Al Gore's Inaugural Address: January 20, 2009
Fellow Americans, and Fellow Citizens of Our Shared Earth -
More than two hundred years ago, the shores upon which we stand were blessed to provide home to an unusual outcropping of men and women who contained within themselves remarkable quantities of wisdom, energy and courage. These are qualities that are alone rare in anyone, and spectacular when combined.
They did the impossible - not once or even twice - but at least three times in their lives. They imagined a better way to live - free and equal - in ways we take for granted today but were altogether foreign in their time. A mere cognitive act, one might say of this first heroic turn, but given their context in the middle of the eighteenth century a nevertheless powerful and brave thing that we can only begin to appreciate, and one which was a predicate for all to follow.
They did the impossible again, when they assembled a rag-tag scrabble of an army under an inexperienced commanding general and proceeded to defeat the world's greatest military power of the time in a long and arduous struggle against guns, weather, poverty and demoralization, for the prize of freedom and the opportunity to start anew.
And still they were not finished for, having won the war, they also won the peace by concocting a remarkable piece of governmental engineering that remains to this day our society's foundational contract, the Constitution of the United States.
This exceptional generation of thinkers and doers were leading lights in arguably the most important social movement of human history - the aptly named Enlightenment - which rescued humanity from the chains of irrationality, prejudice and immaturity, and called upon us instead to think for ourselves, to trust our observations and our analyses, and to share a spirit of discovery and honesty that has opened fantastic doors of well-being for succeeding generations in every domain of our experience as human beings.
We Americans were fortunate indeed to have these Founders as the creators of our society, for rarely do a collection of people possessing such a remarkable combination of attributes ever come together in one place and one time, to such a remarkable effect.
Our Founders did their best to leave us something very much better than what they themselves had inherited, and their success in doing so was dramatic. They left behind what they actually described as an experiment, so unsure were they that this radical set of new ideas could work. And they called upon succeeding generations not to perform miracles - let alone three miracles at a time - but rather just that each live up to its potential, that each fulfill its obligations and promise, and that each preserve the gift the Founders had left to us.
My fellow Americans - my fellow stewards of the Founders' gift - it is time for us to engage in an honesty of discourse which in this country has become sadly all too rare in our public sphere, to the point of near extinction. And that honest, frank dialogue must begin with an overt declaration that this generation - born into freedom, security and prosperity, truly the most fortunate humans ever to walk the planet - this generation has failed in its responsibility to honor and preserve the gift given us by America's Founders, and by the succeeding generations who kept that gift alive, nourished it and improved it.
We, instead, have lived off the achievement of those forebears. We have not only failed to contribute to its improvement, but we have depleted the investment principal handed to us. We are eating the seed corn.
And worse - for if we're to be truly honest with each other we'd admit that we have debased the precious gifts of freedom, democracy, prosperity and reason which it was our great fortune to inherit. Lulled to sleep by a combination of our own greed and indolence and the importunings of the worst amongst us who have encouraged ever more of such abrogation of responsibility - while often stooping to dressing their debasements in the ill-fitting suit of patriotism - we are the first generation of Americans to leave our children less enriched in any respect.
But, in fact, we have left them less enriched in every respect. Their material prospects look to be less rewarding than those of their parents. The freedoms which are the core of their American identities have been defiled and tattered beyond recognition. Our breathtaking arrogance has created an international ill-will which they are forced to inherit. And we have stood by, not only silently watching the environmental destruction of the only home we have, but in fact actively blocking the efforts of others on this shared planet to save it from our foolish depredations.
It could indeed rightly be asked of us now, not whether we've taken leave of our senses, but rather why.
Those are difficult words, but please understand that I did not come here today to lecture. I did not come here to assert my moral superiority, of which I claim none. I did not come to hector or humiliate. And least of all did I come here to wrap myself in the flag or the achievements of the great Americans who bequeathed this nation to us.
I came here, instead, to speak the truth, so that we might restore hope. I came here to remind us all of the potential for greatness which lives within each of us individually, and collectively as a nation. I came here to rally us to the purpose of meeting our responsibilities, like every generation before us has done when they were called. And I came here to implore us to do and to be more than that, to aspire to something better than that, to ask that we believe in ourselves again in ways that have become foreign to this generation of Americans.
We have enormous potential as a country to produce stunning achievements in education, in the arts, in science and engineering, in medicine and humanitarian relief, in human rights and in global political leadership for mutual peace and prosperity. We have enormous capacities unrivaled across the globe, and until recently, we had a wisdom and humility that often matched those, such that many people of good will in this world were not resentful or jealous of our capabilities, but rather happy and grateful to see us lead.
And so we did, but of late we have lost our confidence and we have lost our bearings. We have become lazy - there is no other word for it, and we will not renew ourselves if we cannot be honest about our malady - and at every turn have allowed ourselves to be seduced by the cheap and the easy alternative, which of course in the end is never any real alternative at all, anymore than the last players in a pyramid scheme can expect to see a return on their investment.
To save from paying taxes, we have funded our schools with lottery receipts - and hardly any of those either, if truth be told - and then we feign astonishment as our children receive a second-rate education. We have fought a protracted and expensive war without a selective service draft and without even a tax increase to pay for it, and then are shocked to see that our military is depleted and our revenues drained. We have harkened to the destructive tune of the Sirens appealing to our most selfish instincts with their endless calls for tax cuts, only to awaken to a surprise that is itself surprising, finding ourselves unable to fund our obligations ranging from healthcare to education to infrastructure to national security to retirement dignity for our seniors. We have failed to ask difficult questions of our leaders or to carefully examine their claims, only to find ourselves less secure, less safe, less well-regarded in the world, less prosperous and less free. We have paid the least attention imaginable to politics and government, with nearly half of us not even bothering to vote - that absolute minimalist contribution to sustaining democracy - only to wake up somehow astonished at the lies we've been told and the destruction that has been done by the liars.
My friends - my colleagues at our shared national project - America is not for free. It requires an investment of our time, our intellect, our energies, our concern and sometimes even our lives. For too long too many of us have been on autopilot, delegating our responsibilities as citizens to so-called leaders all too anxious to amass the unbridled powers our national indifference delivers into their hands. Now, well do I recognize that far too many Americans were not born to the lives of economic security which I have been fortunate enough to enjoy. And I know that means many have to work themselves to exhaustion, week in and week out, with not nearly enough time for their families, let alone for the seemingly remote concerns of politics. I understand that, and I appreciate that not every American will be able to participate in our experiment in self-governance to the same degree.
But far too many of us have the time to invest in our country, and don't. Too many of us watch that fourth or fifth ball game on television, or are lulled into mindless catatonic states by yet another empty-calorie sitcom, when we could and should be paying attention to our shared civic fate. The truth is that paying taxes is not enough. Half or even all of us voting every four years is not enough. Not if you want a government better than the one we've had, and not if you want a government that serves your interests rather than those of elite oligarchs who capture its power and resources while you're busy being seduced by that game or that sitcom. We would not be surprised if our child who failed to do his homework each night brought home failing marks on his report card. We should be equally clear with ourselves about what results from our failure to engage in the process of steering our own national destiny.
And when I call upon Americans to dramatically increase their investment in their country, I do not mean volunteering at soup kitchens or Teach for America or the Peace Corps, as wonderful and as necessary as all those programs are. I'm talking about politics, pure and simple. I'm talking about taking the time and investing the effort to raise our understanding about the great issues of our time, well above the bumper-sticker level that too many of us today find sufficient. For the truth is that the forces of darkness which have vastly multiplied in power over recent years are dependent on our mutual ignorance for their success. People who are informed and educated and invested in the issues that shape our national destiny would never swallow the blatant lies that too many of us have because we have allowed ourselves to become ill-informed, uneducated and uninvested in these great questions of our time. Those who would expect disengaged and uninformed Americans to prevail in shaping their government to make decisions serving their genuine interests might as well expect an army lacking bullets and guns to prevail in battle. They would be wrong on both counts, of course, with equally disastrous results.
For it is wrong to imagine for even a moment that such disengagement will have a happy ending. The Founders knew this above all. Anyone who understands the Constitution - from separation of powers to checks and balances to federalism to the civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights - anyone who gets this masterpiece of institutional engineering gets that it is first and foremost an attempt to fashion a government which can be capable and efficient, but never, ever, too powerful. More than two centuries later, we would be well served today if we could even just remember the lessons our forebears had already figured out back in the eighteenth century, let alone what has been learned since.
Many of you hearing these words today may not be interested in government, but be assured that government is interested in you. It has the power to do wonderful things for your benefit, like protect you from foreign and domestic threats to your security, like educating your children, like building infrastructure to facilitate your prosperity, like preserving your liberties and your equality from those who would diminish them, and like making sure that you have access to quality healthcare and live in a sustainable environment. But government also has the power to do enormous damage if it is placed in the wrong hands, by taking away our resources, our liberties, our dignity and sometimes even our lives. The difference between which of these governments we get is simply the difference between an engaged versus a indolent body politic. No concerned owners of a property would ever let weeds grow wild on it, just as no properly tended government is likely to run badly awry.
