In response to Part I, one commenter on my website wrote, after declaring that I'd gone bonkers:
Do you suppose that any one man can change the historical trend that has existed for more than half a century, and put the historical toothpaste back in the historical tube? There can be better or worse presidents in 2008 but the simple truth of the matter is that the election isn't going to change anything much."
Which raises the question: what indeed does the record of history allow us to hope for in terms of what the best possible new leadership might achieve?
This commenter acknowledges that there might be better or worse presidents, but says that the difference between the best and the worst presidents we might get will not matter much.
But I would say that any reasonably sensible observer of the American scene in 2006 would say that getting the presidency of George W. Bush was MUCH WORSE than alternative possibilities (whether we confine ourselves to Gore in 2000, or simply compare the conduct of this presidency with that of other presidencies of the past).
And is there any reason to believe that what was true on the downside would not also be true on the upside?
Moreover, though the full achievement of all those goals I listed in the first installment may be unreasonable to hope, surely it matters plenty how much progress we make toward their achievement. These goals are not matters of all-or-nothing.
I'll tell you the historical example that I have in mind in my envisioning of what I hope our next leadership might accomplish. I'm thinking of what FDR accomplished upon becoming president in the election of 1932.
Then, as now, the country was in terrible shape. In that case, it was a break down of the economic system. Now it is a breakdown of those aspects of the culture that converge on our governmental system (moral, legal, political, media).
FDR, it is often said, saved capitalism. But he did more than that. He made use of that breakdown to create a new kind of society by expanding in creative ways the role of government in the life of the nation and of its citizens. Not everything worked, of course, but with the Civilian Conservation Corps and Social Security and countless other programs, he gave impetus to a more humane, more liberal kind of American capitalist democracy. The wave he imparted into our political system continued to carry America forward in many important (and valuable) ways for almost half a century.
In my view, FDR was a great president. In the century since Mount Rushmore was carved into that rock (a travesty, I know), there's only one president who has served who belongs up there. And that's Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Had the president elected in 1932 been a mediocre president, or perhaps even a poor one, what would have happened? My guess is that America would have taken a very different path and become a different, and lesser, nation. Even if we exclude the scenario (not impossible) that the Depression could have led to the breakdown of democracy and the rise of either a fascist or communist dictatorship --not impossible, I would guess-- a less visionary, less constructive, less effective, less inspiring leader would have bequeathed to America a lesser future than we got because this particular man became president at that time of crisis.
Perhaps to an observer during the Depression year 1931, anyone who'd proposed that a leader might take the country to the place where it was by the end of FDR's tenure would have seemed bonkers, calling for "putting the historical toothpaste back into the historical tube."
That whole image of putting the toothpaste back into the tube --that it's bonkers to imagine reversing the trends of one's times-- is a counsel of despair. It suggests that the course of history is ruled by inevitability. The course of history reveals, on the contrary, that history can take different courses depending on matters that are not inevitable-- such as whether Booth could succeed in killing Lincoln, and whether the ballot in Long Beach County was confusing to voters in 2000.
But even if we were simply uncertain whether history's course was inevitable --and how could anyone be CERTAIN that nothing we can do might turn around the destructive tendencies of recent times?-- it would seem that rationality and prudence would require us to choose as Pascal did in his famous wager: he operated on the assumption that there IS a God, reasoning that if he did so and he was wrong, the cost of his error was nothing great, but if he lived as if there were no God (who judges mortals) and he was wrong about THAT, then he'd pay a huge price for eternity.
Likewise, we who do not fully understand the workings of history are called upon to choose not the self-fulfilling path of despair but rather that of hope. And this path includes looking to the possibility that great leadership can make a difference.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
There was a press-conference recently and Gore was there. Not only did he look unhealthy and everyone could see that but also it was evident that any notion about running for Presidency made him extremely nervous. He definitley felt very uncomfortable hearing those as if he was genuinely scared of someone really contemplating that idea. He will not run. He is not supposed to run. There is an agreement between the powers and that agreement stays. I surely may be mistaken but that is how it seems: Gore is given a carte-blanche to make his own life outside of the US politics. And I think, that on the Donkey side that agreement is maintained by none less but Clintonians.
I do not judge him. If the fear is so great as I saw him exhibiting, he does the right thing.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 2:05:11 PM
I can name Khrushev who was ousted but not eliminated or curbed significantly. In England such cases are rather common- a person is explicitly told that he/she can 'exist' until he/she mingles in politics again. I guess the consequences of violating such agreements are different in different places. When Khrushev started to dictate his memoirs and those somehow got abroad he was summoned to HQ and, per witnesses, that's when he first felt a heart problem.
