EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Gore Door
It's fair to say that this is not the very worst of times in American history.
The British are not marching through the homeland, burning down the White House. We are not murdering each other by the hundreds of thousands, as we did during our Civil War. A fourth of us are not unemployed, as was the case during the Great Depression. And Joseph McCarthy - though not necessarily his techniques and his amorality - seems safely ensconced in his grave, despite Ann Coulter's attempt to revive him (wow, how sick is that?).
It could be worse, true. But this is, nevertheless, an ugly time in the historical journey of this nation, and the peril of the present moment runs far deeper than middle America has begun to appreciate. Just as a single plane crash is often more horrifying to people than is the plethora of everyday car wrecks ultimately inflicting much more carnage on the society in total, so it is that far too many of us are not noticing our slow-motion national wreck, even as it transpires before our eyes.
Make that wrecks, actually, for the crises are multiple, and they are extensive.
You can play all the statistical games you want (Hey, have you heard? National debt as a ratio to GDP over the population growth vector times the inverse of Chinese export subsidy allowances is actually not at historic highs!), but the truth is that we're handing over an obscene pile of IOUs to our own children. Right now, each American taxpayer owns about $60,000 worth of federal debt, a number which is growing by about $2,000 with each year's additional deficit, and which is compounded each day by additional interest on the loans as well.
You can bury your head so deep in the sand that the soles of your feet get sunburned, but the idea that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here!" still cannot be made into a sensible conclusion for sentient creatures. The nasty truth about Iraq will not go away. Every additional day there is another day of fodder feeding the booming output for the American hatred factory, as it stamps out enemies of the United States faster than you can say "IED". Even if we weren't bankrupting ourselves in Baghdad, and even if we hadn't broken our Army there, as well as our National Guard and Reserves meant for domestic crises, and even if we hadn't made the rest of the world hate us, this adventure would still be a crisis of first proportions for the United States.
And, perhaps most historically egregious of all (which is really saying a lot!), you can keep cranking up your air conditioner till the knob breaks off in your hand, but that won't change the facts about the environmental destruction that a society in deep denial is causing to its one and only life support system. Boy, is history going to judge us harshly on this one, assuming there are any people left around to be historians. And, boy, will we deserve that.
The list (sigh) goes on and on. From Florida to Ohio to the (In-)Justice Department itself, American democracy is in crisis on more fronts than I care to count. Our civil liberties are under siege. Jobs are flying out the window. Our healthcare system is the pride of the planet, as long as you're willing to leave aside those pesky countries of the First and Second Worlds (and even some of the Third). And so on, and so on.
It is truly a dark hour for America, and all roads lead to the same explanatory address: the country has been hijacked by a movement of regressive kleptocrats who have not governed well in large part because their intention never was to govern well - but rather, instead, to liquidate every asset from the beast before then dumping its tattered carcass in a fire sale. There are no parallels for this in our political history. Only the leveraged buyout does it justice. Think of this as the Gordon Gekko model of governance. Woo-hoo.
Add to that, however, the political parallels that do exist. Bush embodies the worst of all American presidencies (and notice they're almost all Republicans). If you took the drunken bungling of (Bush's cousin) Franklin Pierce, and combined it with the corruption of the Grant administration, the imperialism of McKinley, the incompetence of Harding, the coldheartedness of Hoover, the militarism of Eisenhower, Constitution-smashing of Nixon, the nationalist arrogance of Reagan, and the ham-handedness of Poppy Bush, you might begin to approximate the disaster of the current Resident. It's as if Doctor Frankenstein's assistant not only brought back the sociopath's brain from the morgue, but every other part as well, and they stitched them all together to make the present monster.
So, yeah, this is some pretty awful stuff, though we also don't want to overstate the case. This isn't bad like Civil War bad. But it is still quite disastrous, and it will get worse, even if we were to at least stanch the bleeding today, without taking any remedial steps. Say impeachment were to put an end right now to our lovely little national project of inflicting greater and greater damage upon ourselves (one of "Rumsfeld's Rules" - and, man, should he ever know: "If you are in a hole, stop digging"). We'd still be suffering for a long time to come. These guys have been so cynically clever with their project from the beginning, and one of the smartest things they've done is to temporally disengage consequences from their causes. We're going to pay huge costs for their mistakes, that's for sure. But they've made sure that those fees mostly come later, not during the time the damages are being done. Kinda like Best Buy selling stereos. We have the "No Payments Till January of 2009!" government, and it works. Turns out you can sell wars, deficits and environmental destruction that way too, not just appliances.
One of the many benefits of doing that (take careful notes here, all you would-be Machiavellis) is that it produces a condition amongst the public in which some substantial political wisdom and some real attention to governance are required to recognize in the present tense how profoundly destructive such regressive policies actually are. Regrettably, not many Americans can claim either of those two qualities, let alone both.
Truly this is one of the worst of times. But, all that said, I actually believe that we stand today on the precipice of a possible reversal of this ugly chapter in our history, and one of considerable potential magnitude. Call it a case of national-scale lemonade-making. Without question, there are a lot of ifs involved for this to transpire. More challenging still is that hitting a few of these conditionals is not enough - we more or less have to do them all. But if we do - and I honestly don't think that even the collective series is all that improbable - there is real potential here for something positive to happen. And not just a Clintonesque, non-Bushist, version of kinder, gentler corporate marauding. I'm talking about something more akin to a latter day revival of the New Deal. In short, a truly progressive political agenda for America.
The first thing that has to happen to achieve this is more of the same of what we're experiencing right now. This is well more than possible - it's highly probable. I don't think Bush and Cheney are going to be impeached and convicted in the time remaining, and I know for sure they're not going to change their policy stripes in a last-ditch effort to save this presidency from its unsalvageable fate as the worst in American history. The fundamental mistake that Americans - even those who have come to revile this administration - still make in assessing them is to believe that their problem is incompetence, arrogance, ideological rigidity, political aggressiveness or even petty corruption. All those things are true, of course, in spades, but they also serve to mask a deeper core which is significantly worse. Like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, this administration fundamentally exists to steal the national patrimony from you and I and deliver it into the hands of an already fabulously wealthy plutocracy.
Given that core mission, it is impossible to imagine them reversing the tax giveaways to the rich. Indeed, Bush is seeking to make them permanent. Given that raison d'être, it is impossible to imagine a serious effort on global warming when so much oil and coal money is at stake. Given that purpose, it is impossible to imagine a reversal on Iraq short of Republicans in Congress dusting off their white robes and pointy hats and forming a little posse for a brief cruise down Pennsylvania Avenue (which could happen if Bush continues to be the one-man GOP unemployment machine that he's become of late). Short of that, however, what would Blackwater or Halliburton, let alone ExxonMobil, say if we bailed on Iraq? No, John Bolton will be out trick-or-treating for UNICEF before we see these guys change stripes.