Nor is this some theoretical proposition, untested by real world experience. Let us be honest. We have been led in recent years by a government dangerously divorced from the first principles of American government and of America itself - those of liberty, equality, dignity, respect, tolerance, honesty, humility, security, openness and compassion. I have seen astonishing things with my eyes these last years, things I could never have imagined seeing in the America I grew up in and in the America I love.
I have seen patriots destroyed for speaking the truth when that truth was inconvenient for those in power. I have career military men of the highest rank cashiered out of the Army for having the common sense and courage to say what is so painfully obvious to all of us today, that the invasion and occupation of another country cannot be done on the cheap with inadequate forces. I have seen a Vietnam War veteran - a man who gave three of his four limbs in service to his country - have his face morphed into the face of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, in campaign ads crafted by people who made sure that they themselves never went anywhere near Southeast Asia when it was their turn. And this all because he refused to vote for a bill once actually opposed by these armchair superpatriots, but then labeled critical to American national security after they loaded it up with union-busting language.
I have seen elections stolen in America. I have seen congressional staffers from one of America's two main political parties pretend to be local citizens and riot in the offices of election canvassers, intimidating them into stopping the counting of votes, the most fundamental essence of democracy. I have seen tens of thousands of Americans purged from the voting rolls and disenfranchised on the basis of their race, as if Jim Crow had never left us after all. I have seen a United States Supreme Court bring shame upon itself by actually terminating the counting of votes in an election, and by acting as a partisan tool of a political party, instead of as America's highest institution of justice. I have seen the party of Abraham Lincoln resort to racism and other forms of hatred and divisiveness, time and again, in order to seize and maintain power. I have seen the United States Department of Justice become an instrument of those so desperate for power that they would prosecute law-abiding Americans on the basis of their party affiliations. I have seen the cover of an American intelligence agent exposed in order to punish her husband for telling the truth about government lies, putting at risk national security and the lives of perhaps dozens of her contacts abroad.
I have seen America rushed to war on the basis of the brashest of lies. I have seen an American media and a so-called opposition party not only fail, when it mattered, to stand up to those lies, but too often actually abet in their dissemination and thereby enable a needless war which has claimed over a million innocent lives and displaced millions more. I have seen an America that traffics in torture, that has established gulags, that spies on its own citizens without court-ordered warrants, and that has ripped-up habeas corpus and other legal principles which have been a fundamental part of Western Civilization for centuries.
There is more, to be sure. I never thought I'd see the day when a major American city could drown, crying for help as the federal government did nothing to save it. I never thought it was possible that one administration could take the record surpluses it inherited and turn them into record deficits, borrowing more money in our names than all of its predecessors combined. I never thought I'd see the day when our long-time historical allies would be publicly mocked and derided from the highest levels of our government because they refused to sanction our own transparent lies, or to be a party to our national folly. I never expected that my government would fail to take leadership in addressing the greatest environmental threat ever to face the planet, other than, that is, to lead in blocking solutions more responsible governments were trying to implement. And I never thought I'd see the institutionalization of so much greed in America, the polarization of wealth now destroying our middle class, and the single-minded devotion of the United States government to transferring as much of our resources, as fast as possible, to the already fabulously wealthy and powerful amongst us.
This has been a dark hour for our country, of that there can be little question. And there is plenty of blame to go around. When the executive branch of American government broke every rule in the book and turned itself into a virtual monarchy, a rubber-stamp Congress failed in its task of checking and balancing that power grab, abdicating the primary function for which the Founders had created the body. When the leader of their party systematically dismantled the historic national and Constitutional values for which Lincoln and those before and after him have bravely stood, often at the cost of their very lives, the grandees and elder statesmen of that party stood by in silence, knowing full well the cost. When every principle of decency and honesty and good governance was cast aside like so many inconvenient shackles by those who arrogantly thought they alone knew best what the country needed, the so-called opposition party - charged during normal times with offering an alternative and during this last decade with saving a republic - far too often cowered in the corner, a profile in cravenness, not in courage. And when government told blatant and obscene lies with the most lethal of consequences, an all too obedient American media failed in its crucial responsibility of seeking and exposing the truth, forsaking that duty in favor of corporate greed and general timidity instead.
This list of abdications goes on yet further, and is altogether a lengthy reckoning of our collective national shame. On that list as well, it must be said, are the American people, who because of a fear which can be partly excused and an indolence which cannot at all, stood by through the least and the worst of these transgressions alike, oblivious and unconcerned. That is the bad news, and it is very bad indeed. At the same time, in the end, it was the American people who led - not their supposed leaders - bringing us back from the brink of complete disaster. It was the public who realized the danger and its magnitude - not Congress, not the opposition party, not the media - and led the rest away from the precipice upon which we were all standing, the world at our side.
These grand failures and this laggard success, such as it is and late is as it comes, remind us again of both the greatness which exists within us, and of the costs of ignoring those capacities and responding instead to our lesser angels. When Benjamin Franklin was asked in the summer of 1787 by a citizen outside Constitution Hall what sort of government the Founders had given America, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Surely this charge has been challenged in more dramatic and overt ways in our past than has been the case in recent years, let us be clear. We have weathered civil war and domestic strife, and we and our form of government have survived. But the threat before us today is so grave precisely because of its very insidious nature. There have been no great pitched military battles amongst us, like Gettysburg or Antietam. There is no violent clash on our streets between those seeking change and those attempting to arrest it, such as the Haymarket or Birmingham.
But just the same, and perhaps all the more threateningly so because of its creeping, quiet incrementalism, our democracy is withering, and Mr. Franklin's republic is not, after all, being kept. I am moved therefore to call today for a new engagement of the American public in its own politics. I call for the owners of government to end the corrosive absentee landlordism that is so diminishing our polity. I call for each of us to invest the necessary efforts and resources to guarantee the health of this body politic, just as we must exercise or brush our teeth to keep our own bodies healthy. There is so much to be done in America today - and so much to be undone. But there are also greedy, amoral and unpatriotic forces among us who would rather personally prosper to gross proportions than leave our republic intact for our children. These traitors - and I choose my words carefully - have many assets whose assistance they have readily and meanly purchased these last years, but they depend more than anything on our collective ignorance and our daily detachment for their successes.
They also depend on good people in positions of leadership doing nothing. Let the forces of political darkness who have been ripping apart the fabric of American society for two decades now henceforth to be on notice. Your free pass is over. All Americans should be assured that the First Amendment will stay live and well as long as I am president. People may articulate whatever thoughts they see fit to have associated with their names and their honor. Like Voltaire, I will defend to the death their right to do so. But the bullies and the liars and the hypocrites pursuing the politics of personal destruction should be advised in the clearest terms. And the cowards who bring out the worst of us, dragging us down into their gutters, smearing good Americans to prevail in policy arguments they could never hope to win on the merits, should take notice. Your words will no longer go unanswered, and your attacks will never again be met by silence, quiet chagrin or even seething unexpressed anger. You should feel free to disagree with this government. I hope you will. Your well-intentioned alternative ideas are welcome, and your opposition to our initiatives will serve to keep us sharp and thoughtful in what we do. But if you cross the line - if you attack a president by branding his underage daughter as physically ugly on your national hate radio syndicate, if you smear a witness with personal lies because she tells the truth about a Supreme Court nominee's pornography obsession, if you challenge the patriotism of those who've served while you have hidden from danger, if you impeach a president for the lesser personal failings than the ones you are simultaneously committing yourselves - be advised that henceforth you will be called out and aggressively labeled for what you are. People may accuse my administration of many things, but I warn you that we will not be remembered as the timid patsies you've grown used to berating with impunity.
I am honored and flattered to have been chosen by you to lead this great country, and lead is what I intend to do. I will bring Americans home from a tragic war in Iraq and repair, to the best of our ability, the damage done there. I will fulfill the promises made to a forgotten Afghanistan, where real and completely neglected American national security concerns really are at stake. I will demand that Congress give all Americans the national healthcare guarantees they deserve, just as are found in every other industrialized democracy in the world, and not a few developing countries infinitely poorer than us as well. I will return fiscal sanity to our national ledger, restoring a fair tax structure of equitably shared burden and ending corrupt process of corporate welfare that has taken us to the edge of insolvency. I will bring the powers of government to bear on finally rescuing New Orleans, and I will deliver FEMA and every other agency across the American government out from the hands of political hacks and back into the control of competent professionals.
I will apologize to our neighbors on this planet, and not only for the arrogance of our foreign policy which, far too often, has been as egregious as it has been unwarranted. I know many Americans believe this country should never apologize for any of its behaviors. But that is as indecorous and boorish a trait of nations as it is of individuals. A grown-up and mature America can be proud of its achievements and contributions while also admitting its failings. Indeed, our best chance for a future filled with more of the former and less of the latter is the ability to distinguish between the two and the courage to admit those distinctions.
