As Nobel Prize winner Al Gore receives the world's acclaim, many Americans count the days until the end of the Bush era.

::::::::

As Al Gore Stands on the Receiving End of the World's Acclaim, Americans Count the Days Until the End of the Bush Presidency

So many mis-steps along the way 

"Where can you run ,if there is no world of your own?

And you know that no one will ever miss you when you're finally gone."

--  "A Sign of the Ages" by Gil Scot-Heron 

Earlier this month, as Al Gore tactfully strode to the podium at a press conference to acknowledge his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, some observers may have reminded themselves about the harsh attitude held by many Americans about the ex-vice President in the immediate aftermath of 911. After that event, for many Americans, any of Gore's perceived strengths became almost instantly irrelevant.

 

Meanwhile, prior to the attacks, the presidency of George W. Bush was itself, rapidly becoming irrelevant.  So, when Bush made his cinematically dramatic "bullhorn" appearance on the "pile" of World Trade Center wreckage, his near-dormant presidency seemed to have caught its stride. Bush, exhibiting buoyancy often evident in someone who had FINALLY found a cause, raised his bullhorn and resolutely warned that "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

 

It was also during that period, that an often-heard refrain: "Thank God, George Bush is president," became an almost national sigh of relief. Even some Gore voters -- doubtlessly swayed toward Bush by the wholly warranted perception of the cerebral Gore as a measured policy wonk -- voiced that sentiment.  Under the circumstances, it was no time for sapiently deep thinkers.  Thus, it was Bush's perceived "tough-talking Texan" aura, not some genteel Beltway establishment persona, that clicked with a public thoroughly convinced that this president was the "right man at the right time."

A series of daily tracking polls focusing on Bush's performance by Zogby International, illustrate this.  They were taken during the first two weeks of October, 2001, which, somewhat ironically, falls within the same period as this year's announcement that Gore would win a Nobel Prize.  Back then, 89 percent of Americans polled gave a positive rating to Bush's response to the attacks and 74 percent said that they had confidence in Bush's ability to handle the continuing crisis.  Meanwhile, his overall approval rating registering a vibrant 80 percent, peaked at 92 percent on October 9 and 10, 2001, which still stands as the highest approval rating ever for a U.S. president.

 

Today, however, while Bush's approval rating, at around 30 percent, is submerged to just above Nixonian/Watergate-era depths of 24 percent, it is the formerly maligned Gore who is now being celebrated -- repeatedly.  Some may allow this celebration to elicit an urge to characterize Gore's Nobel achievement as his long overdue public vindication.  In succumbing to that urge, however, one runs the risk of ignoring the fact that by Gore having won the popular vote in 2000, the need for vindication is rendered moot.  

 

Certainly post-911, whatever remained of the public's tolerance for Gore's cerebral approach seemed to crumble under the sheer weight of the naked vengeance on the minds of many Americans. Yet, scarcely a few months earlier, by popular vote, America had narrowly voiced itself in the affirmative for Gore.  Despite this, the honor of sitting in the Oval Office would eventually go to Bush through judicial fiat.  That being the case, one would expect that the benefactor of a rather dubious legal interpretation would be the one who needs vindication.

 

In truth, rather than a Gore vindication, it seems logical to define the enlightened blowback from the substantially increased awareness produced through his aggressive eco-activism, as Gore's applied rejoinder to the call by the "thank God Bush is president" chorus.  His adroit response, illustrated through the acclaim he has earned for his most recent efforts seems to be: "Here's an example of the kind of thinking America needs in its presidents." 

 A Reign of Error 

So it is that nearly seven years later, the juxtaposed fates of the two former contenders reveal the stark reversal of fortune experienced by both.  Today, with Gore's ascendant arc contrasted by Bush's abiding fall, this turnabout – thoroughly inspired by the individual deeds of both -- is all but complete. And the contrast couldn't be clearer.  Anti-global warming crusader Al Gore seems intent on saving the planet, while George W. Bush, the tough-talking, chest-thumping, self-proclaimed "war president," appears hell-bent on its destruction. 