Of the several things that need to happen for an American progressive revival, you can count this one as a sure thing. Bush will certainly continue to pursue his disastrous policies. Moreover, my gut has never been surer of anything than that scandal in this administration runs deep and wide. I doubt seriously that it can all continue to be bottled up, even though the contemporary Democratic Party would probably attempt the physiologically impossible act of running from its own spine, should it ever happen to accidentally stumble across it tucked away in a broom closet somewhere. Bush will keep pursuing his unpopular policies till the bitter end. Scandals great and small will continue to emerge during the same period. And the public's attitude toward him will thus migrate from exhausted disdain to active disgust to simmering anger to and perhaps even to a bubbling boil. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a good thing for those of us hoping to advance a progressive agenda in this country.
Bush's follies will also, secondly, continue to increase the visceral unease of America's great apolitical center, a cohort which generally avoids politics, and does so in part for good reason. These are the people who could be readily persuaded that Saddam was a threat and that if the president says we need to go to war, no doubt he knows best. They're also the people who think, four years later, that something was not right about that whole Iraq thing, and that probably the troops ought to come home. More importantly, they're the people who generally see that the country is a train gone off the rails. Indeed, that is the very question which pollsters continually pose to them, and the proposition that America is on the right track today has pathetically few subscribers. A whopping 25 percent of us agree with that notion, with nearly three times as many disagreeing, the worst it's been in at least a decade, if not ever. Sixty percent of Americans think things are going worse today than they were five years ago, versus 18 percent who think they are better. More Americans think things will be worse five years from now than think things will be better. More Americans think the next generation will be worse off than think it will do better. And 76 percent of us say they are angry about the way things are going in the country, compared to only 21 percent who report themselves as being content. The portrait these numbers paint is not exactly a picture of health for any modern polity.
Most Americans couldn't identify the exact source of their anger and their anxiety, but they know that things are not working right, and they have lost faith in the present government to solve these problems. To make the leap to progressivism, there needs to be more of that, and given time there will be. The flame underneath this kettle must be turned up, to the point where the Bush administration and the regressive movement it leads are not only seen as unable to solve the problem, but as its actual source. Maybe Reagan was right, after all, at least if we slightly modify one of his most famous aphorisms: "(This) government is not the solution, (this) government is the problem."
There is a third condition that is very much required in order for a progressive renaissance to occur. It is an obvious one, but given the Constitution shredding we've all lived through these last six years, it must nevertheless be overtly articulated: Bush and Cheney must actually leave office on January 20, 2009. I still have concerns about this, though fewer than I did a few years back. It worries me, though, that we've taught these reprobates an unfortunate lesson - namely, that you can steal elections, trash the Bill of Rights, blow off Congress, manufacture a war, and steal the national crown jewels - all without much more consequence than a bit of photo-op grumbling by an anemic opposition party, the occasional off-script question from an otherwise completely obsequious press, and the latent hostility of a powerless public. After all that, would it be so much to fake another international crisis and suspend elections? If you can kill habeas corpus after nearly a millennium of it being woven deep into the fabric of Western cultural tradition, could you not readily spike an election or two under conditions of 'national emergency'? And let us not be under any illusions about the massive incentives that exist for them to stay in office, not least of which is to avoid losing the ability to block investigations of their crimes once they're out of power. The Bush junta has plenty of good reasons not to go when their (stolen) term expires. And then, of course, there is the matter of that mysterious underground bunker Cheney has been building, and the giant prison complexes recently constructed for as-yet unspecified purposes...
But let us assume that Bush and Cheney find a happy home for prolonged pillaging in some scandal-waiting-to-happen corporation headquartered in Dubai or somewhere. The obvious next set of conditions needed for a progressive revival in America is that there is actually a bold progressive candidate to replace them, that this person wins the election, and that he or she does in fact then govern as a progressive.
From what I can see, only one realistic possibility exists for this to happen, and that is for Al Gore to make a run for the presidency.
Even leaving aside Gore's resume, which makes him the ideal candidate in terms of experience and preparation (and, man, have we ever learned how much those things matter!), and even leaving aside that he has been out in front of everybody in the mainstream on everything, including the two most important issues of our time - Iraq and global warming - Gore is the ideal candidate for other even more important reasons.
I could be wrong, but my take on Gore is that he's walked away from the bullshit part of politics, forever. I think that if he ran, he would run with a sincerity and a passion for real issues that have been long and tragically absent from an American political landscape far too frequently populated with either scary sociopaths of the right or apolitical opportunists of the center. Indeed, given what Gore has already committed to the public record, both verbally and in print, he would almost have to run as the sort of straight-talking candidate John McCain can only pretend to be in countless consultant-crafted, focus-group tested, 30-second spots. And I don't think the importance of this quality, were it to actually show up, should ever be underestimated. Even though they far too often cave-in to the guy who tells them what they want to hear, Americans also desperately crave authenticity in their politics. The first person to come along and really speak honestly with the public is going to turn a lot of heads. First in shock, then in admiration, finally in devoted support.
So is the first Democrat who can throw a punch, and doesn't fall down the minute a punk like George Bush or Newt Gingrich rolls out another embarrassingly juvenile schoolyard taunt. Today, I look at Gore and I see a man on fire. I see a guy who is not only angry, but angry for all the right reasons. And I see a candidate who could be devastating in response to the right-wing cheap shots sure to be tossed out by the GOP in 2008. I think Gore would be willing to call out the purveyors of political filth on the right, to dress down their facilitators in the media, and to publicly humiliate both when they pull their egregious stunts. Indeed, I think he knows that to do otherwise is political suicide. If he does run, I can't imagine him running the sort of weak campaign like the one he mounted in 2000, or the inexcusable disaster that Kerry (who absolutely should have known better) put forth in 2004. I can't imagine him not dismissing the GOP and its surrogate pundits by saying "You're the same folks who've gotten everything imaginable wrong these last years, so shut up already. We're done with you and your disasters."
Those previous Democratic bids were cautious campaigns of calculated centrism, devoted to winning the presidency for the candidate, as opposed to for any sort of cause. Today, I don't think that is what animates Al Gore, for he has been anything but the centrist candidate who is cautiously building a foundation for one last run. Instead, he has more or less done all the things you're not supposed to do when you run for president nowadays, especially as a Democrat. He's called out the Bush administration for the disaster that it is, and he did so early and without mincing words, at a time when the Clintons and the Edwards of this world were voting for the Iraq war resolution so they could run for president. He's made noise about a crucial issue everybody wanted to ignore, and did so at the cost of being subjected to great personal ridicule. He has avoided all the political pandering of pathetic politicians running hither and yon across Iowa and New Hampshire, promising everything to everyone, and trying to be all things to all people.
All of this is important, and for more reasons than simply electing a non-regressive president in 2008. What we've learned in the last six years is what regressives are capable of when they're in power. What we'd already seen, from the previous decade, is just how damaging they can be even when out of power. It's ludicrous to imagine that another Clinton presidency would be any less hounded from the get-go than was the first one. And while Hillary might be somewhat more effectual at countering the vast right-wing conspiracy than Bill was, it will always be at the service of her personal power and glory, never to serve a progressive policy agenda. For there to be the possibility of a progressive revival in America, it will require a candidate who gets in the face of the radical right during the campaign, in order to lay the groundwork for doing the same during the presidency. Hillary might be able to do that, but what distinguishes Gore is that he goes even one better, doing it in service to a public agenda, rather than a personal one. That brings a lot of people around behind him in support for their champion.
