klaatu
Fusionist
AL GORE IN 2008.
Prime Choice
by Martin Peretz
Only at TNR Online | Post date 06.22.06
I suspect that Al Gore will be annoyed at me for writing this article. He has never so much as hinted to me that he is or will be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. At most, he has been coy about the matter--as he was coy about it on television last Sunday. Still, I want to assure the reader that I have not written it in consultation with Gore at all. I haven't even hinted to him that I am writing it. This is written out of solidarity with those political moderates and liberals who are desperate to find a nominee about whom both their minds and spirits can be intellectually sure and psychologically fervent.
The first pragmatic reason to be for Gore, then, is that he is electable. He won once. He can win again. This is not simply a slogan; it is a serious thought. I find, moreover, that there is an undercurrent of guilt around the country about the fact that the presidency was taken from him by a vote of 5 to 4, with the 5 votes coming from Supreme Court justices who, on any other matter, would otherwise have reflexively deferred on a matter of Florida votes to the power of the Florida courts whose judgment would have resulted in Al Gore being president and not George Bush. These "strict constructionists" and "originalists" suddenly turned activists. That Bush has been such a clot as a president, such a golem magnifies Gore's stature as a thinking person with beliefs he can defend honestly and persuasively. Imagine what would be the outcome of a rematch. My guess is that if there were a poll asking voters whom they had voted for in 2000, Gore would win by a landslide. I know people who are actually ashamed of having cast their ballots for George Bush. But Gore will not be running against Bush.
Gore would first be running against or competing with Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Russell Feingold, Wesley Clark. Now, a party that makes Howard Dean its national chairman certainly has a death wish. Maybe it can't be helped. But Hillary starts out with so many in the electorate--left, far left, right, far right, center--nearly half of the public, who despise her that it boggles the imagination how much money she has actually raised, ostensibly for her senate campaign but obviously for her higher ambitions. (This is mostly New York-California money still entranced by Bill, a phenomenon I confess not to grasp. Virtually all of this is social "big money" towards which Democrats have suddenly lost their antagonism.) Still the deep "negative" sentiment, to use a more professional term, is not very much politically motivated but it is politically volatile. She is just disliked. The phenomenon is actually volcanic. The more she shifts her ground the more shaky it is, and she has shifted her ground aplenty. Why, if Hillary were to run against Mayor Giuliani or John McCain in 2006, she'd likely lose even her "home" state of New York.
I will not make arguments against the rest of the list. Still, some comments are in order. Mark Warner is a favorite with the big-finance Democrats who can't abide Hillary. That is certainly a bond, even a cementing bond. But their theme is that Warner was one of the founders of Nextel. Which reminds me of Ross Perot. He also founded a high-tech company. It is an excuse not a reason. I don't know much about Vilsack. And not many in the politically attuned fold do either. Maybe he'd be able to put Iowa into the Democratic column. Evan Bayh is a nice man, and sound on many issues. Sorry, he doesn't strike me as at all deep. Biden asks many questions and lets no one answer them. I supported him financially when he first ran for the U.S. Senate. He's made little of his place on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Russ Feingold may be too left-wing even for the Upper West Side of New York. Wesley Clark, well, what General MacArthur said is true: Old soldiers fade away. Even not-so-old soldiers fade away. His most enthusiastic audiences seem to be in the United Arab Emirates. TNR readers know my views on John Kerry.
Now, I disagree with Gore about Iraq ... and, frankly, I've sometimes rankled at his Iraq rhetoric. He and I talk about Iraq quite often. This may be no comfort to you. It is to me. But, on foreign and military policy generally, his record going back decades is tough-minded without being belligerent, conciliatory without being soft. I do not doubt his resolve about Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons. I doubt Bush's resolve much more. This has become by now a political calculus for him, calibrated by Karl Rove. On domestic economic matters, Gore is a free-market realist rather than a free-market fanatic. The issues he has tended to are issues on which he is truly expert.
He is not afraid of science and technology because he knows science and technology. And, yes, he did more to foster the democratization of the Internet than anyone in public life anywhere. That democratization is always and, in fact, under threat right now, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Gore would protect it from the corporate vultures.
