I thought Al Gore's speech was one of his best in politics. Two things jumped out at me.
First, the word "tax" was not uttered. It was the perfect opportunity to make his case for a carbon tax. He could have slipped it in before (or in lieu of) the second paragraph here:
And it just so happens that the climate crisis is intertwined with the other two great challenges facing our nation: reviving our economy and strengthening our national security. The solutions to all three require us to end our dependence on carbon-based fuels.
Instead of letting lobbyists and polluters control our destiny, we need to invest in American innovation.
Impose the tax and the innovation follows. There is no particular reason for the government to direct the innovation. Better to focus on the critical aspects of infrastructure where natural monopolies make a more compelling case for government involvement.
Second, I have often wondered what the Democrats think would have happened on 9/11 if the 2000 election would have broken for Gore rather than Bush. Unless you are of the view that Gore in the White House would have prevented 9/11, then I don't see how the Democratic Party could have recovered from it. There would have been an unbroken line from the 1993 WTC bombings to 9/11 and no way for Gore to withstand what would have been blistering critiques from the Republicans. Soft on national security and the like. I think the 2002 midterm elections would have gone strongly Republican and that they would have used the full powers of the Congress to rake Gore over the coals. The Republicans would have captured the White House in 2004, but probably not with George Bush as their candidate.
In his speech tonight, Gore made this remark:
<!--startclickprintexclude-->Take it from me, if it [the 2000 election] had ended differently, we would not be bogged down in Iraq; we would have pursued bin Laden until we captured him.
That suggests he doesn't think he could have prevented 9/11, but read a more complete Q&A with Gore about this topic here. What do you think?
um, no
That is not what happens when the US polity feels itself attacked. You forget that George W. was *supremely unpopular* until 9-11 suddenly pumped his approvals to 90%. For better or worse, we rally to the flag.
Or try reading this without gagging: "[t]here would have been an unbroken line from the [1983 Beirut] bombings to 9/11 and no way for [Bush] to withstand what would have been blistering critiques from the [Democrats]."
Gore might have ended up as the new Truman by 2008, but don't forget, Truman took office to very high approval before squandering it.
There was a war on, after all.
I think you overestimate the Republicans
The obvious breaks between 1983 and 2001 are the Clinton-Gore administrations from 1993-2001, the fact that it was the WTC buildings that were attacked in 1993 and again in 2001, and the fact that George W. Bush wasn't active in the earlier Reagan-Bush administrations. Bush had the ability to share the blame with Clinton or, as you rightly point out, his father and Reagan if anyone had been pushing that argument. That ability would not have existed for Gore as president, having been vice president during the 1993 attack and president during the 2001 attack. Are you arguing that Gore would have been equally or even adequately able to claim ignorance of the 9/11 plot or a lack of responsibility for preventing it?
What you say about the American polity's reaction is correct and also applied to the Democrats in the House and Senate (perhaps too much) after 9/11. But would it also have been true of Tom DeLay, particularly with Republicans feeling as if the 2000 election had been "stolen" from them? I don't think so. I think DeLay and those who operated like he did would have seized on 9/11 for partisan gain. I think you would have heard, "Is it still the economy, stupid?" and "Can't be trusted with national security" over and over again. Or do you think more of Tom DeLay's character or less of his political "skills" than I do?
Unless the the plans to crack down on Al-Qaeda after the U.S.S. Cole bombing, which were put on hold due to the change of administrations (and then dropped after the change), were able to prevent 9/11, I think the Democrats would have been in big trouble as a going concern. I think their only salvation politically, absent preventing the 9/11 attacks, would have been to capture or kill bin Laden quickly, like within a year's time to have some standing in the 2002 elections.
Post new comment