The prospect of a good-natured, well-intentioned, highly qualified and unintimidated presidential candidate - and, especially, president - scares the hell out of regressives. It is both a measure of their fear, their political and policy bankruptcy, and the correctly perceived threat of a Gore candidacy that they've already begun hurling their cheapest pot shots at him, though the guy is nowhere near having even announced yet. With more than just echoes of the character assassination done on him in 2000, columnists from the Washington Post and the New York Times have mocked Gore and his new book, suggesting that he is arrogant, pompous and foolish. But these ladies doth protest too much!
I think today's Al Gore frightens these people very much. His presidency would follow our era's Pierce/Grant/McKinley/Hoover/Eisenhower/Nixon/Reagan meltdown, thus setting the stage for maximum receptivity to real and significant change. He likely would not be intimidated or shut down by personal assaults or fabricated scandals. (In fact, if he was really smart, he would inoculate himself against them by warning the public right from the beginning to expect that they are coming, reminding them of what was done to Clinton. Then each time another bogus scandal was proffered he could simply offer a Reaganesque display of disdainful tedium, along the lines of "There you go again". He could also publicly challenge members of the media to also investigate their sources, as well as the allegations of those sources, and he could play a game of resignation brinksmanship with Republicans making warrantless accusations, as in "If you're right Senator, I'll resign. If you're wrong, you resign. Agreed?".) Gore would also likely not be afraid to continue to explain to Americans the depth of the pit the GOP has dug for us these last years, perhaps launching continuing investigations into war profiteering and other scandals. In short, Gore could take progressives from a position of playing weak defense to one of playing offense, and leave the right stuck licking their wounds in a collapsing world of hurt. My own guess is that regressives will completely crumble at the point anyone stands up to them and starts hitting back, and thus the attacks already being mounted on Gore - it is imperative to them that anyone who would do so be silenced, preferably by means of ridicule. But I suspect Gore now well knows what so many of us learned in kindergarten, that the best way to deal with a bully is to push back. Hard.
The same is true when it comes to the matter of taming of press. I would expect them to also fall apart the minute they are outted. Imagine if, when they tried their usual deprecations, candidate Gore turned to the public, going over the heads of the media, and simply said "When are you going to investigate the Bush administration?" I think the American media knows full well how culpable they are for the mess that is Bushism. I think they are scared to death that anyone might expose them for their part in that disaster, for their cowardice, their complicity and their cooptation. We know for sure that the press can readily be bullied. A truth-speaking Al Gore could keep them constantly on the defensive for their rightward bias, their favoring of Bush, their savaging of Clinton and their complete failure to do their job during the Bush administration. He could do what the right has done for twenty years now - but using intimidation based on truth rather than on lies - and make them self-conscious and self-editing, just as the whole 'liberal bias' shtick has so successfully worked for the Dark Side.
But, of course, righting the wrongs of the last quarter-century is just the beginning. There is a lot to say for that alone, but the point of governing (as long as we are indulging our fantasies here) should be to advance an agenda which positively serves the public interest, and here is where we can envision the possibility of a progressive resurgence in America, without first having to imbibe massive quantities of hallucinogens in order to make it seem remotely plausible.
Lord knows I've had my heart broken by too many politicians not to be a bit cautious. Moreover, the old Al Gore could sometimes make Bill Clinton look positively liberal. But nowadays I think a Gore presidency would very likely be different. I think it would be bold enough to end the war, to seriously address global warming, to create a real universal national healthcare program, to begin re-balancing the distribution of wealth in the United States, to restore the Constitution, to appoint progressives to the federal courts, to restore America's participation in international institutions and its reputation in world opinion, to implement a full-scale alternative energy program, as well as job development, stem cell research, and a whole lot more. I think the majority of the American public already wants all of those things, and it might be very easy to achieve them under the combined circumstances of a completely failed conservative experiment, a clearly articulated progressive vision, and a bold agenda-setting president showing aggressive and fearless leadership in pointing the way.
Which I think is precisely why Gore, the non-candidate, inspires such over-the-top ridicule from conservatives and the press. His capacity to expose them and their lies, to put a label on their failures, and to chart a path toward a popular politics of potential watershed magnitude, makes him nothing short of a regressive's nightmare. This could be the second coming of FDR, not only politically and ideologically, but in terms of a generational-scale realignment, much as the New Deal coalition dominated American politics for forty years.
No wonder they've already started savaging him, even while he says he has no plans to run. Like a hurricane gathering energy at sea, they recognize his potential.
And like a Potemkin village on the shore awaiting the storm's devastation, they also recognize the complete vacuousness, and therefore the utter vulnerability, of their own project.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (mailto:dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
62 Comments so far
Show AllI'd vote for Gore.
I really don't understand why he hasn't grabbed the brass ring already. Maybe he's gone too Hollywood and is waiting for the third act turn? For a man who's probably wanted to be president since before I was born, you'd think he'd see this chance for what it is, already. That is, as close to a guaranteed gig as you can get in this crazy world.
I would vote for Gore without hesitation. He may not be perfect, but he is our best electable hope. It is unfair to blame him for the sins of the Clinton administration. Can he compleately get us out of this mess that we find ourselves; probably not. I feel strongly though, that at the end of his tenure as president we would be back on track and better off than we are right now. I don't feel this way about any other electable candidate. To me, the biggest problem with Gore is that he probably won't run.
Bashing Gore over the policies of the Clinton administration is disingenuous at best. The job of the Vice President is to support the president. He can disagree all he wants in private, but once the doors open his only real options are to offer support or resign. That's what VP's do.
Besides, Al's had several years to experience retiree's remorse. He's still got his previous experience to call upon, and he's certainly got the chops. His biggest advantage is that he's not too old to resume his career with his new perspective, coupled with the fact that at this point in his life he can swing for the fences and not worry if he doesn't score the home run. Chances are quite good, though, that he'd score those home runs. He'd come into office with great public and congressional support just because he's not Bush, and could truly get a lot done in a very short time.
Gore's biggest problem, I think, is that Hillary badly wants the presidency and will stop at nothing to get it. If Al jumps into the race, Hillary may very well tear the Democratic Party to shreds and leave us with Fred Thompson in the Oval Office. That choice between trying to do what's right for the country and risking that it leads instead to an administration worse than the current one is not a choice I would want in front of me.
If Al stays out of the race, we get Hillary who is only marginally preferable to Bush. If he jumps in, we might get Thompson who'd make Bush look like, well, the sock puppet that he is. Hillary is a big, big problem who won't admit to being a problem.
For many reasons, I think that a Gore/Kucinich administration is what this country needs right now. I just don't see it happening unless Hillary agrees to play fairly.
For what it is worth, I agree with Dr. Z and the other list makers.
Gore does not represent the interest of working people. If you are looking for someone who can "win", because they are acceptable to corporate America, then you have several candidates from both party's to choose from.
You don't have to pick a "perfect" candidate. Just one that is independent from corporate America. They can even have a big nose.
zoya, That idea of melding Gore and the Greens is brilliant. Dr. Zimmerman Robert, you best get over your dislike of nuclear energy because it's going to get very popular in this country in a year or so. If I were you I would enjoy it and be a capitalist pig like myself and buy uranium stocks.
P.S.: I wish David Michael Green could have cut to the chase a bit. How many paragraphs does it take to make your point?
Be still my heart.
Gore is at present providing leadership through his writing and speaking via a wide range of media. His courageous rebound as one who has faced tremendous loss and defeat in politics makes him smarter and wiser regarding the pitfalls of political gaming. In my opinion, it has made him human.
If he should consider taking on the awesome responsibility of leading our country out of the morass and despair of this present mess, we would be fortunate indeed. He is our last best hope and we should grab him as a life raft rather than wait or wish for a better one to come along. Democrat, Green, or Independent, I vote for Gore.
As for the Tecumseh curse, I have been hoping for the past six years that it will apply to both Bush and Cheney. It will not be a minute too soon.
Walking away from the bullshit means admitting your mistakes.
Before I can consider supporting Al Gore he will need to:
-- Renounce his support for nuclear energy.
-- Admit that NAFTA was a horrendous mistake and promise to repeal it if elected President.
-- Make reparations to the U'wa people of Colombia for the damages done to them by Occidental Petroleum, the company that helped him make his fortune.
-- Apologize for his silence in the face of the ongoing genocide in Iraq that the Clinton administration committed through bombing and sanctions.
-- Apologize for his silence when the Clintonadministration sold out or national forests to timber companies.
-- Apologize for his silence in the face of the bombing of chemical plants and the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium in the Kosovo war.
Until he takes responsibility for his past, Al Gore is just another politician creating a new image for himself.
What worries me is, that unlike Hillary who positioned herself with the Right to insulate herself, if Gore truly offers opposition or an alternative, they will pull out the long swords like we've never seen. He represents a potential threat where Hillary has assured them that she is not. The consequences of never having consequences for the criminal pursuits of the Right is that they will continue to savage any emerging front--because it is more than just Bush and Cheney--they are just the frontmen and Bush is an imbecile. Any national press or media that can prop up an imbecile at the expense of the Country is beyond redemption. The media is out to provide the propaganda for its master and a corporate press doesn't care whether the party is R or D as long as their interests are served and their crimes are covered-up.
Sean:
Keep in mind:
"I could be wrong, but my take on Gore is that he's walked away from the bullshit part of politics, forever. I think that if he ran, he would run with a sincerity and a passion for real issues that have been long and tragically absent from an American political landscape far too frequently populated with either scary sociopaths of the right or apolitical opportunists of the center..."
It is that or you get Clinton triangulating regression. You need to think about what that "new image" is emerging away from and don't cut off your damn nose.
What other candidate running for president has the credentials that Mr. Gore has? And, really, who out there would even want to take on this disaster we call America? There is no way one person could even begin to tackle the enormous number of fronts that will demand immediate attention. I don't think there is one single candidate who would be totally committed to turning this wreck around.
Thanks David --- Yes.
Thanks to Sean Donahue for the list.
I would add the Gore-led "re-engineering of government" during the Clinton Administration. He used to claim it proudly as a great success for which he was primarily responsible.
Clinton-Gore cut the full-time federal workforce by 250,000 (10%). They replaced those workers with high-priced outside contractors who were much less efficient than the original workers and concocted a number of other privatization schemes that the Bush team have refined with a vengeance (see Iraq, Katrina, et al.)
Not so coincidentally, they also weakened the notoriously weak federal unions even more.
Meanwhile, the number of state and local government jobs ballooned. If you want to check out the "efficiency" of local governments, just take a look at Katrina - or any large urban area in the US. Corruption and discrimination of all kinds are systemic, not a matter of "abuse" in nearly all state and local governments.
The anti-labor Clinton/Gore team also reinvented government by making OSHA and EPA reporting largely voluntary activities for corporations. In the few instances when fines and sanctions were actually levied, Clinton/Gore officials would deal down the penalties after the perpetrators promised to not commit the crimes again. The "you do the crime, you do the time (next time, maybe)" theory of law enforcement - especially if you are a corporation or a rich campaign contributor.
Then there was the deregulation of banking and markets which led to the many corporate scandals and increasing concentration of wealth and power among fewer and fewer capitalists. Bolstered, of course, by some of the most significant tax cuts in US history.
And the deregulation of Telecom leading to both concentration of ownership, lack of public input, higher rates and increased censorship throughout the industry.
And the slaughter in Rawanda, which Bill Clinton has "apologized" for, but never taken responsibility for.
Or eight years of non-relationship with the rest of the Western Hemisphere, except for NAFTA or supporting various authoritarian regimes in some kind of murderous repression or another.
And a non-relationship with Africa, except to promote free-trade schemes and support dictatorships ala Central and South America.
I am sure the list is much longer than this. These items come off the top of my head.
However Sean Donahue's conclusion is spot on: "Until he takes responsibility for his past, Al Gore is just another politician creating a new image for himself."
There is no perfect candidate out there. We need Gore for his experience, ideas and ability to understand the mess of the politics in this country. Who doesn't get to where he is at and have some baggage that would have been better left behind? If he decides to run it will take alot of courage to take the personal risk as well as the headache of taking on this mess created by our current administration. We need a real leader now and Gore seems to be our best bet.
I suppose that we could always dredge up Kucinich's anti-choice history if you wanted to be really purist about it.
"There is no perfect candidate out there. We need Gore for his experience..." Duh! See Sean Donahue's list for yourself.
I was never able understand why bombing of Serbia, annihilation of infrastructure of our staunchest ally in WW2, in defense of Bosnian and Croatian former Nazi collaborators, went almost unnoticed by Progressives. Shame on Clinton/Gore! Why to exchange bunglers for shrewd operators like Clinton/Gore, who do the same damage to humanity either with wide smile or pretense to REASON.
Besides, Gore's message is clear: Assault on Reason is a success story; reason is history in this country of consumers rather than civic minded people. Baby Boomers proved beyond reasonable doubts that success breed failure and failure they are. Only economical and political crash will bring about hope for national revival as it happened in '30s.
So, I would rather vote for Busch lite, than for Gore. Charles I was the best King England had; for he had brought the First English Revolution, which made liquidation of divine rule of Kings possible. War for Independence being the second stage of it and Civil War being the third stage, we live through the fourth stage, a.k.a. Reagan-Gingrich-DeLay counter-revolution.
Our current Government consists of leaches, so let them suck bad blood – it help healing.
Besides, we are the United States of America, not the united states of middle belt of North American continent. Let us all to leave to this great promise. In order to do so, the corrupt, plutocratic, jingoistic, imperialist, armed to teeth reverse of its former self must go trough transefiguration and be born again!
If Al Gore anywhere close to this task? Not in my humble opinion.
Green nailed many important things, mostly, that the Bush cabal has mostly been about stealing not only from the US treasury, but leveraging deals that have sold out a great many things, inclusive of our military. An important parallel with this impressive heist that's gone under the radar and been enabled by rightwing pundits was the S & L Scam. Stephen Pizzo's book, "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," was a major litmus test. Under Reagan as banks deregulated and could invest in projects without any proof of viability (knowing they were insured by the Federal treasury) a good deal of money was hijacked into the hands of unscrupulous types who, like Kenny Boy Lay and whoever cooks the books at Halliburton and/or Exxon Mobil, know how to play the game. It's fiscal chess, winner takes all and those are the "bad boys" that Bush & co do business with. How different is this ilk from mafia since both have blood (Iraqi war) on their hands.
Because of America's violent history, probably every politician has blood on his hands; but Gore was V. P and it's plausible that just as his values shifted with the near tragic accident involving his son, he is truly growing as a sentient being (who loves his wife and family and thus is still TOUCHED by love) and has GENUINELY modified his views. Who wouldn't take Gore over "the usual suspects" in today's "line up"?
Have faith people! This time the corporate Democrats running Gore's campaign could promise they won't pull any Liebermans on you. Or he could run and win as a Green...
As always, David nails it. Isn't it clear that the Al Gore of today is no longer the wooden man he used to be? He's full of "P&V", and he's the only one out there calling things as he sees them. He's got the experience and the intelligence we need, and he's a man on a mission.
This is a well-reasoned article. The comments (especially the article's challengers') so far are all crucially relevant. However - the GOP MUST BE TOSSED OUT. Can Mrs. Clinton do it in a Presidential run? Can Mr. Obama? I fear not in 2008 (2012 is a different matter). If Mr. Gore refuses to run WE CAN WRITE IN GORE IN '08. He can then pick whoever he wants for VP. It's now or never folks.
Okay, okay for the past three months or so there has been this great burst of enthusiasm among progressive punditry for the "new improved, Al Gore".
Despite a life of priviliged political elitism he is being portrayed as "a man of the people." All of this is based on what he has either said or written in criticism of others.
Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers have put their political asses on the line for single payer, government-run, health care.
Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey and a very few others have put their political asses on the line by voting "no" to supplemental funding to the Iraqi war.
Russ Feingold not only voted "no" on the Patriot Act but also "no" on the original authorization to the Iraqi war.
Bernie Sanders not only self-identifies himself as "Democratic Socialist" but also makes no bones about his desire to hold hearings and take up the crusade against the concentration of wealth and power championed by Wright Patman over 40 years ago.
These men and women are doing and not just bloviating ala Al Gore and his appologists.
Al dude! You had 20+ years in public life to differentiate yourself from the pack of opportunists and you still don't stand out for much of anything except going along to get along.
All together place your tongue between your lips and make the Al Gore cheer by blowing air out of your mouth real hard!
One major problem with "President Gore"...would result in "First Lady Tipper"
The democrats have proven themselves as craven as the GOP in the last few months....
Happy settling for GOP lite?..or how about a REAL 3rd party?
Poet: Everyone you mention is worthy! It's that issue of media visibility. Elections in pop culture rely on that celebrity thing, as every sold out politician paying to play well knows.
Its useless.
I have no problem with Gore and no problem with Tipper. They have a good solid marriage that middle America can respect--unlike the sleazy Clintons and their sham of a marriage.
All you who badmouth Gore - who at least makes an effort to grow, insure us the likelihood of Clinton or Obama, who are sure to continue the Rightward drift of our body politic.
Thanks Guys.
I agree with the thread initiated by Sean and supplemented by others, pointing out that Gore has an unacceptably record on many important issues -- I would add to Sean's list Gore's unsavory history of blind support for Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people.
Vern laments those who "badmouth" Gore, hoping that Gore has made a sincere effort to grow. Personally, I distrust politicians who try to run from their past, asking voters to forive their past sins rather than holding them accountable. How can we trust that Gore has truly metamorphosed into a progressive who will live up to his campaign rhetoric?
I'd feel much safer with Nader, Gravel or Kucinich, who have a lifelong history of saying and doing the same thing.
I posted this elsewhere on this site, but I wanna repeat it here:
In these days of the twilight of empire, I think we need to have a little talk about this neocon notion of America's right to lead the world. I do not think that the US power elite — the American State, owned and operated by its corporate class — can lead the world, no matter how many G8 meetings an American president can hijack. But I do believe that the American people can — and often do — lead the world. I say that as a Canadian born and bred in America's greatest imperial success. The US Green Party has just put out a press release inviting all disillusioned anti-war Democrats to switch to the Greens. Why not broker some kind of deal between Al Gore and the Greens. And don't give me that crap that Gore isn't pure enough to lead the Green Party in 2008. There is no such thing as pure: nobody's innocent here. Y'all are looking for Mr. Perfect Candidate — someone with Clinton's political skills and Chomsky's understanding of what needs to be done. Well, that candidate ain't gonna appear. And even if he/she did, he/she would never get elected. So get your heads out of that fuzzy American Dream, form some kind of a coalition to get Gore and the Greens negotiating a compromise, and get that third party off the ground for 2008. Show the world what it REALLY means for America to lead.
Gore did not make foreign policy during the Clinton administration, any more than Harry Truman did during the Roosevelt administration. It is wrong to blame him for Kosovo, etc. Clinton was infinitely more intelligent and involved than the present occupant. Therefore it wasn't necessary to rely on his vice president for foreign policy decisions or much of anything else. Gore, like most vice presidents in administrations with as active direction as Clinton gave his, was relegated to pretty minor roles. So his time with Bill and Hillary should not be held that much against him. What is more important, he has learned a great deal since his ordeal of 2000, in which he was savaged by a right wing press and denied a presidency that he won. Like Jimmy Carter, Gore rebounded from "defeat" into genuine statesmanship. His contributions on global warming have been especially significant and effective. His current book, "The Assault on Reason," is a well argued screed on the present sorry state of our culture and body politic. Yeah, he's got warts, but this is the Empire. We're not going to get Noam Chomsky for president.
Yes, Gore could be all those things, and what a wonderful world it would be. Even if he ultimately lost just think what it would do to the Democratic Party, how it would yank it back to the left, where it belongs. But I sense it's now or never. Today, Gore is red hot, but in 2012?
Sean: Boy oh Boy if you had only taken George Bush apart like you have Gore,it would probably have been the same result very few people would pay much attention to you.Like zoya June said there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. You are in a dream world when you make a list any candidate would have to live up to before you would vote for them.AL gore would be a great president, I only wish he would run
their all under the corporate thumb. integrity is non existant. all dirty.