As a first sign of a newly mature America, let me make clear that no longer will five percent of the world's population generate twenty-five percent of its greenhouse gases while simultaneously actively blocking others from solving a mutual, planetary problem. And to those with whom we share this world I want to say, right here, right now, that this country is profoundly sorry for the many and flagrant transgressions we've indulged in these last years. We were afraid and we were foolish. We took your good will and we abused it. We now ask your forgiveness, and we ask your willingness to join us - as fully equal partners - in moving forward to repair the damage done and proactively creating a better world for all. In particular, America from this point forward will meet and exceed the commitments we have made to the UN Millennium Development Goals to assist those less fortunate than us. We will meet the obligations we have made to every treaty we have signed, and we will replace a high-handed arrogance, bullying and unilateralism at the United Nations and other institutions with a true spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and shared responsibility.
And we will go much further. Let me be clear, especially for those who by force of habit and lack of consequence will inevitably attempt in the coming days and weeks and years to obfuscate and lie: I will never compromise American security. There are and may always be threats to free and peaceful nations, and we must be fully prepared to rebuff them, and so we will. But there are other dangers, as well. There is the danger that we will over-react, there is the danger that we will create enemies where they don't otherwise exist, there is the danger that the profits of military procurement will drive our defense policy instead of the other way around, and there is the danger that we will neglect other forms of security and well-being - education, health, infrastructure and more - by succumbing to fears concerning external threats and draining our resources on unnecessary military expenditures.
Right now, America has no national enemy in the entire world. Not China, not Russia, not even North Korea. And yet the amount that we spend on the military in this country vastly exceeds that which is spent by every other country in the world - nearly 200 of them in total - combined. Surely, that is too much. Surely, what was once mere paranoia now flirts with outright insanity when it can be said of any country that it has no national enemies, that it spends more on security than all of the rest of the entire world combined, and yet that it simultaneously denies healthcare to its children because it claims such extravagances cannot be afforded. Dwight David Eisenhower, a five-star general, liberator of Western Europe, supreme commander of NATO, conservative Republican and former president - a man who therefore knew about as much as anybody ever will about the military, about national security, about war and about international relations - left us a warning about this very danger. Even at the height of the Cold War, Eisenhower saw looming large the internal threat of a military-industrial complex - a nexus of profits and politics and war - that would have a mind of its own, that would take control of our government, that could plunge us into unnecessary wars, and that at the very least would remove food from the mouths of our children, books from our schools, and medicines from our bedsides. Fifty years have come and gone since Eisenhower's farewell address to the nation. It is five decades past the time that we should have heeded his wise advice, but it is not too late to start, and I pledge that this new administration will do so now.
I will also call upon Congress and the nation to get serious about education at all levels, funding it fairly and generously, and spending unprecedented resources to send unprecedented numbers of students to college at low cost, just as America once did in wiser times. I will place the resources of the federal government behind a life-and-death effort to create alternative sources of energy - because that is truly what is at stake - just as America once pushed itself strenuously to defeat totalitarianism or to go to the moon. We will invigorate our economy with this energy project, with a national campaign to develop stem-cell solutions to killer diseases, and with a commitment to not only restoring our badly sagging infrastructure but also to enhancing it with 21st century technologies other countries have already adopted ahead of us. And while we are doing this, we will commit ourselves to returning to and surpassing the principles of economic justice at home and abroad which once created a robust middle class in this country, as well as hope for those struggling with less.
When I was a young man and America was, it seems to me, so much younger a country, much of the talk of our national political dialogue was about lifting people out of poverty. By the time I myself served in an administration, I'm ashamed to say that we had forgotten the poor altogether, and the supposed party of the people that I helped lead at the time spent its energies pandering to the middle class, and too often only pretending to do even that. By the time the other party came to power following us, even the middle class was now forgotten by those who spoke the rhetoric of national unity, but divided us every way imaginable, at every opportunity, for purposes of crass political gain and economic plunder of our commonweal. But let us today be as clear as we can be on this subject: We are all in this together, we Americans. If our government is failing the least affluent of us, it is failing all of us. If it is serving only the richest amongst us, it is not serving any of us. In the last three decades our country has returned to the Gilded Age of the 19th century, with yawning canyons opened up between an absurdly wealthy minority whose riches have been magnified enormously, and the rest of the country, who have stood still economically for more than a generation. This is inexcusable in the richest country in the world, and it will not be excused any longer. We must return to our ethical foundations and recall our national unity, we must reject a culture of greed which has corroded our moral fiber for decades now, and we must roll up our sleeves again and get back to work at guaranteeing prosperity and opportunity for all Americans, not just the privileged few. Corporations must understand that their existence is at base a licensed societal privilege, granted in return for demonstrated decency and the same restraints on self-serving behavior the rest of us apply every day. Americans - and others outside our borders equally - are workers and we are consumers, but we are humans first, and we demand to be treated with the requisite dignity and respect attendant to that status.
It is equally crucial that we become serious about political reform in this country. A senior figure in the Republican Party once said that "America has the best Congress money can buy", and he was uncomfortably accurate in claiming so. This is shameful for a country which likes to be seen as the world's greatest democracy, and it is grossly expensive in every sense of the word. The link between money and politics must be broken forever. I will ask Congress - and you hearing me today should demand of it - that we adopt fully publicly-funded election campaigns as the only form permissible across the country, and that we make voting upon any legislation in which any legislator has any personal interest whatsoever - including campaign contributions - a punishable crime. We also need to amend our Constitution to finally remove the Electoral College from our presidential election process, so that never again can the democratic will of the people be denied, and we need as well to end the stranglehold of two parties on our political process. It is obscene and counterproductive that not one other party has even a single seat's worth of representation in a Congress of 535 people. Adopting a proportional representation electoral system, or even a hybrid that includes proportional representation, will give voice to other ideas than those of two parties, and will inject needed vigor and health into our political dialogue. Equally crucial to maintaining our democracy, the corporate monopolies over our communication channels must be broken, and the fairness doctrine restored and expanded.
There is so much more to do, but this is a beginning, and represents an enormously challenging agenda of restoration and progress without yet contemplating our many other needs and shared aspirations. But we can do these things. We've done harder things in our past. Yet Americans should not lack clarity that it will take the efforts of all of us to make it happen. So much of our dream will be stillborn if we lack the effort and the will to bring it alive. So much of it - especially the political reforms that are the key to opening so many other doors - will be resisted by those who've long enriched themselves at the public trough, while we were looking the other way. But all of it is eminently possible if we will it.
I have stood by in recent decades watching the unraveling of something beautiful, destroyed by the worst amongst us, acting for the basest of motives. America was never a perfect country, but we were a global model for many of our achievements, and we should have been, for we had truly achieved much. It was therefore with surprise and grief that I watched as we turned our forward motion into a backward regression, and one which went further than imaginable. At first I thought that the effort, awful as that was, was only to unravel the last decades of our national history, destroying the social safety net, the civil rights, women's rights, environmental consciousness and labor peace we had built at such great cost and struggle. But then I saw that it went further, and there has also been a destruction of the principles of good governance we adopted a hundred years ago, returning our country to the cronyism and incompetence and government-for-hire of the nineteenth century. As time went on it was clear that the regression went even further back still, deeply assaulting the very notions of constitutional government, democracy and separation of church and state, and thus casting us back into the Dark Ages of monarchy, superstition and religious wars which our Founders so bravely fought to replace with something so much better. But even a regression of centuries does not do justice to the damage that has been done. As elemental foundations of Western Civilization such as the right to habeas corpus and limited governmental power have been unceremoniously shredded these last years, I have watched as we have stepped even further back in time, into the gray mists of eleventh century feudal England. Astonishingly, we have traveled backwards as a society this last generation, not just years or decades, and not even centuries, but rather a full millennium.
So many people have given so much - often including their lives - so that these liberties and achievements of a thousand years could be realized for the benefit of all of us. It is shameful enough that we have not sacrificed of ourselves to add to this exalted list. But it is infinitely worse still that we have unraveled the gifts given to us as such expense, foolishly neglecting their value. Let there be no mistake: An America with eleventh century values will not last long in the twenty-first century. History has been passing this great nation rapidly by these last decades, not least because of the speed at which we've been traveling in the other direction. I have many interests and passions as a person and as a president, but I can assure you that national suicide is not one of them. If there was a way that I could, I would say thank you today to every person who has ever sacrificed to make the lives of today's generation safer, easier, happier and better. I cannot, but what I can do instead is to honor those contributions by leading this country in their preservation and their enhancement, adding our share to these great works for the benefit of those who come after us. The least we can do to preserve our great fortune as the inheritors of Magna Carta, the Constitution, the New Deal and more is to keep them intact. If we're better than just that, we will also seek to deserve that good fortune as well, by adding our own contributions, borne of our own sacrifices.
Someone once said that people get the government they deserve. Today, I call on Americans to deserve more. I call on Americans to invest more. I call on each of us to recognize that the responsibility for good governance can never be delegated, any more than a parent who abdicates child-rearing duties has any right to expect a mature, responsible and happy adult to emerge twenty years later.
