Just not the nominee you're thinking of.
Was Gore speaking like this in 2000? Because that's not how I remember it. For my money, this is much better than Obama's DNC speech - outstanding rhetoric, important instances of substance, and (a personal bugbear of mine) respectful towards opponents.
Gore's probably overselling his candidate, but it's pretty tough to argue after hearing this that there aren't important differences between Obama and the status quo, and that Obama wasn't on the right side of those differences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well, Al Gore was somewhat handicapped in 2000...it's hard to criticise the status quo when you have been a prominent part of the establishment for the past 8 years.
And both Gore and the world have changed in the years since. Freed of the need to draw votes, Gore has been much more vocal on the issues he cares about, and I think more eloquent as well.
In the wider world, the divide between what the Republicans stand for and what the Democrats stand for has become much starker and more visible. I think it took the years of mismanagement to really make it clear that maybe lower taxes aren't the be all and end all of good government.
I have a recording of Gore's convention speech from 2000. Listen to it and he speaks passionately and eloquently about helping the "people" against the "powerful". Gore's problem in 2000 was that
(a) that wasn't a great message in 2000. Gore was running to the left of most independent voters. In 2008, with government policy having shifted to the right of independents, they now want to shift back left. The economy hurting, debt increasing, capital squeezed, etc. hasn't helped.
(b) as Neil alludes, Gore was the establishment in 2000. And railing against the "powerful" falls flat when you are the powerful and you've been meeting with lobbyists, possibly collecting illegal campaign donations, and racking up soft money donations in record amounts for the past 8 years.
(c) all of Gore's passion when contrasted with Bush's coolness and ease made Gore look like some angry guy lecturing Americans on what they should think. That passion works today when so many are angry with Bush and share the passion of the message, but that passion was a liability in 2000. Bush looked like the friendly, charming guy you wanted to go hang out with. No one wanted to be with Gore and hear him shout at you about government policy. Today, of course, Bush's self-confident ease and calmness is seen as a sign of arrogance and cowboy attitude.
As for respect of opponents, I find Obama and McCain (and Gore in this speech) have become more talk than substance. It's all fine and well to say "I respect McCain and think he's a good guy" but it's meaningless if your very next words are to twist McCain's foreign policy and environmental policy to make him seem like Bush. It's no better than when McCain praises Obama and then insults his understanding of foreign policy rather than addressing the substance of the disagreement. It's become in vogue to say you're respectful of your opponent, but no one is actually acting that way.
Finally, as for Obama being on the right side of the differences, agreed. But on global warming, the economy, torture, detainee treatment, and several other issues, McCain can make the same argument. And on Iraq, McCain can make a strong case that he wouldn't have blown the occupation the way Bush/Rumsfeld/Powell/Rice did. I don't think characterizing this race as Obama/Change v. Status Quo is correct, though I think it will be the framing that sticks and wins the election for Obama.
- Mustafa Hirji
When I said "speaking like this", I wasn't so much talking about the subject matter ("Change!") as about the eloquence and passion. Mustafa, you say that his passion in 2000 hurt him, but I don't actually remember much passion at all - in my memory, it was mostly detached condescension.
I agree with you about the respect for opponents thing generally, but I thought this speech was actually pretty good in that department. More broadly, I think Gore is pretty good in that department - I read the Assault on Reason recently (good, but not great), and I think he's consistently fair and respectful in his analysis of the current government, even as his central thesis is that there are big, big problems with this government.
I also agree with you that McCain *can* make those arguments. For party reasons, though, I don't think he will, except maybe on the torture one.
...I think it will be the framing that sticks and wins the election for Obama.
Remind me, Mustafa, who did you pick in 2000?
I have a copy of Gore's convention speech so I can give you a listen sometime. He's pretty passionate in it.
I thought Gore showed only faux respect to McCain—he basically played the current Democrat framing game to make McCain look like Bush and a continuation of the status quo. On the issues he then mentioned, McCain isn't onside with Bush on many of them. So I don't think it was terribly respectful. He might have been respectful of Bush, but it seemed mostly critical which isn't the usual tone of respect. I'd have to take another listen to properly assess it for fairness of criticism.
As for McCain, I think he will run more on his ideas that are less ideologically right-wing. He's trying to give the party confidence in him, but he'll soon switch his talking points in hope of picking up votes he needs to win and hope the GoP will vote for him rather than let Obama win. That's really what every candidate does (think Bush and "compassionate conservatism" and his promises to regulate CO2 emissions, etc. in 2000).
I picked Gore in 2000. Why do you ask?
- Mustafa Hirji
I'd appreciate hearing that speech - could you e-mail it to me or upload it to somewhere?
As for the respectful thing, I've been disappointed at the extent to which McCain has sounded exactly like Bush since winning the nomination (and even before, really). McCain definitely has a record that would allow him to draw sharp contrasts between himself and Bush, but he's been reluctant to do so. If he's going to characterize himself as staying the course, I see no problem with Gore repeating the characterization.
I know you picked Gore in 2000 (I remember reading your reasons on your website). That's why I asked.
McCain has followed the Bush line on Iraq (which is arguably Bush following McCain's line), judges, and social security. He's taken different approaches to the economy, the environment, health care, foreign policy, and immigration. I don't think it's fair to lump him in with Bush.
- Mustafa Hirji
This is a pretty good article on Bush and McCain's policy differences. I disagree that Bush and McCain are in lockstep on the economy (this article assumes that economy=taxes and McCain's differences with Bush aren't on taxes). As well, I'd argue their health care plans are different—the only similarity is in their favouring a market-based approach, but the details of the plans are very different.
- Mustafa Hirji
Post a Comment