His film, An Inconvenient Truth, and his book with the same title are smash hits. On 600 screens now and second on the Times best-seller list (also very high on Amazon and Barnes & Noble), this could be the beginning of a campaign. The movie and the book were not launched as part of a political campaign. They are an expression of his long-time passion for spreading the knowledge he wrote about in The New Republic as long ago as 1989. His message is not just for the tree-huggers. It is addressed to all serious citizens who understand that catastrophes to civilizations are not unknown to history. Gore has sounded the tocsin. Many people have heard its clarion message. This does not mean that a Gore campaign would be based solely on the perils of global warming. In any case, he says--and I believe him--this is not the launch of a political campaign. But campaign or not, it has bonded him to so many intelligent and activated citizens of all political persuasions and social strata that it may be the most brilliant campaign-launch in our time.
Let me tell you a few words about the question as to whether Al Gore has changed. Actually, to me he is essentially the same young man I met in a Harvard freshman seminar 41 years ago: inquisitive, respectful of learning and scholarship, emotionally connected, committed to his friends and family, incandescently smart, believing in an order of the universe he still genuinely refers to as God. These are not easily carried into the universe of politics, where cynicism leaves little space for authenticity. But he fought against the demons of triangulation that subvert moral clarity. Al also came out whole, very whole. Yes, he was singed by the president's troubles that the oh, so facile president made for himself. Gore took the advice of some of the usual Democratic four-flusher professionals in his campaign in the year 2000. Right now, I make this assertion with complete confidence: that Gore would not, will not defer his own instincts or convictions to anyone else. Yes, he can be persuaded. But he cannot be pushed.
I was first for Al Gore for president when he ran in the primaries in 1988. He lost to Michael Dukakis in that year's suicide of the Democratic Party, an ignominious campaign by a smug and utterly disconnected governor from the only state that had voted for George McGovern. Jesse Jackson was the celebrity candidate, with his hip-hop language that some patronizing folk will still tell you is eloquence. Had Al Gore been the nominee in 1988, he likely would have defeated George Herbert Walker Bush, and the nation would have been saved the grim experience of his unlikely and uncomprehending dynasty.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060619&s=peretz062206
Prime Choice
by Martin Peretz
Only at TNR Online | Post date 06.22.06
I suspect that Al Gore will be annoyed at me for writing this article. He has never so much as hinted to me that he is or will be a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. At most, he has been coy about the matter--as he was coy about it on television last Sunday. Still, I want to assure the reader that I have not written it in consultation with Gore at all. I haven't even hinted to him that I am writing it. This is written out of solidarity with those political moderates and liberals who are desperate to find a nominee about whom both their minds and spirits can be intellectually sure and psychologically fervent.
The first pragmatic reason to be for Gore, then, is that he is electable. He won once. He can win again. This is not simply a slogan; it is a serious thought. I find, moreover, that there is an undercurrent of guilt around the country about the fact that the presidency was taken from him by a vote of 5 to 4, with the 5 votes coming from Supreme Court justices who, on any other matter, would otherwise have reflexively deferred on a matter of Florida votes to the power of the Florida courts whose judgment would have resulted in Al Gore being president and not George Bush. These "strict constructionists" and "originalists" suddenly turned activists. That Bush has been such a clot as a president, such a golem magnifies Gore's stature as a thinking person with beliefs he can defend honestly and persuasively. Imagine what would be the outcome of a rematch. My guess is that if there were a poll asking voters whom they had voted for in 2000, Gore would win by a landslide. I know people who are actually ashamed of having cast their ballots for George Bush. But Gore will not be running against Bush.
Gore would first be running against or competing with Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Russell Feingold, Wesley Clark. Now, a party that makes Howard Dean its national chairman certainly has a death wish. Maybe it can't be helped. But Hillary starts out with so many in the electorate--left, far left, right, far right, center--nearly half of the public, who despise her that it boggles the imagination how much money she has actually raised, ostensibly for her senate campaign but obviously for her higher ambitions. (This is mostly New York-California money still entranced by Bill, a phenomenon I confess not to grasp. Virtually all of this is social "big money" towards which Democrats have suddenly lost their antagonism.) Still the deep "negative" sentiment, to use a more professional term, is not very much politically motivated but it is politically volatile. She is just disliked. The phenomenon is actually volcanic. The more she shifts her ground the more shaky it is, and she has shifted her ground aplenty. Why, if Hillary were to run against Mayor Giuliani or John McCain in 2006, she'd likely lose even her "home" state of New York.