The forces of darkness in American society never fail to run down our government and never fail to diminish those who serve in it. Let us leave aside that this government they deride is the same one which defeated fascism and communism, which took humankind to the moon, which sent a generation of former GIs to college, and which brought Social Security and Medicare benefits to countless seniors in place of the abbreviated retirement years full of poverty and ill health they could otherwise have expected. And let us leave aside, also, the fact that when these same people who deride our government have gotten control of it, they have set new records for incompetence, cronyism, corruption, arrogance, mismanagement and failure. These are crimes egregious enough, but even if we forget all of that for a moment, remember this: We live in a democracy. When these agents of our moral decline berate the government you chose, they berate you. And so they have continually in our time, mocking, patronizing and degrading you with their cheap tactics of division, diversion and hate-mongering. You may think they care about racial strife or about hordes of immigrant invaders or about every aspect of everyone's sexuality, but they don't. Rather, they care that you not care about what is truly important, and they insult you with their patronizing diversions.
Government is not the answer to all problems any more than the market or any other mechanism is. But government can do incredible things. And government is the product of our choices and our collective will. I call upon all Americans, beginning today, to invest the time and energy necessary to make our government the best we can make it. As John Kennedy once reminded us, each of us needs to ask what we can do for our country, and we can begin that process by spending a few hours every week turning off our televisions and educating ourselves about our public issues, so that never again can those with sinister intentions prey upon a nation weak with indolence and vulnerable in its ignorance.
There is much greatness in our country and in our history and in our bones. There are tremendous challenges that demand from us the creativity and courage and determination we've generated in the past to leap equally daunting hurdles.
I ask of you today your participation in the task assigned to our generation, so that we may be worthy of the generations who've given us so much.
Lead me in this effort. Follow me. Walk beside me.
But join me somehow in working every day to live up to our potential and our responsibility, and in leaving a stronger, healthier and better country to our children, so that they might do the same in their time.
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 (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.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
76 Comments so far
Show AllErm, my love for wordpress is quickly waning...in any case, the post that I put up went bye-bye when I tried to do an end-run around bugs in the system. So it goes.
"So it's reactionary to believe that the Gore's reactionary track record is, in fact, reactionary?" --> "Al Gore" not "the Gore," he hasn't become a household object, to the best of my knowledge. lol.
RadicalZ
"I think everyone knows you can't appeal a Supreme Court ruling. And Al Gore is not being blamed for something the Supreme Court did, he's being blamed for something HE didn't do."
The point is that after they ruled there was NOTHING he could do. So it makes no sense to then blame him for something he didn't do...
Gore Vidal said in an interview prior to the 2000 election that Al Gore was going to win--"It is as simple as that" ---Arrogant and incorrect.
This line was delivered right after he said that Al Gore and George Bush were basically the same on every issue.--- Colossally incorrect.
Continuing to wow me with his wisdom, Vidal says of this election that he wouldn't mind at all if Hillary were President, he would like that, although he does worry about her character.
This is a strange dismissal of the importance of character, for starters.
Vidal occassionally offers some insight to the political process, however, he is incredibly impressed with himself despite being wrong a lot. A character trait that applies also to George. Although George is less sure of himself but acts with more conviction.
Seems to me a lot of folks commenting here have missed the Prof's point. He has presented us with a fantasy, a situation on the edge or even beyond the edge of serious possibility. (Especially since Al keeps saying he won't run, even as recently as this week.) So why bother since the speech isn't "realistic"? Because fantasy, though it can be meant and used as pure escape from the actual the way "24" is (even if many of the fans, especially those in high places, don't get that it is fantasy), can also be used to bring into sharp focus both our discontents and ways of dealing with them. That's what the utopian literature of the 19th and early 20th century did. Those fantasies prepared the way for such epic changes as the New Deal and the equality struggles of the 60s and 70s. The Prof's "Al Gore" lays out very clearly not only the sources of our deep disaffection from what the past 30 years of misrule has brought us and the rest of the world, but also how those high crimes and misdemeanors might be redressed. It is in best tradition of one strains of much maligned "useless" literature. If we cannot imagine a future different and better than the present we cannot make it.
The sad thing is that because the piece appears in CD this lovely product of the Prof's imagination will only preach to the choir. Maybe we choristers can spread it around so the congregation can hear it too. Imagine one of Al's better mimics reading this on the Daily Show or CNN or even, shudder, Fox. May even be one of the things that "Al Gore" is calling on us to do.
PS: As a long time but thankfully former academic (tho' not in lit), I permit myself a cavil. The Prof writes "what was once mere paranoia now flirts with outright insanity". But paranoia IS outright insanity. Not so smooth but perhaps more accurate would be "persecution neurosis" or "persecution complex".
". Everyone would have gone home by the time Al got to the end, and a recall petition with 100 million signatures would have already been filed with the Secretary of State."
Since Gore won the popular vote, where would "100 million signatures" have come from? Fuzzy math, methinks.
"4. The only hope for the bunch of multi-cultural misfits to get a decent foundation for this country is to repudiate the original Constitution and start over."
The opposite of "misfit" is "conformist".
Just to endlessly repeat myself: the origial Constitution was repudiated, and the side that repudiated it won the Civil War.
Republicans, of course, believe that the Constitution was repudiated by FDR, and believe themselves to be turning to the original Constitution by returning power to the magnates & robber barons.
I prefer Al's older & wiser cousin, Gore Vidal, the only fiction writer to trace truthfully the course of American history . . .
Safiyya has discovered the drug: it's Al Gore! Very good!
Ahhh, Al Gore.
But like other opiates (religion, shopping), the promoters have their own ulterior motives.
Al Gore has always been a proponent of nuclear energy. With his Inconvenient Truth, he might be just the vehicle to usher in the New Nuclear Power Plants of the New American Century.
"They're back and They're Better than Ever!" I can hear him say, in a similar way that he said said the telecommunications act- giving corporate media even more power - would be .... Good for America! Or that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children should die from lack of medicine so he and his corporate buddies can play politics with Saddam Hussein.
This Gore drug is rich.
Oh, and by the way, there's so much money to be made, some of us, Dreaming in Common as we do, just might be able to pick up some great deals in the market... once the environmentalists are fully softened to the idea, nuclear energy stocks will skyrocket.
Ahhhh, Al Gore. Gimme more.
"We have fought a protracted and expensive war without a selective service draft and without even a tax increase to pay for it, and then are shocked to see that our military is depleted and our revenues drained."
"what is so painfully obvious to all of us today, that the invasion and occupation of another country cannot be done on the cheap with inadequate forces." DUH
So the brief bubble is bust. So I contemplated how great Gore would be if he ran (since he could win). But thank you mr green for saving me from the greatest disappintment ever. So Al wins , we all cheer, the he speaks-- the heat rises then comes crashing down - yet another war-monger in hiding. Not enough troops ? Indeed.
Mygod. Eight years of Gore but better,stronger wars. Damn the Bush failure at empire. I already have my "impeach Clinton" buttons ready. Should I make "impeach Gore" ones just in case?
Wow!
aquietman,
You're very good at erecting straw men to shoot down.
I think everyone knows you can't appeal a Supreme Court ruling. And Al Gore is not being blamed for something the Supreme Court did, he's being blamed for something HE didn't do.
You claim you are not trying to turn off the debate, but you refer to people as "nut cases" and whine about being "sick of responding to this tripe with actual logic."
Very inflammatory language indeed for someone on a debate page!
I read the comments and, apart from a few comments attacking people for criticizing Gore, they seemed quite fair and logical to me; not written by nut cases at all.
I wasn't shooting Gore down because he wasn't a "perfect progressive." In fact, I believe I state he wasn't a progressive at all, not did he claim to be. But I am a progressive, and progressive values are important to me. They are not just some useful but unnecessary thing. Good if you can get them, but if you can't – oh, well. They are vital to me and I have a right to look for them in any candidate running for any office for which I am allowed to vote. And I have a right to speak out against people that hold values opposed to ones I think are important. If that's illogical, why bother voting or debating at all.
In my opinion, your main problem is that you find the truth about Al Gore inconvenient. It's understandable. After almost seven years of Bush (and I must admit, I have hated every second of that time) it's easy to want to focus on the shiniest object and hope that it's the sun, so this long dark nightmare could be over.
What is missing from your comments is what you find appealing about Al Gore. Without speaking in generalities (e.g., he's the best person for the job) why don't you explain what it is you like so much about Al Gore.
Al Gore running for president? Again? What? What mind altering substance are we supposed to be playing with today? Honestly, as far as I can see there is no living human being in this country capable or willling to assume the Office of The President of the United States and lead the nation with a true spirit of good for "We The People of the United States", without spreading death and destruction to people who are not of the United States.
"And jstevens and aquietman, continue to believe that because people don't come to your conclusions, they are not logical. Perhaps the Republicans are a better fit for that kind of rigid and intransigent thinking."
Republicans would be a better fit for the type of thinking you described, but what you described doesn't describe my thinking at all.
But when the Supreme Court of the land made the illegal ruling folks, there is no other avenue to appeal to. That was it.. God is a higher authority, but he doesn't intervene in human politics. He didn't even stop 9/11 from happening. So Gore couldn't even appeal to him. What else was he to do? Start a revolution? Che Gore? He fought for recounts of the black votes. That fight ended when the Supreme Court ruled - stopping all recounts and giving the presidency to a jackass. And for that, you blame the victim. I'm sorry... that is just totally illogical. Period.
