Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 





It’s Got to Be Gore: Part I and II – The Challenge Facing the Next President
Wednesday, 14 February 2007 19:19
by Andrew Bard Schmookler

These have not been normal times in America. Under this Bushite regime, the soul of our country has been in danger like never before in its history.

Accordingly, in the now-beginning quest for new leadership here in America, the stakes are equally extraordinary. America must be reclaimed from these evil forces. The American people need to understand the meaning of this dark episode we’ve been passing through. And the damage inflicted on this country, and on the world, by these dark forces must be repaired.

America needs for the next president:

** To bring the best possible resolution of the mess the Bushites have created in Iraq.

** To refortify the Constitution which has been under assault from these Bushites—getting rid of unconstitutional laws, like the Military Commissions Act, and re-establishing a reasonable agreement about the checks and balances that establish the boundaries of the separation of powers.

** To reverse the corporate takeover of the federal government of the United States– a takeover which this Bushite regime advanced by a whole order of magnitude.

** To reconfirm America’s commitment to a respect for genuine knowledge, affirming our respect for the ferreting out of the truth through honest inquiry.

** To make the United States a leader, and not a pariah as this administration has made it, in the global process of creating an environmentally sustainable civilization, on that does not create destructive upheavals –such as climate change– that shake the foundations of the biosphere.

** To rededicate ourselves to the value of honesty in the relationship between leaders and led, recognizing how fundamental has been the betrayal of American democracy by this group of Bushite leaders who have worked assiduously to deceive the people and have embraced no commitment to an honest mutuality between government and people.

** To bring Americans of good will together, rather than work deliberately to drive them apart, as these Bushites continuously have.

**To make America trusted and appreciated by other countries in the world, and not held as these Bushites are with a combination of contempt and fear.

Known and very popular cialis coupon which gives all the chance to receive a discount for a preparation which has to be available and exactly cialis coupons has been found in the distant room of this big house about which wood-grouses in the houses tell.

All these things are aspects of America that have been materially damaged. And America can waste no time in undertaking to repair this damage.

We are therefore coming to one of those moments –of which America has had perhaps only three or four before– when presidential leadership can make a profound difference with repurcussions, for better or for worse, for generations to come.

In the following installment of this series, I will indicate some of my reasons for believing that the alternatives to Gore are less promising for this historical moment, and will mostly focus on those alternatives. In the installment after that, I will focus more on the reasons Gore appears to me to be the man for this moment. And in the fourth projected installment, I will indicate how Gore could begin campaigning with a platform and a strategy which will not only help propell him into the presidency but will also provide America with more of the leadership it so desperately needs NOW and for the next two years.

It’s Got to Be Gore: Part II– What Does it Make Sense to Hope For?

In response to Part I, one commenter here –Morley–wrote, after declaring that I’d gone bonkers:

Do you suppose that any one man can change the historical trend that has existed for more than half a century, and put the historical toothpaste back in the historical tube? There can be better or worse presidents in 2008 but the simple truth of the matter is that the election isn’t going to change anything much.”

Which raises the question: what indeed does the record of history allow us to hope for in terms of what the best possible new leadership might achieve?

Morley acknowledges that there might be better or worse presidents, but says that the difference between the best and the worst presidents we might get will not matter much.

But I would say that any reasonably sensible observer of the American scene in 2006 would say that getting the presidency of George W. Bush was MUCH WORSE than alternative possibilities (whether we confine ourselves to Gore in 2000, or simply compare the conduct of this presidency with that of other presidencies of the past).

And is there any reason to believe that what was true on the downside would not also be true on the upside?

Moreover, though the full achievement of all those goals I listed in the first installment may be unreasonable to hope, surely it matters plenty how much progress we make toward their achievement. These goals are not matters of all-or-nothing.

I’ll tell you the historical example that I have in mind in my envisioning of what I hope our next leadership might accomplish. I’m thinking of what FDR accomplished upon becoming president in the election of 1932.

Then, as now, the country was in terrible shape. In that case, it was a break down of the economic system. Now it is a breakdown of those aspects of the culture that converge on our governmental system (moral, legal, political, media).

