Slate's Bizbox
politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Gore's WarCan Al Gore rouse the Democrats?

By Joe Klein
Posted Thursday, Sept. 26, 2002, at 2:05 PM ET
Speaking his mind

The default position on Al Gore appears to be ridicule. He opens his mouth and is immediately assumed cynical, tactical, self-serving, self-pitying, awkward, embarrassing, unintentionally hilarious, or all of the above. Much of this comes from Republicans, who seem afflicted by near-psychotic rhetorical twitching whenever the man who won the popular vote in the year 2000 makes a public appearance. This week, for example, an amoeba from the GOP National Committee stepped out and pronounced Gore's speech about Iraq "more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate." But the press has been equally dismissive (including me). And so have many of his fellow Democrats.

A few months ago, Gore told some of his closest supporters that he'd made a mistake in the 2000 campaign by paying too much attention to "polls, tactics, and all the rest. … I should have let it rip, poured out my heart, and my vision … and let the chips fall where they may." These quite sensible remarks occasioned a small tornado of disdain from the press and political consultants. James Carville and others said, inaccurately, that Gore was blaming his consultants. He wasn't. He was blaming himself. It was, in fact, an altogether admirable pronouncement: Would that more politicians were able to distance themselves, from time to time, from their witch doctors. Perhaps a new campaign position should be created—angel's advocate: an adviser who counsels candidates to talk about the issues they really care about rather than pandering to the solipsistic laments of nitwit focus groups. But that's another story … or maybe it isn't.

Because it seems that Gore has decided to be as good as his word. His Iraq speech this week was rather inconvenient for Democrats—especially those in Congress running for re-election, who have "decided" to take Iraq off the table as quickly as possible so they can go home and talk about prescription drug benefits for senior citizens and other issues that poll well. Indeed, it is now assumed that most Democrats will stow their doubts and better instincts and rush a vote in favor of the president's war resolution—because their political consultants are convinced that Iraq is a "bad" issue for them!

The unanimity of this conviction among consultants (and the willingness of commentators to buy into it) should give us pause. It is especially noxious because the issues the consultants want Democrats to run on—pandering to the elderly, demagoguing on entitlements, and blaming George W. Bush for the business cycle—are minuscule when compared to the decisions about to be taken by the Bush administration. This is not merely about Iraq: The White House is proposing a radical new military and diplomatic doctrine for the United States—the right to intervene, unilaterally and pre-emptively, whenever we see fit. This has actually been put into writing, into words so simple, the president has said, that "the boys in Lubbock can understand it."

And the Democrats don't want to talk about it? What can one say about such monumental fecklessness? Perhaps this: Any local candidate who refuses to address, in detail, these essential issues of war and peace is trying to distract the public from the most important national discussion since the end of the Cold War and therefore deserves to lose.

Al Gore's speech wasn't a masterpiece. It seemed hastily composed and rewritten (Gore has an unfortunate habit of pulling sweaty all-nighters before a major address). William Safire has noted some of the sloppy, contradictory thinking. And an argument can be made that there was politics involved—that Gore was positioning himself for 2004.

But raising an important issue for tactical effect is quite different from ignoring an issue for tactical convenience. Gore performed an essential public service. He nudged a necessary debate. And he raised a crucial distinction: A war against Iraq and the war on terrorism are not identical. Indeed, an immediate attack (in January, one assumes) on Saddam Hussein—which everyone expects, and we must hope, will result in a rapid success—could complicate the larger campaign. A successful war against Iraq raises at least three nettlesome questions:

Will it increase or decrease the threat of a biological or chemical attack on the United States?

Will it increase or decrease the stability of the region?

Will it increase or decrease the number of young Muslims who believe the prevailing propaganda about America's moral and spiritual role in the world?

Almost every politician I've spoken with—Democrat and Republican—has grave doubts about at least some of the details of the operation that we seem to be hurtling toward. After all, for the past 20 years it has been America's tacit but obvious policy to keep Saddam Hussein in power, weapons of mass destruction and all, because his removal was likely to destabilize the region. There are Kurds in the north of Iraq, Shiites (a majority of the population) in the south, Sunnis in between; their postwar loyalties and configurations are unpredictable. It is also quite probable that the next government in Iraq will not be perceived by its neighbors as the avatar of democracy and religious tolerance in the region, but as an American client state. The notion that the incipient pummeling of Baghdad will usher in an Islamic Enlightenment is laughable.