Gore is dead anyway from Tecumseh's curse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh%27s_curse
and I wouldn't want to ever hear the words: "President Lieberman"
I posted my support for Zoya's brilliant idea of running Gore as a Green elsewhere, but feel it is worth repeating, here and everywhere. While I whole-heartedly agree with everyone who thinks Gore is a prostitute and that, as a Democrat, he is very little better the Republicans. Instead of being microwaved, we will be cooked, like the proverbial frog, rising slowly to a boil. And I don't agree with those who suggest that we forgive him his sins because he's the best we've got going. That is no solution. But getting Gore to run as a Green IS a solution. Not because he will be a different human being as a Green, and not because he will grow a conscience with that change of label (I will harbor a secret hope for some sort of ALchemical change by renaming the rose, but that's just because it is easier for me to live day to day believing a better world might be just around the corner). No, it is a solution because it will lend the insider's credibility to the Green Party. It will make the Greens appear viable, even as they will make Gore appear to be a true warrior against the status quo. Sometimes, perceptions create reality and, in the case of making the Greens appear viable, I think it is likely. Yes, we would like to see a BETTER candidate running for the Greens. Yes, we would like a better choice, but I think choosing Al Gore as the Green candidate will give us that option in the very near future, whereas just agreeing to martyr ourselves to another "choice between two evils" will accomplish nothing. In four years, or eight, we can run Eugene Debs for the Greens (dead or not, he's still the best presidential candidate I can think of) and, in the meantime, we can have a better human in office than Bush (is he, in fact, fully human?) and REAL hope for the future.
Contact your local GREENS!!!
(If anyone is really interested in my opinion of Al Gore, low as it is, you can read my blog at unknown arts, where I repost all my commentaries from here and elsewhere. Really, I don't trust the guy in a big and ugly way, but I am behind this notion of running him Green in spite of all my misgivings about him)
Al Gore's efforts to fight global warming deserve praise and appreciation.
That said, anyone even vaguely considering that Al Gore would run as a Green should forget it. He denies our right to exist and to participate in the political system--and he and his DLC buddies have been using every dirty trick in the book to keep us off the ballot in the various states since we first got into electoral politics.
I appreciate the fact that he admits that Ralph Nader DID NOT cost him the election in 2000--but that hardly demonstrates his commitment to the things (besides the environment) that Greens care about most, such as ending U.S. imperialism; promoting IRV as a path toward proportional representation; replacing pay-to-play politics with public funding for public campaigns and enacting campaign finance laws with teeth; establishing single-payer universal health care; ending the death penalty and three strikes; replacing the corporate state with bottom-up democracy and corporate agribusiness with family farms; putting a stop to the Drug War, ending NAFTA-style "free trade," assuring equal civil rights, including marriage, to all without regard to race, gender, sexual preference or identification—and the list goes on and on. If you think that Greens are really just liberal Democrats with an extra dose of environmentalism thrown in, you don't know much about us. We absolutely oppose the corporate duopoly--and Al Gore is a creation of that duopoly. Why would he even consider running as a Green?
Even Dennis Kucinich--who AGREES with us on almost everthing--would never leave the party he loves even more than his principles and join the Greens (as if his constituents in Ohio would ever stand for it--he'd be out of a job in no time). What makes you think Al Gore, who DISAGREES with us on almost everything, would ever leave his beloved Donkey Party and join up with people he has tried to marginalize, disenfranchise and politically destroy?
Although I will vote for any candidate NOT associated with the republican party, I really believe Al Gore is the ONLY viable candidate for true change in this country. He is smart, passionate, and unbeholden to the powers that be, unlike the spineless, pitiful, boot-licking, K-Street addicted "opposition", the Democrats.....What a disappointment (unsurprising) they have been. To run as a true progessive candidate, he has tremedous grass-roots appeal, and there is lots of left-leaning money out there, dying to contribute to a Gore campaign. If he retains his passion, independence from stupid "handlers", spin doctors, and so called "experts", and remains his own man, I think he could pretty much crush the opposition, from either the republicans or the belt-way democrats. All he has to do is hammer home the truth. And the real Al Gore has great personal charm and charisma. A smart, (as opposed to the moron who currently holds the worlds most powerful job), witty, straight talking, "give 'em ALL Hell", guy, with enourmous personal experience, and world-wide respect and popularity, could go a long way to restore not only our international image, but our increasing American disillusion and outrage over the state of our nation. WE NEED MR GORE!!! There is simply no one else of his stature, integity and experience to compare to him. As for whatever his real or imagined "past mistakes" that many are trying to bring into political play now, all humans who care about their own humanity, know they have made mistakes, and will no doubt, being human, continue to make some. The difference is some of us try to learn and grow from past errors. Experience for some people, tranlates to Wisdom. Our president, on the other hand, has repeatedly demonstrated his dim-wittedness, arrogance, and delusional self-rightousness....He is an national embassassment and an international disaster.
Before I can consider supporting Al Gore he will need to:
"– Renounce his support for nuclear energy.
– Admit that NAFTA was a horrendous mistake and promise to repeal it if elected President.
– Make reparations to the U'wa people of Colombia for the damages done to them by Occidental Petroleum, the company that helped him make his fortune.
– Apologize for his silence in the face of the ongoing genocide in Iraq that the Clinton administration committed through bombing and sanctions.
– Apologize for his silence when the Clintonadministration sold out or national forests to timber companies.
– Apologize for his silence in the face of the bombing of chemical plants and the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium in the Kosovo war."
hear, hear.
Why is it that we feel obliged to consider him at all?
Is it not possible to find a genuine candidate that has the interests of common everyday working people?
When working people's lives are made a little better it's a beginning.
Universal Healthcare, it's free for everyone
Universal Education, it's free for everyone.
These inalienable rights must be assured with the full faith and credit of the United States government (i.e. every citizen.)
Look at what the most informed and progressive amongst us are saying about Al Gore. Out of all the potential candidates, he gets the green light.
For me, when Hillary and others voted for the Iraq war they proved they are just another bunch of astute career politicians. This flawed way of governing is not how Al Gore rolls now. He can do more good for the US at home and abroad than any other candidate.
If Al Gore really cares about this country he'll run.
In some ways it is the worst of times. Our problems are self and leader imposed. The majority of the people are stupid and uninformed by their own and the media's deliberate efforts.
We have faced the enemy and it is us.
It's great to read such articulate writing for a change. For the Gore supporters I would suggest joining the Draft Al Gore For President Movement and work at getting him in rather than just wishing. We are growing as an organization and people are taking us seriously. It represents what Democracy is supposed to be about, people taking a direct approach to achieve their goals. We are not waitng for the winds to blow things are way. We are the wind. As for past mistakes, perhaps a valid point, but who has not made a mistake in the past. For me the Draft is the right path. read "The Well Connected Citizenry" chapter in his book.
Remember Sam Adams once said, "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate and tireless minority who are willing to light brushfires in people's minds." Not exact but you get the picture...
RE: to Sean first poster.
Sean, I agree with much of your point. Gore's refusal to divest from Oxy was/is cowardly. Oxy Oil has long employed mercenaries to drive out or murder hundreds of indians to steal their land deep in the Amazon jungle.
As someone who has voted for Nader over the last three presidential elections, no one is more disillusioned by the hypocracy running rampant in the political domain. I am obviously not an advocate of lesser evilism.
It is my belief that Gore has changed and maybe that represents my own illusions than it does reality. Gore is the only Democrat I would consider voting for in the current crop of garbage.
Thanks for offering you perspective.
How quick we forgot the Democratic cave in on Iraq!
I don't and it seems never have trusted the money party republicrats. I remember Viet-Nam syndrome being identical to the rhetoric today.
Spell check suggested I use republic rats to replace the word republicrats. LOL
Accept no less that a full pullout of occupied territories!
Wow! A super-long argument by David Michael Green, it's amazing it was so sustained and was so cogent. I have to add my voice to the already crystal bells of BobQDobbs, SouixRose, Vern, clyde page, Voltaire, epona, and trang, but especially PCMedia. At this point the Draft is the best idea I've heard. But I fully expect if Gore ran, he would win and if he won, he would be there not for four years, but eight! That is what frightens the Republicans to death, but also them Dems who covet the office. I have no worries that Lieberman would even be breathing near Gore. He is the real Dr. Death. Duh. But I would hope that Al Gore doesn't sandbag as Fred Thompson is doing in the Repub arena. The Gore train is already on its track and is gaining unprecedented steam, it will be a runaway. The running mate is the only mystery. Who do you argue for? John Edwards looks good.
I think you correctly identified one of the reasons for the success of these regressive people: they are adept at separating the consequences from their rapacious actions. Even better, they are skilled at directing blame for failures away from themselves. Sadly, the American people are either too naive, uneducated, harried, or inattentive to reconnect the causes and effects, and forget about the media doing so. Americans seem to assume the mainstream media will inform them of the truth, as if the plundering corporations that own the mainstream media wouldn't use the media to advance their agendas without regard to the truth.
I'm astonished, but delighted, to see in a "progressive" publication such as Common Dreams the statement, even in modified form, that "government is not the solution, government is the problem." Oh how I wish everyone accepted that simple truth which is the foundation of our Constitution.
I'm glad you alluded to the possibility of Bush not leaving office in 2009. For two years I have speculated that an appropriate "incident" could be used to justify an indefinite "postponement" of the 2008 election. Although you say your concerns about this have diminished, I think the contrary. Recent laws, such as the Military Commission Act, the Warner Defense Act, and the president's recent executive order concerning national emergencies all seem to reinforce the possibility of Bush declaring martial law, assuming control over all branches of government, and postponing the 2008 election. One thing about the government: it doesn't grant itself powerful authority with no intention of using it. Quite the contrary, the government often exceeds the generous authority it grants itself. For example, look at the FISA law. In its entire history I think it denied one application for a wiretap, out of thousands. Yet the government still found it necessary to violate this generous law.
I'm not a pessimistic person. I describe myself as realistic, although I'm usually slightly optimistic. Nevertheless, at the moment I cannot identify a single positive trend. Every trend looks negative:
*** The domestic national debt is growing rapidly. The debt ceiling was recently increased to just shy of $10 trillion! I think the only reason the debt ceiling was kept below $10 trillion was so that they wouldn't have to add another digit to the debt clock over Times Square.
*** All levels of government are facing growing budget deficits (despite the Dear Leader's claims about the federal deficit, which omits the cost of the Iraq war). When you factor in entitlement and retirement costs, the budget picture is truly horrifying.
*** The trade deficit keeps getting larger. It's already the largest in the world, and is about ten times the next largest national trade deficit. Ironically, a recession would probably shrink the trade deficit, but even if it shrinks, it will still be a deficit, adding to the foreign trade debt we've already accumulated. Eventually this foreign debt will come home, either as domestic inflation or foreigners buying our assets, as has been happening with a lot of our formerly public infrastructure, such as highways.
*** The housing bubble is imploding and is going to take years to unwind, all the while acting as a drag on the economy.
*** The domestic money supply is growing by at least 10% per year, which is fueling inflation (which has begun showing up even in the heavily doctored CPI). If the stock market bubble pops (yes, there is another stock market bubble), the Federal Reserve may pump up the money supply even more to forestall a collapse in stock prices.
*** The standard of living keeps declining. Even by the standards of the phony CPI, real wages in this country are declining! (Unless, of course, you are a corporate executive, a Wall Street investment banker, or a hedge fund manager.) Remember the days when a single wage earner could support a family, buy a house, a car, and help put their kids through college? People are having to take on more jobs just to stay in place. Those that prefer to remain unemployed rather than take a crumby, minimum wage job are simply not counted in the unemployment statistics once their unemployment benefits run out! Some estimates place the true unemployment rate, once these "disappeared" employees are counted, at double the official 5%.
*** Our already decimated industrial base is still shrinking. Manufacturing is one of the two pillars of true wealth creation for any economy, the other being agriculture. If we're not generating true wealth, how on earth are we going to pay back that $10 trillion of debt, let alone repair our decaying infrastructure, which in 2005 was graded a D by the American Society of Civil Engineers (http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=103).
*** Peak oil is real and we are at the peak of global production right now. The world's largest oil fields are faltering and no new large fields are being discovered. It's all downhill from here. The war against Iraq was predominantly about securing its oil. A war against Iran is probably inevitable because it also has oil (although probably a quarter of what it claims), but as importantly, Iran has a lot of natural gas. The U.S. produces one third of its electricity from natural gas. Saudi Arabia may well be on the agenda. And oil-rich Venezuela is probably targeted for future military adventures as well, which explains the official animosity we see directed at Venezuela today. The bottom line is that we're facing a future of increasingly violent competition for the world's remaining energy supplies, along with soaring prices for energy products (e.g. gasoline).
*** Everything, from taxpayer-financed, formerly public infrastructure (thanks in large part to exploding global money supplies), to food, to the very genes in our bodies is being privatized. Not only will we have to pay private, even foreign companies additional user fees for basic necessities such as utilities, food, and water, but our taxes, which used to pay for some of these things will not be going down.
*** Our educational system continues to deteriorate, even as the costs increase. It's bad enough that U.S. educational performance is far down the list compared to other advanced countries, but the lack of education is preventing Americans from understanding the nature of the problems we face, how to fix them, or even who or what to blame for them. This makes the people easy to manipulate. (Were I a conspiracy theorist, I might think that Americans have been deliberately dumbed down through state-controlled, lousy education in order to make them easy to control.) Long term, the declining number of scientists and engineers being educated here impairs our ability to invent new technologies or find solutions to our problems. Already China and India combined produce more scientists and engineers than the U.S. Where do you think tomorrow's innovations are going to originate?
*** The health care system in this country is badly broken and getting worse. There are too many vested interests preventing the implementation of solutions. Ironically, you're better off going to a "third world" country such as India or Thailand for health care than you are trying to obtain health care here.
*** Our freedom is being stripped from us piece by piece. In truth, we live in a fascist, covert police state today. What is it going to take for people to recognize the true nature of our country? Armed Blackwater mercenaries patrolling the streets? People disappearing from their homes in the middle of the night? The prison-industrial complex requires a steady stream of "detainees" to provide slave labor, which the nonsensical drug war conveniently supplies. Soon, economic collapse may create hordes of unruly, homeless, unemployed people who can be rounded up and put to work in Halliburton-built camps in remote places like Wyoming (the vice president's state).
Could one man, such as Al Gore, even make a dent in all these problems? In a mere four or eight years? Would he sincerely want to change things? Although he is superficially different from Bush and Co., Gore is still a member of the elite (as are Clinton, Kerry, and Romney), and the problems we face today stem largely from a quiet class war between the elites and the masses. In any case, even if Gore sincerely wished to tackle the problems of our day, the problems are so large, have become entrenched over such a great length of time, and are fostered by so many vested interests, that they are irresolvable. The only way the problems can be solved at this point is to let the trends continue on their present course to total ruin. Then maybe we can start over, a little wiser than before, assuming we survive.
Dave
Giving Gore a laundry list of specifics he must perform so he will get your vote it tantamount to once again giving the election to the Republicans. So who will you throw away your vote to, Nader? Time to drop the cynical distance and get the crooks out of office for good.
Great info Dave. Thanks. I would add that like Grover Norquist says, they (fascists) want to make government small enough to drown in a bathtub. They intend to do this by bankrupting govmnt and privatizing everything to consolidate the fascist state.
You're right about Gore. If he runs and wins, it's a mistery what he will do or could do, if anything. And like another poster said, if he runs as a Green and does nothing, or is unable to do nothing, it will hurt the Green Party.
However, Gore is probably our last best hope and the Greens would apply a much needed direct democratic force to counter the fascist duopoly. But I think that regardless of his past, he is the only one that could unite our many but divided and often non-voting progressives.
Al hasn't committed, probably knowing that the longer he puts it off, the shorter time the corporate smear machine will have to do its dirty work. I think he sincerely wants to stay out of the race and is waiting to see if a strong environmental candidate arises to take his place.
Sometimes I also feel that total ruin may eventually fix things, if we survive. But hope springs eternal.
DaveEriqat is exactly correct.
Practically speaking regarding the Green Party, it is unlikely that they are on the ballot in all 50 states. This is a very serious hurdle, which the 2 "major" parties will be sure to maintain.
The next very crucial issue is ballot fraud. Where it has been done in the counting process during the general election, the first votes that are siphoned away to the "chosen" candidate are from the other parties' candidates. Of course, the primaries are also subject to registration fraud of several different kinds and ballot counting fraud, just as the general elections are.
If we do not fix the ballot fraud, we have no democracy. All the rest is bloviation.
To Sean Donahue's list must be added:
* Gore's failure to confront the vote fraud issue and the illegal use of the Supreme Court in the stolen 2000 election.
David Green's characterization of Gore as an "unintimidated presidential candidate" is a misjudgement. Gore is easily intimidated. He is, in fact, a well-intentioned cuddly pussy cat.
Gore is an "insider", a card carrying member of the elite ruling group and as several astute posters have pointed out, his hand was on the tiller when the ship of state went further starboard after Reagan & Bush I.
He has not renounced his ties to the interests of this ruling group, nor can he, but he has became a partisan within the elite, a passionate advocate. This costs him nothing, however, and benefits him with the image of wise visionary.
What David Green does not seem to appreciate is that the civilian politicians are not in control of the political process. Today, it is difficult to find a bone fide civilian politican, that is, one not beholden to the Pentagon and its satellites. Bush and the "neo-cons" emerged as a result of pressure from within the unaccountable military/industrial juggernaut. They did not inspire or lead. They were called forth to serve this "shadow government".
The Pentagon has its own vision of the future, and it is every bit as hysterical as Gore's vision of global warming. Andrew Marshall, long time Pentagon sage, commissioned a secret military assessment of climate change some years back. It is, after all, among the top national security concerns and it is not unreasonable to suppose that Gore found inspiration there.
The Pentagon has its own solution, too - increased military budgets.
Does anyone in the "progressive" community believe that Al Gore would cut the military budget? If so, then you may also be interested in purchasing a beautiful old bridge in Brooklyn, ripe for privatization. An excellant investment opportunity!
Underlying David Green's rosy assessment of Al Gore's character and intentions, there is the pendulum theory of American politics, the first law of political thermodynamics which says that right always swings back to the left.
The pendulum has been tinkered with, friends. Its range of motion has been limited. It does swing back to the left, but it never actually leaves the zone of the right.
While we have been sleeping, militarist/corporatist culture reconfigured the political landscape. The pendulum never actually goes left because there is no left left.
Once again, those of you who believe Al Gore would vote against increasing military budgets and militarist/corporatist culture, raise your hands.
Prozac and other popular antidepressants will be made available to you as you leave the building.
DaveEriqat, that was quite a post. I cant think of anything I disagree with. My only comment would be that a person being from the "elite" doesnt make him/her automatically unable to pursue progressive causes, FDR being the first to come to mind. And being from humble beginnings does not assure an honest leader and my first thought would be Nixon. There are example of real leaders and losers from both elite and humble beginnings. We know where Gore stands on global warming which for me is a "biggie". Until we hear what he has to say about health care, civil rights, Iraq and all the fall out from that mess i.e. torture, the Korean model, etc. then I think it is a waste of time to pick him apart.
I stopped reading after reaching the word "homeland". I have made a hard copy and will finish the essay since it seems otherwise right in tune with my own thoughts but I wish that all the liberals and progressives who read this piece will once and for all stop using that fascistic term that Bush, Cheney love - homeland.
That is a term for tribes and nationalists and I am sick at heart that so many are using the words of fascism.
The United States of America is an idea and philosophy curtain-walled by the Constitution. It is about the rule of law. "Homeland" is a lawless word and was never in the vocabulary of anyone I have ever met from the 1950's until 2001.
So please all stop using that or any other term used by this incompetent and corrupt 'administration'.
It occurred to me that my comment may not have sounded very optimistic, despite my claim to the contrary that I'm generally optimistic. Although the near future looks pretty grim, eventually after things run their course, we might have an opportunity to rebuild a better world.
My comment cited many negative trends; all of them are macro in nature, referring to an economic and political system in decay. I do not believe the solution to any of our problems lies in centralized management of them (i.e. government). It is the eventual ruin of these centralized systems of government and commerce to which I referred.
Even as the present system decays, there are things we as individuals can do now to mitigate the suffering we experience along the way and lay the groundwork for the future. We can be building the new world even as the old one decays. It is this belief of mine in the viability of individual solutions that gives me optimism even while the problems I cited play themselves out. For a detailed essay on what I see as possible individual solutions, may I shamelessly direct your attention to http://dave.eriqat.name/DE_How_to_Save_the_World.html .
I do not believe the necessary solutions can be effected through minor tweaks. We need to make radical changes to our way of life. However, we have a choice of making these changes voluntarily, and before conditions become chaotic, or we can have these changes painfully imposed on us by the laws of physics and the whims of man.
Dave