That doesn't mean he is perfect. It doesn't mean he wasn't part of a team that earlier did things that we can't criticize. But it does mean admitting that the position he held was largely ceremonial.
"Like Gore all you want, but please don't try turn off the debate that needs to happen if we want any semblance of a democracy in the US."
Nobody is trying to turn off the debate that needs to happen. But that debate needs to include criticisms that are fair and logical. Otherwise it sinks into petty arguiing.
Gore is not responsible for Bush gaining the Presidency in 2000. Nothing he could have done would have stopped it or overturned it. I suppose he could have appealed to the Supreme Court, but since they had just ruled it isn't likely they would have changed their minds.
As for him not being a perfect progressive... so what? We haven't had a true progressive in the White House since Teddy Roosevelt. We HAVE to choose between a Republican and Democrat b/c our system is a two party system .... not a parliamentary system. And I just don't see anything positive about people on the left whining and criticizing Gore because he doesn't see eye to eye on every single topic they could possibly think of.... or that he was part of the Clinton administration, which though it had faults was far better than the current one... or that he he didn't 'fight' after the court stole the election. That is just a stupid thing to hold against him.
Someone on this site continually and repeatedly says they won't vote for Gore unitl he 'apologizes' for not fighting the Supreme Court in the disenfranchisement of black votes... some have said he must apologize for choosing Lieberman as his mate before they will vote for him. And other that he must apologize for this, or he must apologize for that...
Or they won't vote for him..
Fine, vote Republican and help Romney carry on the destruction of this country Bush began. Or throw your vote away on a 3rd party - and help the Republicans stay in power. Or don't vote and thereby help someone like Romney (a clone of Bush) take over.
All three dumb choices.
I realize he's not even running, and this is a hypothetical argument I'm making. But it's valid where all this criticism on the left of Gore is concerned. Does that mean he should be without criticism? Certainly not. But make it valid... Make it logical. Because when you carry on about he didn't 'fight' for something he had no power over, it is petty and a waste of time.
The conservatives are totally illogical in their criticisms and rhetoric. Let's not be on the left as well.
This is a bunch of crabs, total malarky.
1. Everyone would have gone home by the time Al got to the end, and a recall petition with 100 million signatures would have already been filed with the Secretary of State.
2. Al hasn't a snowflake's chances in hell of ever being president. Forget it. A pipe dream.
3. Al is a liar and a demagogue--and certainly no scientist or reporter. The movie is a convenient lie, the prizes--errors.
4. The only hope for the bunch of multi-cultural misfits to get a decent foundation for this country is to repudiate the original Constitution and start over. The originators of this country were elitists, racists, and male chauvinists (women, non-whites, and the non-rich should never have been granted the right to vote). Glorifying the past and glorifying the originators is self-deception and deception of others that is worthy of the George Bush award for deception.
Ralph442,
"God, have we all become so fragmented, disenfranchised and cynical that we just brush aside Professor Green's valiant an inspiration attempt at a practical path for the U.S./world to get back to the promised land"
The professor's principles are not, to my reading, progressive in the least.
The whole thing is premised on basic falsehoods concerning the establishment of the country:
-- "They [the Founders] did the impossible - not once or even twice - but at least three times in their lives. They imagined a better way to live - free and equal - in ways we take for granted today but were altogether foreign in their time."
The 'Founders' were seeking the restoration of rights they had, as English colonists & their descendants, had enjoyed; they did not seek any expansion of those rights to any other class.
"They did the impossible again, when they assembled a rag-tag scrabble of an army under an inexperienced commanding general and proceeded to defeat the world's greatest military power of the time in a long and arduous struggle against guns, weather, poverty and demoralization, for the prize of freedom and the opportunity to start anew."
They received the assistance of the Marquis de Lafayette at a time when they were about to be defeated for good.
"And still they were not finished for, having won the war, they also won the peace by concocting a remarkable piece of governmental engineering that remains to this day our society's foundational contract, the Constitution of the United States."
That Constitution not only guaranteed slavery, its implementation depended absolutely on it. The conceit of "one nation, indivisible" was imposed following the defeat & abolition of the Confederate nation, which sought to uphold the original balance. With the abolition of legal slavery of the African descendents, the new indivisible nation theory gave birth to the new form of slavery, corporate personhood, but not before the troops of the new, indivisible Republic de-camped from the Southern states to allow the re-subjugation of the temporarily liberated slaves.
"But hey, those who don't like Gore can cheeer up."
jstevens, it isn't, for me, a matter of disliking Gore, so much as it is a matter of getting away from personality politics, and from the oh-we-were-once-so-noble-and-fine rhetoric that the consultants seem to have decided is necessary to address an electorate they obviously regard as too feeble-minded to detect the condescension & disingenousness in it.
radical-z:
I understand the difference between Democrats and Progressives. The articles on this website are almost entirely pro-Gore. The blogs are mainly negative. I find the discrepanc;y odd.
But hey, those who don't like Gore can cheeer up. It doesn't look like he's going to run. Thus the world will be spared the horror of a man who actually conceded defeat, possibly prematurely, and that apparently is the ultimate horror. As for me, absent Gore, I am quite depressed about the next election. I don't think anybody who has a decent chance of being elected is any better than George. That is scary.
The complaints about Gore from 1:06pm are a little more substantial than many, however, the sins of the Clinton era rest with Clinton in my opinion.
I again scrolled quickly through these posts re Gore looking for a reference to his book The Assault on Reason and did not see one. Support him, dislike him, hate him for whatever reason you choose. But at least be accurate and informed as to what he has said and condemned. He takes on Bushco, the Congress, the MSM, the MIC.
I never did get the sense from him that he believed he hit a home run even though he seemed to have been born on third base, unlike you-know-who.
He takes criticism here for being born into the "right" family. Bill Clinton's "humble" background didn't really help us anyway, did it?
The junkyard dog pundits have been on Gore relentlessly since the peace prize was awarded. Perhaps they are really afraid of a Gore candidacy? Makes me stop and think...
Again, The Assault on Reason is worth the read. It really hasn't gotten much notice in the MSM. Another sign, perhaps?...
jstevens
Al Gore is not public enemy no. 1. I get that you and others like Al Gore, and you don't understand this criticism of him. I'm sure it appears harsh to you. But there were many people that didn't like Al Gore when he was vice president – and even further back than that. You see this is a progressive website, not an exclusively Democratic website. Al Gore is no progressive, nor has he claimed to be. So don't be surprised when a man that supported NAFTA, helped found the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, supported wars of aggression, and engaged in many other anti-progressive activities when he was vice president, is vilified on a progressive website. It is possible (in fact, given our current group of politicians, quite probable) that one can be a Democrat and not a progressive. Progressives are always told to roll over and support whoever the Democratic nominee is. If we don't, we're labeled "spoilers." Now it appears, we are not supposed to engage in the debate at all, even during the primary period. Is it any wonder we got a president like Bush, when the opposition party quells dissent and keeps moving the party closer to the right?
Like Gore all you want, but please don't try turn off the debate that needs to happen if we want any semblance of a democracy in the US.
eshu, I just saw you new comments when I logged back on. You are spot on!
The basic problem with American politics is that most white progressives think that people of color should just wait until white liberals are willing to take on the dimensions of the betrayal Al Gore participated in in 2000. Several thousand black voters are disenfranchised, and most white liberals couldn't give a bloody tinker's damn. That's where the real split is, baby. Because you're not going anywhere without us. You either pay attention to our issues, and the fact that political disenfranchisement of black people has reached such a turn of affairs that two national candidates chose to sweep it all under the carpet seven years ago, or you can just swing in the cold, cold, wind outside of political power. Too many of you white liberals think you're dealing with a pseudo-fascist state because with Bush, you're getting a little taste of what the rest of the world has dealt with for a long time now, that is to say, predatory investment patterns and disposession, police violence, military aggression overseas and massive political disenfranchisement here at home. Well, welcome to the United States of America the way a good many people of color and working class whites have always known this country to be. Bush is nothing but the same old shit cubed. You couldn't say anything about it before, but now it's biting you in the ass. Now you know the reality, but instead of learning from what the rest of us have known for a long time, you insist on your minimum program, and the stupid fantasy words you have coming out of a hypothetical Al Gore's mouth instead of looking at the broader reality. Your democratic party is in this mess overseas up to its ears. They swallowed it hook, line and sinker, just as they do every side effect that comes out of it, for example, the massive collapse of domestic infrastructure that was made so plain by Katrina two years ago. And you "practical" people continue to drink that kool-aid. Well, fuck that shit. Those days are over with. Sit out on the curb outside the halls of boojwah power and weep all you want. A new kind of political organization is required, one that is willing to withstand all the hatred that is directed at a third party effort, hold its ground, and build a new political movement that actually will stand up for democracy, the working poor, and the environment. That isn't the democrats, and hasn't been for a long time, and it's about time some of you "practical" people woke up and smelt the coffee, instead of insisting on dragging us off into the "democratic" party shithole for another four to eight years.