Furthermore, as the American military pieces are slowly wheeled into place for the campaign, Saddam's chemical and biological labs are likely to be shut down, the germs and gases that are transportable put in suitcases—and then sold or given away to the very people we fear.

And these are only the most obvious questions. Perhaps the president and his advisers have planned for all this and for the dozens of other profound issues raised by this proposed course of action. Perhaps they have devised the strategies that will assure the results we want. Perhaps they have answers that they can't share with us now.

But the recent history of American foreign policy—not just in this administration, but in the previous one as well—has not been marked by careful planning, long-range thinking, or attention to detail. The Clinton White House was plagued by intermittent focus on overseas issues, indecisiveness, and an inability to know when and how to use force. The Bush administration has pursued international policies that are at once cynical, ideological, and dangerously simplistic. The rush to open a new front in a complicated war, the tendency of conservatives (and their propagandists) to go berserk whenever legitimate questions are raised, the giddy moral certainty in the air, the fact that we are not talking about one quick war against an obvious psychopath but about actions—and a fundamental shift in American policy—that may well echo and shape the world for the next 50 years—all this should cause us to pause, slow down, talk this over.

Al Gore's speech was a good start. And more, it was a gauntlet wisely thrown. Those politicians—Democrat and Republican—who neglect these crucial issues now, for whatever reasons, should be taken at face value: Apparently, they have nothing of interest to say. We should remember their silence the next time they ask for our votes.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Joe Klein is a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author of The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton.
Photograph of Al Gore by Herwig Prammer/Reuters.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Notes From The Fray Editor:

The Politics discussion has not been much of a discussion, despite (or, because of) the number of posts. Readers might try to follow up one of the longer posts below. And when they do, they might try to emulate some of the pithiness of the shorter selections at the top.

Remarks From The Fray:

And did anyone else think that his comment that Gore's speeches tend to be hastily written pronouncements ... oh, just like the writers and fraysters at Slate

-- Joe

(To reply, click here.)

If Gore steps out on the Iraq issue and is shown to be prescient he will have a political foundation upon which he can build another campaign for Prersident. If he turns out to be wrong, he has lost nothing.

-- H.L. Mencken

(To reply, click here.)

What's strange about the reaction to Gore's speech is that nobody -- until Klein -- seems to give a rat's ass what he said, only about why he said it. Even the NY TIMES stooped to this form of punditry. Tell me, if I told you that you ought to divorce your wife, would you ask
"what's in it for you?" or would you ask "why would I want to do that?" Gore did, in fact, give reasons for his position, but all anybody wants to talk about is his motivation.

-- The Slasher

(To reply, click here.)

A truly courageous position would have been to have stated whether or not he believed, given what we know, that we should invade Iraq. He didn't. Instead, it seems like he asked for a delay for more information. But if the cards were on the table, and Bush wanted to go tomorrow, would Gore have the courage then to say no? I doubt it.

-- zoomzip

(To reply, click here.)

Klein makes a good point about the right: the country allows Bush and his advisors to bray about a world whose history and politics they haven't learned, simplify the globe's labyrinthine arrangments as if they were the malleable stuff of a Clint Eastwood movie, and puff themselves up as if advertising new communications software -- all the while working to make the world a more dangerous place. And Klein is right to commend Gore for saying why we need to push back at them, too.

-- Lyall Bush

(To reply, click here.)

The Democrats have been down this road with Mr. Bush once before, with the passage of his tax cut. They knew the Adminstration was lying about the numbers. They knew it was irresponsible. They knew it shifted the burden from the wealthy onto the middle class. They knew Bush had no mandate, and that his margin in Congress was razor thin. Yet the Dems decided it was better to lie down and pass the bill than to take a principled stand. Now, as the country is heading into a death spiral of megabuck deficits, the Dems can't even muster an "I told you so", much less the courage to repeal the provisions that have yet to take effect.

Today the President is asking the Congress to rubber-stamp an even more reckless policy, one that is likely to cost the United States untold money AND lives. Once again the country is being driven to the right by a group of radical ideologues who will stop at nothing to achieve their objectives. The Administration has lied about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda, and about any specific threat he may pose to the US. They have pissed off our allies all over the world. Once again, Bush has no mandate---he was not elected on the promise to invade Iraq---yet the Adminstration's idea of compromise on any issue is "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable."