FDR, it is often said, saved capitalism. But he did more than that. He made use of that breakdown to create a new kind of society by expanding in creative ways the role of government in the life of the nation and of its citizens. Not everything worked, of course, but with the Civilian Conservation Corps and Social Security and countless other programs, he gave impetus to a more humane, more liberal kind of American capitalist democracy. The wave he imparted into our political system continued to carry America forward in many important (and valuable) ways for almost half a century.

In my view, FDR was a great president. In the century since Mount Rushmore was carved into that rock (a travesty, I know), there’s only one president who has served who belongs up there. And that’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Had the president elected in 1932 been a mediocre president, or perhaps even a poor one, what would have happened? My guess is that America would have taken a very different path and become a different, and lesser, nation. Even if we exclude the scenario (not impossible) that the Depression could have led to the breakdown of democracy and the rise of either a fascist or communist dictatorship –not impossible, I would guess– a less visionary, less constructive, less effective, less inspiring leader would have bequeathed to America a lesser future than we got because this particular man became president at that time of crisis.

Perhaps to an observer during the Depression year 1931, anyone who’d proposed that a leader might take the country to the place where it was by the end of FDR’s tenure would have seemed bonkers, calling for “putting the historical toothpaste back into the historical tube.”

That whole image of putting the toothpaste back into the tube –that it’s bonkers to imagine reversing the trends of one’s times– is a counsel of despair. It suggests that the course of history is ruled by inevitability. The course of history reveals, on the contrary, that history can take different courses depending on matters that are not inevitable– such as whether Booth could succeed in killing Lincoln, and whether the ballot in Long Beach County was confusing to voters in 2000.

But even if we were simply uncertain whether history’s course was inevitable –and how could anyone be CERTAIN that nothing we can do might turn around the destructive tendencies of recent times?– it would seem that rationality and prudence would require us to choose as Pascal did in his famous wager: he operated on the assumption that there IS a God, reasoning that if he did so and he was wrong, the cost of his error was nothing great, but if he lived as if there were no God (who judges mortals) and he was wrong about THAT, then he’d pay a huge price for eternity.

Likewise, we who do not fully understand the workings of history are called upon to choose not the self-fulfilling path of despair but rather that of hope. And this path includes looking to the possibility that great leadership can make a difference.

That seems to me to have been the case with FDR’s presidency. And I believe it can be the case with the president elected in 2008. And for similar reasons.

When I say that FDR was a great president, I do so fully aware that his greatness is likely inseparable from the magnitude of the crises he was compelled to deal with. Our great presidents do not appear generally in normal, status quo kinds of times. (Lincoln is considered the greatest of presidents by the scholars of the field, and of course it is no coincidence that he was president at a time when the cataclysm of the Civil War beset the country.)

Part of the nature of the times of great crisis –as implied in that well-known fact that the Chinese character for “crisis” also means “opportunity”– is that times of crisis also allow for redefinition, for creating something BETTER than what existed before the breakdown.

FDR’s accomplishment was not just returning America to the path of prosperity (if, indeed, that was his accomplishment at all). It was utilizing the fluidity of a time of redefinition to accomplish many of the things that had been envisioned by progressives for a couple of generations, but had been blocked by the established powers from realization. He made America more than it had ever been.

And as it was then, so is it now. The rise of these evil fascist powers has not only threatened the existence of all that has been good in America, it has also opened the possibilities for leadership –for GREAT leadership– to use the fluidity of this moment to redefine America for the better.

Our political system, for a generation increasingly mired in the cesspool of corruption and plutocracy, might get redefined. Our role in the world, regarding which America squandered the opportunity presented it by the end of the Cold War (see the “Afterward” to the second edition of THE PARABLE OF THE TRIBES), is ripe for redefining to meet the needs of humanity to create a new kind of global system, more ruled by law, more compatible with the biosphere, more humane in its values. Our public, degraded into passivity and ignorance and gullibility and coarseness, might be awakened to a renewed awareness of the meaning of citizenship.