Instead of an inaugural speech it is a history of how the right wing has deceived us into what we have today. Everything pointed out here is either 100% facts or enough circumstantial evidence to convict the wingnuts of destroying this country in any court of law.
There should have been an outcry after the 2000 elections, however it can not be the responsibility of the guy who lost. For every one individual today who complains that Gore did not fight hard enough, therw would be ten people saying he was a sore loser, lacked integrity, put the nation in jeopardy, etc. had he persisted. Saying who is he that he presumes to override the Supreme Court.
What is illogical is that Al Gore is held to impossible standards.
He hasn't spoken out against the Iraq war? Come on! This is called a lie.
He doesn't live like Australopithecus with no carbon emissions ? Who does!
And if he did, how exactly would he get his message across. Somewhere, someone lives in a cave and doesn't use up any fuel. We have never heard of them.
Sure, be unhappy that he didn't pursue the election outcome more, but why villify him over this controversial point.
Al Gore graduated cum laude from Harvard. Who is a doofus?
I understand that some people don't like him or want him to be President, but why exactly is he public enemy # 1? That is what I call a departure from logic.
I agree with eshu. Al Gore (and other Democrats) blew the chance of taking a principled stance against voter disenfranchisement. By not taking a stand, they tacitly gave the Republicans permission to cheat again – which they boldly did in Ohio in 2004. Having now set this abhorrent precedent, we are to believe that Al Gore is the one true hope for the salvation of the U.S.
But according to jstevens and aquietman, it's not logical to take such a principled stand and Al Gore drew the "only possible sane conclusion one can draw afer a Supreme Court ruling." The Supreme Court ruled to stop the recount because, in the words of Sandra Day O'Connor (obviously paraphrasing) to continue the recount would cause GWB to lose. There was nothing in that ruling that forbade the US Congress from doing a vigorous investigation into the disenfranchisement of Florida voters (or any other voters). Nor could the Supreme Court do that. (At that time, they were still co-equal branches.) The investigation was not designed to trump the Supreme Court; rather it was supposed to expose voter disenfranchisement to the light of day, thereby discouraging it from happening again, something well within Congress's purview (some would argue, obligation) to do.
I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" and thought it was an excellent movie. I'm glad he is raising the issue of climate change in the US, although other countries have been talking about it for years and are far ahead of us in terms of legislation to try to check the rapid warming taking place. One of the primary reasons he is able to do the work he is doing is because he is unencumbered by electoral politics.
Al Gore is not the messiah. He can't save this country. If we want democracy, we the people are going to have to fight for it, on every level – city, state and federal.
And jstevens and aquietman, continue to believe that because people don't come to your conclusions, they are not logical. Perhaps the Republicans are a better fit for that kind of rigid and intransigent thinking.
A few thought to share:
1) An extremely beautiful, factual, and moving inaugural address.
2) The speaker would be shot before leaving the podium.
3) A person with such a high moral standing does not exist among the current politicians. Even if one is sent from heaven, they would swift-boat him.
4) Granting he survives all that, the fraudulent voting machines would take
care of him.
What I especially appreciate about the ideas in the article are Green's views on electoral reform. Getting rid of the Electoral College, having proportional representation in the Congress, and having all elections funded publicly are three really important electoral reforms. They could do a lot to align public opinion and public policy. And it just so happens that they are mainstream progressive positions, due to their inclusion in the 2004 platforms of the Green Party, Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader.
As far as Al Gore goes, he isn't running, so, to me, it makes sense to support him for what he IS doing to publicize and educate about the global warming part of the emerging global crisis.
Lots of intelligent people commenting here! Gore's a dooffus. Nice guy, but hardly the savior of the world. Let's stop putting him on a pedestal, please.
I would love Al as president, but if he's going to get through this tome of an inaugural he better start speaking now. I'd say he's lost concision and brevity since An Inconvenient Truth.
aquietman:
Thank you. I get very tired also of writing elementary defenses:
You see they are the SUPREME Court not the State Appellate Court.
That word supreme means they have the final say.
It makes me want to scream.
Don't read the posts by RichM above. He doesn't think Gore has used strong enough language against the Iraq War. He derides Gore for not demanding the perpetrators be tried for war crimes. (There's a good way to not get elected)
This is a progressive website, but when the name Al Gore comes up, he is bashed as if he were Dick Cheney.
Venting,
Jackie
Suppose, just suppose, that Gore agrees to be drafted, decides to run and then gets on the ballot. Are you still going to vote for Hillary???
Funny, I read several places in the piece that, were Gore the one speaking, would sound quite like a mea culpa. Almost like apologizing for not sticking to his ideals all along.
And how about a little pragmatism? "...it encourages dependence & illusions in personalities (Al Gore) and parties (the Democrats) and political systems (the US 2-party system) that cannot possibly deliver on the promises." I'd like to see a third, fourth, or fifth party sprout up, too, but that's not going to happen unless the two parties allow it to and I see the Dems allowing it more than the GOP.
Jstevens..... Yours is the only post I 've read thus far that shows any intelligence. I didn't read all. I was too disgusted. I read the first five or so and then scrolled down. More of the same crap (that is what it is) about he didn't fight hard enough in 2000. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. I'm so sick of responding to this tripe with actual logic that I won't even attempt it again. What a totally illogical and unfair position to take on that debacle.
What I've found on this site is that people are have such an ideological bent that they can't even reason with logic. Everything is a conspiracy.
People who say he only became interested in environmental issues recently don't know what they are talking about. Since the 70s he has been singing this song.
Good Lord, this is the most qualified person to hold the job. He has announced he will not run in 2008, and yet you nutcases all continue to outdo yourselves in trying to bash him like Republicans. Right wing smear tactics used by people who are never satisfied with anyone, and see the boogey man in all.
The era of Gore is not over. Global warming is not going to go away, and he will continue to play a role in it. There are future elections.
It's never fails to surprise me as to which side people are on when something like Dr. Green's article is published. There are, on one side, thinking people who understand exactly what is being said and hope that our country can return to our past glory. On the other side we have the people who attack war heroes when it is convenient for them, ignore the fact that our current government has taken us to a national debt of nearly $13 trillion, and ignore the fact that the top 1% of the richest of this country took in 21% of the total wages (in 2005, the latest year for which these figures have been available), bonuses, and other sources of income (admittedly, not by doing anything illegal, but by taking advantage of our ourtrageous tax laws which allow hedge fund managers to court their outrageous income as "capital gains" and pay only 15% on hundreds of millions of dollars). It's really easy to recognize those who care about their country and it's future for all Americans and those who care about their own wealth.
eshu:
Such hyperbole! Gore did not betray black voters. He drew the only possible sane conclusion that one can draw after a Supreme Court ruling--that it was over.
Why is Gore subjected to so much hatred and name calling because of this strategy issue? It is not reasonable to blame Gore for his assessment that the race was over. Where do you go after theSupreme Court?
It is really bizarre to villify Gore over the issue.
Impossible standards for Mr. Gore.
There are differences between Gore and Edwards.
Gore did not fight hard enough in 2000 in my opinion and Edwards wanted to in 2004. But more importantly, Edwards is the true progressive populist, for greater economic justice.
Let's be real, that was never Al Gore's real bent. He was as much Mr. Nafta as anyone was.
Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA
The global warming problem could be solved by NOT voting for Gore but for Hillary. Since she now seems to be endorsed by the M-I complex and is indicating that she favors bombing Iran, if she were president she would start WWIII. A nuclear winter would ensue, viola, global warming? no problem now. That's called Earth in Balance.
BTW that's not an endorsement for Gore. But if he were to be president let's hope he doesn't read Greene's speech above at the inaugeration. The cherry blossoms would be blooming before he finished.
Without controlling the MSM or a private army like King George II, our options are clearly limited.
Our "plans" are to always identify something better than the status quo. Gore may be better than Bush. But our job is to perpetually identify the "better".
Geez. What is it with you whiney, negative knotheads? Over and over, any time someone writes anything "positive" on this site about Al Gore, so-called "progressives" lash out with all the nasty virulence of a nest of riled up hornets. Who needs reactionaries!
What exactly is it that you want to see happen?
What are YOU willing to do to help it come to pass?
Who else, realistically now, could POSSIBLY take us to a place where world peace has a smidgen of a chance and the US can gain back a shred of respect from the rest of the world? Wow,imagine this--- a president who succeeds repeatedly in business without needing to be bailed out by Daddy's Saudi friends, won't confuse APEC with OPEC, won't talk with his mouth full at state dinners, won't think his farting entertains the staff.... Let's start with the little things, work our way up to real leadership and world affairs....
Is that okay with you naysayers?
I voted for Nader in 2000 and worked my butt off for Kucinich in 2004; frankly, we'd have been so much better off today if ol' boring Al had actually become president in 2000. This "inaugural address" is, as someone else clearly said, a rhetorical challenge stating, at much length, what WE need to do. So, instead of bitching about Mr. Gore, who didn't even write this feature, what is it you naysayers plan to do to make life better for all of us?
Barb: And about two seconds later, Gore is down on the floor, via Kennedy special...