I will not make arguments against the rest of the list. Still, some comments are in order. Mark Warner is a favorite with the big-finance Democrats who can't abide Hillary. That is certainly a bond, even a cementing bond. But their theme is that Warner was one of the founders of Nextel. Which reminds me of Ross Perot. He also founded a high-tech company. It is an excuse not a reason. I don't know much about Vilsack. And not many in the politically attuned fold do either. Maybe he'd be able to put Iowa into the Democratic column. Evan Bayh is a nice man, and sound on many issues. Sorry, he doesn't strike me as at all deep. Biden asks many questions and lets no one answer them. I supported him financially when he first ran for the U.S. Senate. He's made little of his place on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Russ Feingold may be too left-wing even for the Upper West Side of New York. Wesley Clark, well, what General MacArthur said is true: Old soldiers fade away. Even not-so-old soldiers fade away. His most enthusiastic audiences seem to be in the United Arab Emirates. TNR readers know my views on John Kerry.
Now, I disagree with Gore about Iraq ... and, frankly, I've sometimes rankled at his Iraq rhetoric. He and I talk about Iraq quite often. This may be no comfort to you. It is to me. But, on foreign and military policy generally, his record going back decades is tough-minded without being belligerent, conciliatory without being soft. I do not doubt his resolve about Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons. I doubt Bush's resolve much more. This has become by now a political calculus for him, calibrated by Karl Rove. On domestic economic matters, Gore is a free-market realist rather than a free-market fanatic. The issues he has tended to are issues on which he is truly expert.
He is not afraid of science and technology because he knows science and technology. And, yes, he did more to foster the democratization of the Internet than anyone in public life anywhere. That democratization is always and, in fact, under threat right now, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Gore would protect it from the corporate vultures.
His film, An Inconvenient Truth, and his book with the same title are smash hits. On 600 screens now and second on the Times best-seller list (also very high on Amazon and Barnes & Noble), this could be the beginning of a campaign. The movie and the book were not launched as part of a political campaign. They are an expression of his long-time passion for spreading the knowledge he wrote about in The New Republic as long ago as 1989. His message is not just for the tree-huggers. It is addressed to all serious citizens who understand that catastrophes to civilizations are not unknown to history. Gore has sounded the tocsin. Many people have heard its clarion message. This does not mean that a Gore campaign would be based solely on the perils of global warming. In any case, he says--and I believe him--this is not the launch of a political campaign. But campaign or not, it has bonded him to so many intelligent and activated citizens of all political persuasions and social strata that it may be the most brilliant campaign-launch in our time.
Let me tell you a few words about the question as to whether Al Gore has changed. Actually, to me he is essentially the same young man I met in a Harvard freshman seminar 41 years ago: inquisitive, respectful of learning and scholarship, emotionally connected, committed to his friends and family, incandescently smart, believing in an order of the universe he still genuinely refers to as God. These are not easily carried into the universe of politics, where cynicism leaves little space for authenticity. But he fought against the demons of triangulation that subvert moral clarity. Al also came out whole, very whole. Yes, he was singed by the president's troubles that the oh, so facile president made for himself. Gore took the advice of some of the usual Democratic four-flusher professionals in his campaign in the year 2000. Right now, I make this assertion with complete confidence: that Gore would not, will not defer his own instincts or convictions to anyone else. Yes, he can be persuaded. But he cannot be pushed.
I was first for Al Gore for president when he ran in the primaries in 1988. He lost to Michael Dukakis in that year's suicide of the Democratic Party, an ignominious campaign by a smug and utterly disconnected governor from the only state that had voted for George McGovern. Jesse Jackson was the celebrity candidate, with his hip-hop language that some patronizing folk will still tell you is eloquence. Had Al Gore been the nominee in 1988, he likely would have defeated George Herbert Walker Bush, and the nation would have been saved the grim experience of his unlikely and uncomprehending dynasty.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060619&s=peretz062206