Indeed, it remains to be seen whether America's experience with the almost stridently anti-intellectual Bush, will have led it to discover that choosing a president based on how well a candidate registers on the "who would I rather have a beer with" scale, is a dangerously low standard indeed.

 

Nevertheless, if Bush embodies just such an individual, very few of the lugubrious by-products of a nearly eight-year reign of error – most notably, initiating ill-planned wars leading to thousands of dead, most of whom have been U.S. soldiers or Iraqi and Afghan civilians – shouldn't come as any surprise.

 

Of course, what many may have certainly found surprising is the mindless fiscal irresponsibility -- once considered synonymous with the Democratic Party -- which has characterized the Bush era.  In the year 2000, after an eight year run of responsible fiscal conduct, the Clinton-Gore Administration managed to erase a multi-billion dollar federal budget deficit amassed over decades of imprudent financial management by mostly Republican administrations.  As a result, upon exiting the White House in January, 2001, the Clinton-Gore Administration handed Bush a $123 billion federal budget surplus. 

 

During the Bush era, largely through his dispersal of billions in federal revenue through lopsided tax cuts, skyrocketing military spending, and little in the way of reduced federal spending, the U.S. economy is now saddled with trillions of dollars in red ink, leaving not just the Clinton-Gore budget surplus little more than a distant memory, but also leaving future generations a colossal mountain of debt.

 

As Bush's gaffes, miscues, and the impact of his managerial incompetence further took hold, America's disillusion over its president's ever more obvious duplicitous nature deepened.  The endless corruption, tawdry scandals, naked incompetence, mounting war dead, high gas prices and quirky economy have now coalesced to become America's long overdue wake up call.  The "it's a good thing Bush was elected," mantra has now been channeled into a serious debate over whether this president will go down as the worst in U.S. history.

 

Might the election of a "measured policy wonk" in 2000 have prevented this?  Who knows?  Yet, in midst of Bush's woeful performance, Gore -- having completed a breathtaking, year long assemblage of a virtuous axis consisting of an Oscar, an Emmy and Nobel Prize -- finds his image as flawed loser continuing to be promulgated.  To offer an example, scarcely one day after Gore won the Nobel award, the opening sentence of a New York Post article on the subject disingenuously reported: "Gore won his first election in 11 years."

 

Considering the Post's political pedigree, that article's premise -- expressed with every bit of the canard one might expect from a Rupert Murdoch-owned New York tabloid -- comes as no surprise.  As long as there are bitter fruit, Gore will continue to be marginalized by the same types who somehow can't manage to find any fault at all in George W. Bush. However, sour grapes certainly don't annul the fact that while Al Gore's year of living splendidly goes on, the majority of Americans continue to count the days until the end of the Bush era. 

 

Under a different set of circumstances, America could well be into the seventh year of a Gore Administration.  Were that so, perhaps this nation would now be enjoying the respect and admiration of a world that sees America as an evolved, progressive and enlightened society bent on using its vast resources to help elevate the status of mankind.  Perhaps it would understand that any so-called "war on terror" initiated by Gore would have been thought out in a way that leads to light at the end of the tunnel rather than a nightmarish endeavor with "no end in sight."  

The reality, however, is that barring the unforeseen, for the remaining 14 months of his presidency, both America and the world are stuck with Bush.  Thus, for most run-of-the-mill Americans "Are we better off as a nation under President Bush?" may be the most important question of the day.   

However, as the countdown to the end of the Bush-era goes on, the question of: "Would this nation be as bad off under President Gore?" is perhaps more compelling. 

Authors Bio:

Anthony Barnes, of Boston, Massachusetts, is a left-handed leftist.

"When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world. I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation. When I found I couldn't change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn't change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family. Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world." - Unknown Monk (1100 AD)