Because You Never Asked

WHY AL GORE LOST

     (I put this essay up just days before the election of 2004. Over the last decade or so, the Democrats seem to have perfected a way to lose elections from positions of strength. Bush-Kerry appears to have the same pedigree, though this writer suggests a media bias hell bent on perpetrating perhaps one of our country’s most failed presidencies. In spite of such mitigation, the Democrats have shown a sluggishness in presenting themselves that could almost be seen as traditional by now.)

     Lost amidst the substantial wreckage of the 2000 election circus, is the fact that Al Gore did a less than admirable job defending a strong position. Most sports fans know the difference between a competitor that wins because of superior talent and one that inherits victory because of someone’s poor play. In this case, it’s fair to say that George W. Bush did not win this election, but rather, Al Gore lost it … and I’m not talking about popular-electoral vote ambiguities or irregularities at the polls. If the vice president had played a good game it never would have come to that.

     Obviously, especially in this age of media overkill, personality plays a substantial role on the vast stage of political vaudeville. George W., with his yuckity-yuck, back slapping demeanor, was the more comfortable campaigner. It’s interesting to note that Gore was overwhelmingly considered the “smarter” candidate, and yet, not only did this not seem to help, it might be said it was held against him. What this says for the American voter is far too complex for this writer to unravel, other than to suggest some kind of professional study of this phenomenon.

     In the end, it wasn’t Gore’s less than cuddly personality that brought him down, but more his poor campaign strategy, both before and after November 7^th.

     Much of what went wrong for Gore was mysteriously related to Bill Clinton. Anytime a vice president becomes the candidate he must show that he can come out of the shadows and assume the leading role. It is very difficult for a sitting president to play a pro-active role in his vice president’s run for the White House. Other than to raise some money, all he can do is sit back and smugly support his faithful servant from the Oval Office.

     But Clinton is not your average president. His less than sterling performance in the theater of “family values” (perhaps he can land a job endorsing Viagra when he becomes unemployed) complicated the issue. Gore was forced to make the uncomfortable decision of either being proud of his role in the previous administration, or running away from it.

     He made the wrong decision by running away from Bill Clinton. This made it more difficult to position his campaign directly over the solid bedrock of the easily quantifiable accomplishments of the Clinton-Gore administration. If Clinton had won with his “it’s the economy, stupid” strategy, Gore should have won with an “it’s still the economy, stupid” strategy. There never should have been one day during this campaign where the Gore camp was not reminding us of the longest economic growth, the lowest unemployment, the smallest inflation, the booming market, consumer confidence, the obliterated deficit, the balanced budget, the surplus, and all that indecipherable gibberish that plays so well on and off political Broadway. Instead, he tried to stay afoot on the loose sands of “special interests”, claiming his opponent represented such (he’s right), while he didn’t (well, maybe a bit less).

     It’s hard to say just how sincere Al Gore was in this assertion. Maybe he would have been less beholding to special interests than George W., something just about anyone with the ability to walk upright can make claim to. But in the mega-cynical climate now pervading American politics, where both Parties are raising millions on a weekly basis, trying to convince someone of this is akin to selling weight loss devices that require no change in diet and no exercise, a hard sell indeed.

     It’s the economy Al, and you forgot it.

     Undoubtedly, Gore’s decision to distance himself from Clinton was premised upon that vaguely romantic American political notion called “integrity”. Al ran scared from the “integrity” issue and allowed Bush to win this section of the electorate’s voting psyche, even though he had absolutely no claim to it. This was a battle that had already been fought during the Lewinsky saga, and Clinton, after some fancy bobbing and weaving, came out with only some minor scrapes and bruises. If the opposition could not KO Bill with his own wrongdoing, trying to pin it on Gore would be next to impossible.

     Instead of trying to sidestep the integrity issue, he should have met it head on. His rosy-cheeked family, with its prototypical sit-com wholesomeness, could have been a tremendous asset for him. His seemingly wonderful relationship with his Homecoming Queen wife could have been seen as a warm and huggy relief to the soap opera days of Bill and Hillary. His participation in the Vietnamese conflict, which had him swimming against the tide of his generation’s patriotic abdication, was a trump card his draft-dodging opponent would be hard pressed to respond to. (This would all be lightly insinuated and not brought into the fray with a megaphone.) By being paranoid with Clinton’s integrity problems, he kept the issue alive without being able to defend himself. Being that Bush really didn’t have any substantive issues to sell himself with, he used the “integrity” gambit as a steady backdrop to his campaign. Gore should have called him out on it. If Bush tried to insinuate Clinton’s moral transgressions to him … well, it’s such an easily defended position that luring Bush into such waters might be seen as a deft political ploy. One must remember that vice president Ford never abandoned Richard Nixon and eventually pardoned him. In addition, Gore could easily have chastised his president for his moral hiccups, while running on his administration’s policy successes.

     Up until the year 2000, Harry Truman’s upset of Thomas Dewey in 1948 might have been considered our country’s most memorable election. It can safely be said that this is no longer so, with 2000 having become the Mark McGwire of elections, obliterating the record books perhaps until the end of the American “Reich’s” run on this planet. For the first time in American history --- and in a totally unforeseen way --- the election campaign actually went on for six weeks after Election Day. At first glance this might seem an overstatement, being that the whole “fandango” was seemingly put in the hands of legions of lawyers, judges, and anonymous electoral officials, while the candidates watched from the sidelines. But public opinion is always an important factor, and, once again, Al Gore’s performance on the far side of Election Day was less than optimal.

     For George W., as the presumed winner, his role after November 7^th was fairly clear --- just lay low, stay out of it, make a brief appearance in church once in awhile, smile, be confident and keep your foot away from your mouth. (For any person responsible for getting this man into the White House, such a scenario could only be seen with great relief.) But for Gore, who was challenging the decision on the field, his burden was somewhat weightier. As the presumed loser, he had to keep the public involved as the whole process inched its agonizing way across the tangled swamp of legal proceedings.

     Al Gore should never have let the American people forget, not for one instance, that he got more votes than his opponent. I’ve heard many a Republican rationalization for this state of affairs, including one laughable comment from George W. himself, claiming that his strategy was to win the Electoral College (do they have a football team?) and not the popular vote. None of these Republican apologists ever explained the true reason for the Electoral College, that being as a safeguard for the post-colonial elite against any absurd decisions by the riffraff. In any event, if Gore had kept the topic alive, it’s a point of discussion his opponents would undoubtedly not want to enter into.

     Certainly, the vice president would have to be tactful in stoking the popular vote embers, in no way insinuating this entitled him to the election. But as a means to justify his challenge in Florida, where there were more than obvious reasons to pursue such a course, it gave him a moral high ground to proceed with. As a corollary to this strategy, he could have explained that if not for his victory in the popular vote, he would not have challenged the outcome in Florida, not wanting to put the country through such a traumatic experience with less votes than his opponent. After having so jabbed his way in, he could have delivered a solid right hand to the jaw by explaining how he owed those who gave him more votes (emphasize it) this obligation.

     A few weeks after November 7^th, the fact that Al Gore had gotten more votes than Gorge W. Bush had been buried under the tedious nature of the legal proceedings. The public began to drift away. Adios Al.

     Perhaps Al Gore would have been a better president than candidate. It would seem almost impossible for that not to have been true.  

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info