So far, the only criticism from the Dems has come from a politician who's not in office. Someone should tell the Democrats that to be the loyal opposition, one needs to start opposing something.

-- Utek

(To reply, click here.)

In his speech, Mr. Gore went to great pains to bemoan the minor role Congress is playing in the decision to invade Iraq but lays blame for that solely on the President. No blame is ever imputed to members of Congress - from either party - for rolling over and failing to insist upon their prescribed Constitutional authority. Do they really want to stop Bush? All it would take is for any member to introduce a resolution declaring war on Iraq and then have that resolution defeated in one or both houses. That would pretty much remove the perception of any mandate the White House currently claims to hold.

However, rather than calling for an immediate vote, Mr. Gore repeatedly insisted in his speech that this must be thought over carefully and he specifically calls for even the start of debate to be postponed until AFTER the November elections. Indeed, he denounces starting before then as motivated by partisan politics. Mr. Klein views this as laudable wisdom despite being inconvenient for "those in Congress running for re-election, who have 'decided' to take Iraq off the table as quickly as possible so they can go home and talk about prescription drug benefits for senior citizens and other issues that poll well." I agree this about running for re-election and polling well but I believe Gore's call for a slowdown in the debate and vote is not unintentionally meant to inconvenience incumbent Democrats but intentionally meant to help them.

I tend to agree that starting debate now will probably help President Bush. But if Mr. Gore is against partisan politics, why does he call for delay when the bulk of his speech focused on the Iraqi invasion as a major blunder that needed to be addressed and stopped? I think it is because Gore knows full well - regardless of when the vote comes - that many Democratic members of Congress ultimately will: 1) Support the invasion; and 2) Grant President Bush some form of the vague and far-reaching powers he requests rather than stand up to their responsibility to declare war on Iraq (or refuse to), as mandated of them by the Constitution. However, if the debate and vote come BEFORE the November elections, the American public may be left seeing little difference to U.S. foreign policy whether Democrats or Republicans control Congress. If Democratic anti-war incumbents are forced to stand and make a protracted fight in Washington debates, they cannot stump in their home districts. God forbid the President requires a bunch of politicians to face political consequences at a time when it is vital for the nation that they act but one that is inconvenient for them.

If I may paraphrase Mr. Klein's closing paragraph slightly, I think he says it all. "Al Gore's speech was a good start. And more, it was a gauntlet wisely thrown. Those politicians - Democrat and Republican - who neglect [their responsibilities] now, for whatever reasons, should be taken at face value: Apparently, they have nothing [of conscience] to say [if it is unpopular]. We should remember their silence the next time they ask for our votes." The problem is that - if Gore has his way - by the time we understand the significance of their silence, they will already have our votes. Mr. Gore HAS made a good start in his race to oppose an Iraqi invasion. However, by allowing the President to continue to hold the mandate longer in order to serve partisan politics, Gore did NOT throw a gauntlet - this racehorse just threw a shoe.

-- The Bell

(To reply, click here.)

Secure in the knowledge that all of the leading Democrats who may run against him for the Presidential nomination and who actually have to vote on Iraq in the coming weeks either genuinely support Bush's policy or feel obliged for political reasons to keep a low profile about the issue, while voting, yes, on the resolution that will pass Congress overwhelmingly. This gives Gore a powerful lever to use in the primaries and caucuses in places like New Hampshire and Iowa where he will be campaigning in little more than a year. Left-leaning voters in Democratic primaries are a decisive group. Although comprising only about 5% of the adult US population, given turn-out rates, these voters make up as much as 10% of all voters and 20% or more of voters in Democratic primaries (as much as a third in some states). Gore already has two advantages over all of his would-be opponents: his name recognition and his status as the presumptive nominee, the guy to beat. His challengers could upset his front-runner status in a few key primaries by running to his left. His Iraq position, coupled with their "feckless" (as Klein put it) support of a second Gulf war will make that impossible. If the war happens and is a resounding success, Gore will be able to say that he was just raising important questions, and he will retain the sympathy he wins on the left.

-- Publius

(To reply, click here.)

(9/27)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton