/gorehurricane.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5709/831508705138548/400/gorehurricane.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><blockquote>The vice of our leading parties in this country...is, that they do not plant themselves on the deep and necessary grounds to which they are respectively entitled, but lash themselves to fury in the carrying of some local and momentary measure, nowise useful to the commonwealth. <div style="text-align: right;">-- Emerson</div> </blockquote><a href="http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/10/obama-should-run-in-08.html">Anonymous Liberal</a> wrote a post yesterday making the case for Barak Obama to run in 2008. This post generated a good deal of coversation and disagreement in the comments section, and I mentioned there that I would publish this post today as a response. It is my view, and has been since the summer at least, that the only viable candidate at this crucial juncture is Al Gore. Below, I've outlined some of the more abstract reasons why I think so. To me, the concrete reasons -- his experience, intelligence, international and domestic reputation, and general level of competence -- speak for themselves. I'm interested to hear any and all comments on this. The Tragos endorsement (at least part one), is as follows: A <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/07/poll/index.html">September poll</a> showed 37% of Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton for President, with 20% voting for Al Gore. Hopefully this only reflects the fact that Gore is not yet actually running for President. The most interesting number is the 86% who supported a higher minimum wage. This is a democratic position, and this extremely high number is yet another indicator that, in reality, a large majority of Americans actually support democratic positions on the issues. (I might suggest that Giuliani's frontrunner status for the GOP suggests the same thing.) Unfortunately, as Paul Waldman pointed out in the <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/09/06/elections_arent_about_issues/">Globe</a>, and as <a href="http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/09/lesson-every-democratic-politician.html">Anonymous Liberal</a> emphasized, we don't always vote according to the issues -- indeed, recent election results have shown that, for better or for worse, Americans tend to vote on personality and presence, the strength with which one expresses her convictions, not necessarily the content of the convictions themselves. With this in mind, I am going to make a claim that may seem counterintuitive: even on the personality issue, we need to go with Gore. Even to those who once ridiculed him, it is becoming clear that his personality is as compelling as his policy points. Many pundits and voters and various other fools decided he was dull, wonkish, no fun -- in short, not a guy with whom we might want to share a beer. Now, leaving aside the horrific prospect of spending a night in a bar with George W. Bush, I will just, for the record, categorically reject this proposition, as I did then. Gore has always been funny, imaginative, coherent, and driven by what Emerson would call the "moral sentiment." Just because the i-Pod generation and the soundbite television media can't process a sophisticated, and occasionally dry and self-effacing sense of humor, doesn't mean we should allow their errors to determine our perceptions. Gore not only has a robust and compelling personality, but he also has the power of the narrative on his side. If he chooses to do so, he will bring to this election the story of a country wronged by its rulers in the same way he was wronged by the 2000 "election." Along with the narrative of the comeback, in the style of any number of your favorite martial arts films (or, say, Star Wars), Gore clearly occupies the high ground on the issues: he's always been way out in front on the environmental issue, and he has been vigorously, eloquently against the war from the very beginning. Along with his sound ideas, Gore brings to the table an internationally credible reputation, and a lengthy record of experience developing and implementing policy both foreign and domestic, and has the historical perspective and the intellectual wherewithal to command the attention of a world which has, rightly, stopped paying attention to America. <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5709/831508705138548/1600/gore-military.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/5709/831508705138548/400/gore-military.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a> <div style="text-align: center;">Gore: Knows how to locate Viet Nam on a map. </div> Those of us determined to elect a government with any chance of undoing the damage inflicted upon ourselves and the world by this renegade regime called the Bush-Cheney administration would do well to focus on this reality: Gore is the most serious candidate we have. We need a man of his stature, his wisdom, his capabilities, and his experience to re-establish the seriousness and credibility of our nation abroad, and begin to address the major problems of inequality at home, and climate change worldwide. I am all for Russell Feingold, and I even have a good deal of respect for John Edwards, in his principled dedication to the issue of fighting poverty. A.L. has made <a href="http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2006/10/obama-should-run-in-08.html">the case for Obama</a>, who has some compelling attributes, but seems to me a premature candidate (although I think it would be politically interesting to put him on the ticket with Gore). Looking, though, at the "big picture," I believe we need a Gore presidency to restore our lost center of gravity, a presidency to pave the way for future administrations of the likes of Feingold and other genuine progressives. I completely reject Hillary Clinton as a candidate. I believe she is far too tainted by the evils of politics as usual. She comes across as someone driven by personal ambitions (which makes her no different from any other politico, but we don't need any old politico), rather than a genuine concern for public service and the <a href="http://jlbarnard.blogspot.com/2006/10/american-scholar.html">public good</a>. Gore, as a reluctant candidate, called back to service by a nation that needs him, can, and I believe he will, stand above the normal unpleasantness. He has the opportunity, not least because I believe he is a man relatively at peace with the world, to come to the campaign with nothing to lose, and therefore no reason to stray from the principles which make him the most attractive candidate in the first place; and we have the opportunity, if we recognize it, to do something principled with this election, rather than simply expedient. A vote for Gore, in my view, is an Emersonian vote -- one that rejects the momentary fury and the appearance of pragmatism in favor of a longer, broader, and more ethical view to the future. As Emerson says:<blockquote style="font-style: italic;">If there is any period one would desire to be born in—is it not the age of Revolution; when the old and the new stand side by side, and admit of being compared; when the energies of all men are searched by fear and hope; when the historic glories of the old can be compensated by the rich possibilities of the new era? This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.</blockquote>JLBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10987058554014193721noreply@blogger.com