In Gore's case ( and that is only my guess), he could mingle into things which has nothing to do with real power- like go to London for a while, engage in climate issues, whatever. He even could criticise the administration slightly.. But he could not (and he did not) revive the issues of Y2000, he could not openly run again and he could not put himself as a political leader in the US once again. Gore practically followed this arrangement to the letter as well as Clintonians (Clinton& Clinton so far never mentioned Gore and distanced themselves from him). It is understandable that a powerful political person as he was, a former VP and President of the Senate Gore could do much more and develop a populist movement if only he wanted and he could. At least he could help some another candidate. He apparently can't. You do not have to be a very attentive person to notice a genuine fear and that is what I saw in his behavior at the conference. I agree, I may be mistaken. But our media NEVER uses any similar arguments ( similar to mine, about the behavior) and people are not used to that. Maybe they should start looking. Again, I do not judge. If I am right and Gore does what he does because of this, I can only be sad, but no more.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 250 diaries, 3574 comments)
on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 2:55:19 PM
I don't know what all is or isn't true along such lines, but a couple of other things I can say:
1) It has been notable over the past year and more that, while not making any clear indication that he will run, Gore has refrained on numerous occasions from making any Sherman-like "will not run" responses to questions posed on the subject.
2) It was reported last week that some people close to Gore are about to have some big meeting soon about trying to get Gore running, and the person reporting that --I do not recall who it was, but it was a responsible-seeming journalist-- commented that they wouldn't be going to such trouble if the door were really closed to the possibility.
From which I conclude that Gore's running is a possibility.
My guess is that he's seriously considering it, that he hasn't made his mind up, and that he's taking a wait-and-see approach, perhaps in the belief that he can afford to hold out on deciding or announcing in a way that other candidates could not.
My recommendation, as I will indicate in a later installment, would be that he begin a kind of campaign very soon, perhaps launched in a way --albeit without an announcement-- with his acceptance speech on Oscar night (assuming that he wins the Oscar, on which I am willing to bet).
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 4:33:31 PM
Did you just conflate the saving of capitalism with the greatness of America? If FDR hadnt "saved" capitalism, if indeed he did so, I seriously believe it would have saved itself. I also believe that it is a system rather prone to excess, you know stuff like war for profit, like hiring illegals to work for less money and no benefits, like destroying the middle class for fun and profit, like buying politicians by the bucketful and getting corporate welfare while destroying the safety nets of seniors and children, and oh maybe like turning health care into a profitable business that unfortunately excludes 45 or more million Americans from its embrace.
Is it that capitalism that you hold up as the savior of our nation?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 5:42:37 PM
"FDR, it is often said, saved capitalism. But he did more than that. He made use of that breakdown to create a new kind of society by expanding in creative ways the role of government in the life of the nation and of its citizens. Not everything worked, of course, but with the Civilian Conservation Corps and Social Security and countless other programs, he gave impetus to a more humane, more liberal kind of American capitalist democracy. The wave he imparted into our political system continued to carry America forward in many important (and valuable) ways for almost half a century."
"FDR's accomplishment was not just returning America to the path of prosperity (if, indeed, that was his accomplishment at all). It was utilizing the fluidity of a time of redefinition to accomplish many of the things that had been envisioned by progressives for a couple of generations, but had been blocked by the established powers from realization. He made America more than it had ever been."
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 5:54:45 PM
First, he lost the election in 2004. Nader and the Green Party contributed to it by not only denying Gore crucial votes in an election they knew would be so very close after eight years of a Democrat in office and denying him their energy to get him elected. Gore never fought with any of the fire we have seen him fight with in the past seven years. He just smiled and took it like a nice guy.
Second, He never used President Clinton because he grossly miscalculated Clinton's popularity with the voting public, and Clinton's ability to create enthusiasm which results in money and votes.
Though I think he would be a very good President, which Gore will we have in the General Election.
One more thing, he may be politically smarter than I give him credit; he may be waiting for Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and Senator Edwards to ware each other out, end up in a stalemate and step in at the last minute as the new candidate, clean as a virgin. He would only have to face the ravages of the General Election. My question is: Would he have enough money to succeed in the last minute or is a Democrat a shoo in if the economy keeps going down hill and the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan remain as terrible as they are.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 11:00:26 AM
I am a fan of FDR, less so of rampant capitalism. I believe thaat the greatness of this nation is measured in the quality of its people, in their hopes and concerns and not in the successes of its corporations.
Somewhat like FDR I believe that a combination of private enterprise and government run services is the solution to much of what ails us as a nation. Some things are simply not for profit and lend themselves, as apparently FDR believed as well, to being administered by our governments, national, state and local.
We see, around this world, ample evidence that this works , and works well.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 12:29:23 PM
i also would give much consideration to al gore who actually won the ;presidency in 2000 except for crooked voting.global warming is one of the 2 main issues ready to destroy America and the world.The other issue is nafta,cafta and all the other free trade agreements which are not only destroying our economy but our way of life lowering wagews and living standards.Because Gore worked with Clinton who was part of the problem started by Regan i would have to know his stand on free trade which is leading us to another depression.
by
liberalsrock (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 126 comments)
on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 9:09:22 AM
If you were trying to do a parody of libs' wishful thinking,
sighing wistfully about a champion riding to save us on a white horse, you might write something like this.