With all due respect, I envision the Al Gore speech differently. I see him take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I see him walk to the microphone. I see him remove his suit coat and tie, and then roll up his shirt sleeves. And then he says, "My friends, the time for speeches is over. We have work to do. Let's roll." End of speech. Beginning of action.
the center of the speech
has a bit more finger pointing
than i like, but
i liked very much the start
and finish..
don't care whom gives the speech
should a future body have a chance
in the next little while
(like should there be a next elected body),
just give it!!!
to me
the ideas
and ideals
matter
much.........
ken
God, have we all become so fragmented, disenfranchised and cynical that we just brush aside Professor Green's valiant an inspiration attempt at a practical path for the U.S./world to get back to the promised land?
Has the taint of the hyper-aggressive character assassination by the right wing bloviators on Al Gore (and anyone else who stands in greedy way) clouded and poisoned are collective intellect?
Alternative decentralized power (solar, wind, etc.), local organic farming, and shared knowledge of workable sustainable systems (political, social, and spiritual) is a real and workable solution to our and the worlds ills. At this moment Al Gore is the most immediate potentially electable person to carry the flag to such change.
Whether white progressives want to remember it or not, Al Gore had a chance to take a principled stand against the disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters in Florida seven years ago, and he chose not to. He shut down the investigation called for by the Congressional Black Caucus, fearing a "constitutional crisis". As if the last six and a half years have ever been anything else.
Gore's betrayal of the black voters of Florida was on a par with a similar betrayal conducted in 1876, when "democratic" candidate S. Tilden demanded of the popular vote loser "republican" Hayes that Hayes, if allowed to steal the electoral college vote, agree to remove all federal troops in the south who were protecting the hard-won gains of southern reconstruction. Both parties turned their backs on the terrorist activities of the Klan and other white supremist groups, which then conducted a deepening of a formal Jim Crow system that survived in the south until I was a boy. A full one hundred years of neglect of the rights of African Americans.
And now Gore and his true believers want to write pretty speeches, and behave as though similar words would ever come of of the mouth of a man who has clearly demonstrated his unworthiness of national leadership, with his unwillingness to defend an electoral victory that was his.
Let this man Gore be forgotten, like the shameless hack he is. The tasks that lay in front of this country require something far more deep and resolute then any politician of Gore's calibre will ever be able to summon.
Would you all please, the hell, stop saying "the era of Gore is over"? The point of this article is not that this is the inaugural speech Al Gore should give, but that this is the speech we Americans should give to ourselves, that we have gotten lazy and it's time to put aside our laziness and get to work. Our political laziness mirrors our personal laziness - big cars, big houses, big waistlines, big TVs, and big debt, but little in the way of knowledge. Predatory capitalism encourages us to indulge our bad habits, among them constant badmouthing, but we have the ability to say no. Rightwingers don't want people to participate in democracy because it is to their advantage to have as little participation as possible. But rightwingers are not the only ones who are lazy, and every time I hear some damned progressive badmouthing the candidates and the political system, as if throwing up our hands and saying "everything sucks" is going to make the system, I get really pissed off.
I apologize for my state sending this moron to the White House. I didn't vote for him, and I and millions of others worked hard in the last election to turn Congress around. We did it, too. Congress has a long way to go, and this country has a long way to go, but I'm sure as hell not giving up.
Sorry for the language.
Robin
Austin, TX
RichM;
You have read far too much into my statement. I was commenting on one of many paradoxes surrounding Mr. Gore. It is strange to me that Al Gore seems (I haven't counted) to get more negative reactions than Hillary. It is strange to me that Mr. Nader claimed that Gore and Bush were about the same. It is strange that Al Gore can't travel for his cause without being assaulted for using jet fuel.
A lot of powerful people/institutions are threatened by environmental movements. I believe much of the anti Gore sentiment stems from these nefarious roots.
I wonder who exactly is your dream candidate who has vowed to prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes if elected. If anyone running ever made such a claim I am sorry I missed it.
In Al Gore's recent book and in his movie he discusses the war on terror, and how illogical it is to focus on terrorists when the real threat is environmental. He also has much to say against the Iraq war. Look at his speech from 2003 that Common Dreams ran last week. I believe Mr. Gore adresses many of your concerns.
You don't like his endorsement of Howard Dean? How can this possibly be a major issue. Maybe he thought Dean had a better chance of winning.
Al Gore is held to a different standard than any other candidate.
By the way, I am a she, not a he.
"He only came to be interested in "saving the environment" when it became politically expedient."
I have to disagree with this. "Earth in the Balance" came out at a time when the vast majority thought that the threatening environmental crises had been effectively warded off & he was regarded as a kook for saying that the internal combustion engine could destroy the ecosystem.
Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ!!! If Al Gore won't run, let's nominate David Michael Green. You said everything I want to say. I love my country like I love my own kid, but I want my kid and my country to behave properly. Thanks for nailing it.
Robin
Austin, TX
It's unnecessary and even diminishes the value of Green's arguments to attribute them to Al Gore.
The ideas (good or bad; right or wrong) can stand on their own without the added burden to the reader of having to imagine and evaluate the likelihood of Gore actually saying or living up to them. Judging from the commentary, it appears that much of the piece's thrust was lost--distracting readers from being called to action, or even just reflecting on the state of the nation, to instead reflecting on the state of Mr. Gore.
A device like fictional attribution should add some necessary dimension to an essay. I didn't find that to be the case here. I give Professor Green an A for a clear presentation of his ideas, but a C- for execution.
"No concerned owners of a property would ever let weeds grow on it."
Herein lies the crux of the environmental end game our culture has created. Don't expect Al Gore or any other politician to save us.
That's not to say i don't like Al Gore, i do. And yes, i would vote for him again. If he ran i believe he would be our best choice for an electable candidate. But, if you have some illusion he is not a corporatist, then i would say you have not been paying attention.
'
'
I've been deeply impressed with articles written by David Michael Green, and have told him so. I fear that this "inaugural address" was written on an off day. Whatever one thinks of the substance (reasonable people can disagree) the style and tone are, in my experience, horrifically off the mark. What we need, it seems to me, is brevity, concreteness, and directness, not rhetorical flourishes. As to the merits or their lack in a Gore candidacy, it seems pretty clear to me that the next president of the US will be Gore, Clinton or Giuliani. I'd vote for Gore.
The Goracle will not save us. Still it would be fun to see him enter the race and blow HRC off her high horse. I don't know that I would vote for him, but I'd rather him than Clinton or Obama.
I have been a registered Green for many years, before that I was not affiliated. I have registered Dim for the primary, so I can vote for Kucinich, after that I will change back to Green. If Dennis does not get the nomination I would like to see him run as a Green, but I don't think that will happen.
Name someone better than Gore to run on the Democratic ticket? Do any of you think this handful of losers will advance our cause? Only two or three of the candidates are worth considering, Richardson, Kucinich and Dobbs, and they don't stand a Chinaman's chance.
Want Hillary? Better have Gore by 5000 times.
jstevens, a Gore fan (6:15 pm) writes, "I wonder how often it occurs that most of the posts are opposed to the content of the original article."
- Now, why would that matter? Is there some law that posters must agree with the original article? A Dem Party loyalist might naturally tend to think so. But there is such a thing as thinking for yourself.
He continues, Someone above complained that he (Gore) hasn't labeled it (the Iraq War) immoral. That may or may not be true, however Gore has made his position quite clear. To demand a specific phrase is ridiculous. There is no cause for criticism on Iraq. Gore has been on target all along...."
- Well, by coincidence, the "someone" above was me. // In fact, it's not at all a matter of "demanding a specific phrase." It's a matter of how strong his opposition to the war is, and what it's based on. Is he fundamentally & four-square against it, or merely opposed to how the Republicans are running it? Or is he only "somewhat" against it -- something well short of full opposition? Is he willing to say publicly that the war is at least partly for oil? Aside from Kucinich, no Democrats have dared to say that.
If he says the war is "a crime against humanity," and "criminal," these are not just phrases. It means he would support prosecution of the perpetrators before an international tribunal. If he refuses to use such words, it means either he feels the war has some justification, or that he knows it's unjustified yet is frightened to say so, for fear of angering the rightwing.
There is PLENTY of cause for criticism of Gore's Iraq position. True, most of the Democrats have been even worse than Gore on this issue. But his opposition has been far weaker than that of Kucinich, for example. As I pointed out above, he backed Howard Dean (the fake war "opponent"), not Kucinich (the real antiwar candidate) in '04. And of course, the Clinton/Gore admin killed half a million Iraq kids by sanctions in the '90's, & laid much of the groundwork for the US policy of "regime change" in Iraq. So it's almost inconceivable that Gore has changed so much in his thinking, that he'd be a full opponent of US Iraq policy, today.
Note too that Gore has not criticized the "War on Terror." Someone who accepts the premises of the WoT is not likely to be a true opponent of the Iraq occupation. He has also refused to criticize Pelosi & Reid. // Most likely, if you sat Gore down & spoke honestly with him about it, his real position on Iraq today would be much like Howard Dean's was in '04 -- that the war is being managed poorly, & "harming US interests." Yet he likely feels that the US "must retain credibility," and "can't afford to pull out of the Middle East." In other words, his real position is probably not too different from the other Democratic candidates.