We still might fail, and fall prey to these fascist powers. Or we might prevail over those forces, only to muddle through in a slovenly way. Or we might rise to the occasion –seize the opportunity contained in the crisis– and drive back the evil powers with a new assertion of the powers of the good, the true, and the beautiful.

Those are what I think are the differences that it makes whether we get the best of possible leaders, or the worst, or someone in between.

In the coming installments, I will share what I envision are the reasons for hoping that greatness is not unreasonable to hope for in this next phase of our history, and that Al Gore might provide that greatness in the presidency.

Yes, Al Gore– the same fellow who ran that lackluster campaign in 2000. No, I do not believe that had Gore been elected in 2000 he was going to be a great president. But I see reasons for believing that if he is elected in 2008, he truly might.
More from this author:
The “Prophetic Social Movement”: Then and Now (8792 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler On Election Night of 2004, as I lay in bed much of the night awake and miserable, I found myself teetering on the...
The Dems’ New Power: Investigative Hearings Done Right (7952 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler On Election Day, America took a step that history may show to have been absolutely crucial in saving this republic....
Waging Battle, Building Peace: The Paradox Confronting the Democrats (8078 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler Confronting the Paradox   The goal is no less than to defeat the evil that, in recent years,...
The Dems’ First Step on Iraq: The Kind of Hearings We Need (8455 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler WHERE CHICKENS COME TO ROOST The Democrats need to achieve two things with respect to the mess in Iraq: 1)...
When Failure is Better than Success: What Americans, and the World, Owe to the Disaster in Iraq (11835 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler There can be no doubt that the failed American invasion of Iraq has been a terrible thing. Because of...
Related Articles:
THE COUCH POTATO: Psychoanalysis of a President (10309 Hits)
Via sources unknown and by methods unclear ("Stuff happens" – the Hon. Donald R. Rumsfeld), Atlantic Free Press has come into...
Learn to say Please, Mr. President (6844 Hits)
by Anwaar Hussain Mr. President, Now that a thumping smack has been delivered by American voters to the backside of the Empire...
Media Sham for Iraq War -- It’s Happening Again (12283 Hits)
By Norman Solomon The lead-up to the invasion of Iraq has become notorious in the annals of American journalism. Even many reporters,...
It’s Not Just Bush: We’re Accountable Too (6263 Hits)
by Heather Wokusch Click on arrow to listen to Heather's Podcast here: www.heatherwokusch.com/podcasts/We_Are_Accountable_Too_48KBs.mp3 ...
Put on the Spot, Our Punk President Lies Yet Again (8724 Hits)
by Walter C. Uhler Whenever I hear President Bush tell another lie (or read that he has told another lie) I'm reminded of the Liar-in-Chief's...

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Comments (1)add comment

a guest said:

If Gore's campaign was lackluster what was Bush's?
Given that there was no crisis of any kind in 2000, no big issue which required urgent intervention, when the media wasted airtime and ink to publish stories about Bush's smirk and Gore's cowboy boots, when the electorate was as complacent as ever is it fair to blame the candidates for running lackluster campaigns?

I don't think so.
Aside from the far right and the far left the voters didn't really care about anything in 2000 but half of the them wanted change after 8 years of scandals - real or pseudo.

Should be noted that with that "lackluster" campaing Gore managed to eliminate a 15% deficit he had in early 1999. Contrary to the conventional wisdom the data shows that the election was not Gore's to lose. He was the underdog from the beginning mainly due to Clinton fatigue.

Clinton had above 60% unfavorable ratings in swing states and many voters, according to exit polls while approved the job he was doing as president had an unfavorable view of Clinton himself.
Most of those voters who were in that category voted for Bush. That was hardly Gore's fault.
Just in Florida about 400,000 voters who approved Clinton as president but disliked him as a person voted for Bush, more than enough to make him president.

Had Clinton managed to keep his libido under control Gore would have become president and then you wouldn't say now he ran a lackluster campaign. Or you could say it but with a President Gore in the White House it would sound rather ridiculous.
February 17, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger



Top 123