The real Al Gore has never been anywhere near the hero you'd like to portray him as. He has never in any way articulated opposition to the military-industrial complex, which is now rapidly destroying our society. He has never seriously opposed profoundly immoral American wars, either. (He was quiet as a churchmouse in the 80's, as Reagan smashed Nicaraguan society, & funded death squads in El Salvador.)
Even on his signature issue, global warming, Gore is oddly restrained when it comes to identifying the real culprits in the developing disaster: the influence of the oil giants. His position is contradictory: he wants to direct attention towards climate change, but lacks the political courage to say who's responsible and why.
Sure, if he had been appointed president in 2000 instead of a corrupt tyrant & warmonger who can't even speak English, things would have been better. Or at least, they would have appeared to be better on the surface. They would have allowed the US to continue with its thin veneer of pseudo-"democracy," while just under the surface, the corporate oligarchy would still be pulling all the strings.
It doesn't help us to nurture illusions in figures like Gore who, though decent enough in a personal sense, have never evinced the political courage to challenge the malignant elements of US society which need to be challenged.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1212 comments)
on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 10:43:04 AM
Yes, in a way this IS "wishful thinking," but not in the sense of its being necessarily unrealistic: rather, it's my way of envisioning the best of our POSSIBLE futures. And it is certainly no parody.
As I say above, I do not believe that Gore would have been a great president had he taken office in 2001. Good, but nothing special. Since then, something has changed in the man, and he HAS spoken out courageously on several issues.
He denounced the war passionately BEFORE it began, which was not a politically safe thing to do. He's denounced these BUshites. And he's chosen to make his place in the world the last year or two as the messenger bringing us "An Inconvenient Truth."
How many politicians do you know who ever are willing to tell us any truths that are not convenient?
For the past almost forty years, I've made my way in the world --such as it has been-- by speaking the truth as I know it and letting the chips fall where they may. In terms of getting ahead in the world, and even making a living, I've paid an enormous price. But that's the path I chose.
I would NEVER judge a serious politician according to the standard of truth-telling appropriate to my path. Letting the chips fall where they may is not only unreasonable to expect in a politician, it is downright irresponsible.
A politician who is vying to get access to the power that comes, in our society, from winning elections must master "the art of the possible," which includes the art of knowing what is possible to say while maintaining an appeal to a majority of the electorate and the other powers that govern our electoral process.
If you don't care about who actually WINS an election, you can choose to celebrate a Dennis Kucinich or a Ralph Nader. And then you can also LIVE with having a George W. BUsh in the White House.
If your eyes remain fixed on how to get to the best of our POSSIBLE scenarios, then you can engage in the kind of "wishful thinking" I'm practicing here.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (314 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 146 comments)
on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 12:27:33 PM
Nicely parried, but here's the rub. You're tacitly admitting
that in our system, political leaders can't tell the truth. That's basically what you mean by "the art of the possible" -- accepting the established limits on truth-telling. How can the malignant elements of the system ever be seriously challenged, in such a framework? All the advocates of the military-industrial complex, all the lobbyists and rightwing think-tanks, etc, are all set up to watch developments like hawks. If they detect the slightest whiff about a potential leading figure that smells the least bit suspicious -- that seems the least bit "unreliable" from their point of view -- they destroy that figure. (In fact, that's why they backed Bush over Gore in 2000: they judged that Bush was 100% rock-solid reliable, while Gore had a bit too much innate decency, & might have occasionally gone populist on them. They figured he was only about 95% reliable, in other words.)
If one accepts this kind of setup, it's basically surrendering to the system's dictates. These people are not stupid, know where their interests lie, & have set up the system so that they can't possibly lose. If you accept the current framework -- ie, the 2-party system (where both parties are basically big-business parties), and the established limits on truth-telling, the very best you can get is a Dem vs Repub election where both candidates have been thoroughly vetted by the dominant corporate interests. Once you've got that, there's no realistic prospect for meaningful change -- which of course is the whole point of setting things up that way.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1212 comments)
on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 2:59:18 PM
I wish I could see the end of this "lesser of two evils" political philosophy from one so learned and otherwise astute.
Sometimes, Andrew, the way to achieve ones goals lie with taking a different road and achieving a change of vision. Your denial of support for those like Kucinich and Nader, even though it is they who speak for you best, shows an impatience perhaps, or an unwillingness to work to achieve a result that may just take more time than you are willing to commit to, yet to support those who fail to support you seems a foolish commitment to expediency.
I believe that a vote for one who fails to speak or act as you would wish is a vote for the failure of your own political vision. It guarrantees the status quo, is that what you really want?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 7:19:43 PM
13 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