Al Gore is a part of the problem - not part of the solution. He was raised in a political elite family to become part of the political elite. He learned his lessons well and he knows how to use and abuse the general population. He only came to be interested in "saving the environment" when it became politically expedient. He is controlled by the same cabal of financial/political/sociopathic creeps that pull the strings of our daily lives. Anyone who wants to be free (and we are not) needs to find a candidate who has integrity, honesty, real humility, and absolutely no connection with prior administrations, political parties, or corporate entities - or a family history - if they want to stave off the fascist inclinations of the American elite.
I like Al Gore. I admire his bravery in presenting 'An Inconvenient Truth', biting the petro-hand that fed him for so long. I applaud his winning the Nobel Prize. But I respect his announcement not to run in the next 'election'.
He probably knows these things:
1) His environmental stance makes him a marked man.
2) Hillary will pull any dirty trick to prevent him running, even as her vice-president. ANY dirty trick.
3) If he did announce his intention to run, he would probably be dead within the week.
Once again there is a Common Dreams article with glowing praise for Al Gore, followed by a barrage of negative posts. I wonder how often it occurs that most of the posts are opposed to the content of the original article.
I have not given up on Al Gore running for President although it is a long shot.
Al Gore has spoken out vehemently and immediately against the Iraq war. Someone above complained that he hasn't labeled it immoral. That may or may not be true, however Gore has made his position quite clear. To demand a specific phrase is ridiculous. There is no cause for criticism on Iraq. Gore has been on target all along.
I am sure that the sentiment reflected in these posts has a lot to do with Mr. Gore not running again. Mr. GOre apparently isn't looking forward to being singled out and scrutinized for his carbon dioxide emissions, when such things are not even mentioned for any other candidate.
I guess it is okay to have to jet all around the world, UNLESS you are jetting around the world for environmental causes. Then you are hypocritical. Since Guiliani and Clinton rarely utter an ecological thought, their lifestyle escapes scrutiny.
I read an article about why the Rightwing goes ballistic about Al Gore, Paul Kruger, I think. And the sum of it all is that he was spectacularly right and they were godawful wrong, and for him to get an award, many of them, only rubs their faces in that fact. Reading the posts on this message board, I suspect that it isn't only the Rightwingnuts who react that way.
If we keep regurgitating the myths about the Wondrous and Stupendous Astonishing America, the way this imagined speech does, we'll continue to drift backwards.
Worse, it echoes the Orwellian "Freedom is not free" -- "America is not for free" in this article -- claim of the amerifascisti. Also, it repeats all the problematic jargon of the DLC (aka Democrats for Nixon) -- which uses the terms of banking, such as "investment capital", to reduce social relations to the terms that appeal to Wall Street.
Safiyyah wrote:
Gore is the opiate of Common Dreams.
********************
LOLROTF--Safyyah you have said a mouthful!
Reading through the speech, I kept waiting for the twist -- the revelation, however worded, that Gore had run as an independent or a third-party candidate. The fictional orator had the clarity of vision to recognize the fatal flaws in two-party "democracy", yet remained unwilling or unable to address them.
No one who can get elected as a Dum or a Repug can provide the solution, they can only perpetuate the problem.
Vote third-party in 2008. Any third party is better than the two-faced corporatists we're stuck with now.
"More than two hundred years ago, the shores upon which we stand were blessed to provide home...."
These shores and ESPECIALLY the original inhabitant would be TRULY blessed if the shores were left alone.
I'm still voting green. Fuck the Repugs, fuck the Dumbercraps and fuck all the people who voted for Gore in 2000! if you had voted Nader, we wouldn't be in this present shithole, which basically outshines all previous shitholes our govt. has prepared for its citiznery. ENJOY!
Reading that makes me feel like the kid with its nose pressed up against the window pane of a house where a party is going on and she wasn't invited.
Bitter-sweet - Al Gore won't run.
Gore could write like this.
David Michael Green did.
Personally, I'd rather vote Green.
Gore is the opiate of Common Dreams.
About Gore's supposed "great work" over the last 6 years: OK, he gave a few good speeches, especially the one on MLK Day in '06. However --
Note that in 2004, he endorsed Howard Dean, not Kucinich. Kucinich was the ONLY Dem with a serious "antiwar" position. Dean's position on the Iraq War was simply that it was (in his words) "the wrong invasion at the wrong time." He argued that it was "unwise" for the US to invade, but this perspective did not hold that the invasion was wrong, criminal, or immoral. Dean's concern was not over the invasion's murderousness, nor over its oil-stealing aspect. Rather, he felt that it would make the US look bad, create many enemies for it, & tie down the military in a quagmire.
Has Gore, to this day, come out and said that "the war is immoral"? Nope. He has merely given the impression that he's "critical" of the war. But he hasn't said he's against it, hasn't called for ending the occupation, and certainly hasn't said that the war's perpetrators should be tried for war crimes. // Has he EVER in his life said a word against the military-industrial complex? Nope. Not a word. He's always been on good terms with it.
Even in his global warming movie, Gore stopped well short of calling out the oil companies. He emphasized, rather, that there are things we can all do, as consumers -- but he doesn't level a single explict charge against the oil companies. (Wouldn't want to piss them off, you know.)
It all sounds lovely. As with every Democrat though, watch what they do, not what they say in phony speeches.
I bet Gore after this glorious speech would go to the White House be the war monger corporatist that he really is. Gore is a sham, like every Democrat or Republican. And I have news for you too, Gore's too much of a coward and is making too much money right now to run again. So Democrats, sorry, you're stuck with Hitlery.
This is not even about Al Gore as much as it is the craving on the part of so many of the United States citizenry for their next leader to thoroughly repudiate their previous one.
For a good idea of how to do this give a listen to FDR's first inaugural of 03/04/33. You can listen to it at:
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/speechDetail/24
So much of it is so relevent to our situation today that it could be copied with only a few revisions and be relevent. Especially the part about fear paralyzing the needed effort for reform.
limric: "The era of Gore has passed."
What era of Gore? When he was VP, and could have made a REAL difference, and we didn't hear a peep from him on any of this stuff? Or now that he making people "aware" of something most of us have known about since at least the 90s? Forget Gore. The only Dems worth considering are Kucinich and Gravel. If only there was some of that passion for Gore sent their way.
Although I have nothing but praise for Gore's work during the past six years, Gore as a candidate is another story.
Al Gore was born into the right family and timing was good for him to fall in to all of the elected positions that he held with very little effort. Bill Clinton's perjury assured that the 2000 Democratic Party presidential candidate was not a shoe-in and that the candidate needed to establish a brand and strong stand-alone campaign in order to win. The Gore campaign was so limp that he didn't even carry his home state of Tennessee.
Perhaps Gore will change (like 180 degrees) between now and the primaries.
Wonderful speach no one will ever hear. The era of Gore has passed. God help us and our future.
Reading this considerable effort of Prof Green, all I can think of is Pres. Putin's recent remark (albeit brought up in a different context).
"This, in my view, is the sort of political erotica that might satisfy a person but hardly leads to a positive result."
Gore had his chance; time to move on...
Lovely quote, PJD. Must say I agree completely.
Some great thoughts but, dream on. Gore has been a life-time political whore and isn't about to change. He owes his position in society to the corporate elite and isn't about to turn his back on them.
Hoa binh
Give us this last man, Zarathustra. Make us this last man.
We should be so lucky as to hear any real inaugural address from any Democratic president on 1-20-09.
There's much that's right in this rather lengthy "speech," but there are some major & fundamental things wrong with it. The main weakness is that it encourages dependence & illusions in personalities (Al Gore) and parties (the Democrats) and political systems (the US 2-party system) that cannot possibly deliver on the promises.
Gore himself is not going to run, and even if he did, he's not capable of saying many of fine things laid out in the speech. The guy has NEVER in his life taken a firm principled stand against corporate power; he's not going to start now. And even if he did, this very fact would render him unable to win the Dem nomination, because the Dem Party power brokers are themselves corporatists, & therefore despise critics of corporate power.
There's no such thing as a "maverick" winning the Dem nomination. It has never happened, because the whole system is set up to nominate two-faced turds like Kerry, or the Al Gore of 2000 (who did his damnedest to be indistinguishable from Bush), or Hillary, or Bill. Even the wimpy corporate centrist Howard Dean was "too radical" for the Dem Party of 2004, so they had to stick a knife in his back when it looked like he might actually win the nomination.
The reader of this speech who starts moaning wistfully for Al Gore to come back & save us, is going to remain in slavish dependence on a false conception of American democracy. Let's try to think clearly: the 2-party system -- built as it is on US corporatism -- is precisely what has brought the current disaster upon us. Does it make sense to look to this same system, the same parties, & even the very same personalities -- whose horrible repeated & disgraceful failures have brought us to this sorry pass -- to cure the very crisis they have precipitated?
yes excellent quote
That's assuming there is an election....