Two news stories: here and here. There's also people asking a question, here.
Stranger things have happened than a return from the grave for Vice-President Gore. It always strikes me as very bad for American politics that, these days, losers are so tainted that they cannot run again. Only the most naive person believes that democracy always makes the right choices. It is merely a mechanism for avoiding the very worst. The idea that one top politician is destined to obscurity and shame in every election is, at the least, wasteful of talent.
In Britain, we've had a shift to a similar style. The Conservatives have lost their leader after their 1997, 2001 and 2005 election defeats, in all cases immediately after the results were announced. I don't think it's good for parties and in a Presidential system such as the United States, it certainly seems a shame for the country. Without any obvious equivalent of our Leader of the Opposition shadowing a Prime Minister, non-incumbent parties in the US have difficulties holding a President to account. While www.johnkerry.com clearly tries to provide some sort of coordinated leadership for the Democrats, the political will doesn't seem to exist to take it very seriously.
But what does this have to do with Al Gore? Well, I think the speculation that he could make a come-back is pretty fantastic. But it's a shame that it is so silly. Perhaps I say this as someone who could never understand criticism of Gore's charisma or style, and perhaps such percieved failings were due to Anglo-American cultural differences. One thing's for sure: the idea of "Al Gore the liar" was a cynical media image completely manufactured against reality. To take one example, his credit for funding projects that led to the development of our internet, is now immortalised in the misleading claim "Al Gore's internet".
A Gore-Edwards ticket would probably look a little liberal to many Americans, but the strength of personalities is still there. Until Barrack Obama is old enough, the Democrats could do much worse than look for a President from those who have come so close to winning in the past two elections: Gore, Kerry and Edwards. In Gore's case he got more votes than Bush.
I realise this probably seems non-sensical, but it is puzzling why the attitude persists that a defeated US Presidential candidate is an untouchable loser.
Oh, and before anyone else points out... I realise the best example of candidates coming back from election defeat to fight again is Richard Nixon... ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Richard, I don't think Al's descent was in response merely to him losing the 2000 election, but for losing it so negligently given the circumstances. Not being able to make the best case of a long record of prosperity and relative peace under Clinton, combined with an opponent that far Left candidate Ralph Nader described as "the bumbling Texas governor with that horrific record," looked quite bad, since many would have thought a Gore win to be a slam dunk. The problem was that Gore lost much of his verve and seemed haggard in 2000, he distanced himself from pecadillo-prone Clinton (and incidentally, from their objectively successful record as well), and relied too much on PR, polls, choreography and other assorted fluff to fuel his campaign.
Americans need their politicians to demonstrate a natural sense of comfort in campaigning for the role they seek as well as a sense of ease with the populace responsible for making the decision to put them there. Gore demonstrated a complete lack of every natural ability inherent in a politician by 2000, as intelligent and successful as he might have been deemed previously (especially in 1992, I might add).
Lee --
I actually see something to what Richard has to say. Almost immediately after he last two elections, inmagazines like the New Republic, you could fine a level of recrimination that seemed a bit beyond the pale. Strategically, Gore screwed up in 2000, there is no doubt about that. But he still garnereed the most votes, and certainly the idea that Gore was absolutely untenable hinged on machinations in Florida, some of which were utterly legitimate, others of which were sketchy. TNR did the same thing after Kerrty's loss, lamenting that he was still going to try to be a party standard bearer -- as if a still sitting senator and the party's presidential candidate would or should be anything but.
I am not certain how viable a candidate Gore can ever be again, but I find him a lot more likable these days, and would not count him out quite yet. Depending on how the next two years go, the American political landscape might change fully, to the point where the democrat will even be favored. A 2008 Gore run would have to be about a lot more than "I warned you," but it would be an interesting subtext.
Clearly the dcat landscape has been much improved by bringing in a couple of brits to class up the joint.
dcat
Lee --
I'm not certain the candidate has to have the instinct if he has handlers who do. he could have used a guy like carville in 2000. If he comes up with one, that might go a long way in aiding his prospects.
Our freshman year at Williams, i stuck around for graduation, and michael Dukakis gave one of the great speeches I have heard at one of those sorts of things. We tend to personalize things so much that we forget that someone who loses the Presidency is not necessarily a loser or a bad guy. I'd gladly have a dinner party that included George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Micheal Dikakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore and John Kerry.
dcat
I find it odd that I scoff at the idea of a third party*, but yet think you should be more idealistic in thinking nice guys can finish first.
* = Especially being a member of the third party in Britain...
Richard --
I think nice guys with a dark underside can finish first.
A third (4th, 5th . . .) party is a lot more tenable (essential?) in a parliamentary system than it is in our winner take all republican democracy.
dc
Post a Comment