« Prognosticating | Main | What Happened to Rob? »
October 05, 2005
Gore 08 -- Vote for the Firebreather
Man, I don't know what happened to that wooden dude we had a few years back, but these days, each time Al Gore opens his mouth barns everywhere spontaneously burst into flame:
I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse . I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.
[...]
The news divisions - which used to be seen as serving a public interest and were subsidized by the rest of the network - are now seen as profit centers designed to generate revenue and, more importantly, to advance the larger agenda of the corporation of which they are a small part. They have fewer reporters, fewer stories, smaller budgets, less travel, fewer bureaus, less independent judgment, more vulnerability to influence by management, and more dependence on government sources and canned public relations hand-outs. This tragedy is compounded by the ironic fact that this generation of journalists is the best trained and most highly skilled in the history of their profession. But they are usually not allowed to do the job they have been trained to do.
The present executive branch has made it a practice to try and control and intimidate news organizations: from PBS to CBS to Newsweek. They placed a former male escort in the White House press pool to pose as a reporter - and then called upon him to give the president a hand at crucial moments. They paid actors to make make phony video press releases and paid cash to some reporters who were willing to take it in return for positive stories. And every day they unleash squadrons of digital brownshirts to harass and hector any journalist who is critical of the President.
[...]
[I]n order to reclaim our birthright, we Americans must resolve to repair the systemic decay of the public forum and create new ways to engage in a genuine and not manipulative conversation about our future. Americans in both parties should insist on the re-establishment of respect for the Rule of Reason. We must, for example, stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth.
The speech, in addition to being great rhetoric, is a brilliant discourse on emergence of this weird media moment. I'd no idea Al was so erudite -- rarely does a single talk range from John Galbraith to Walter Lippman to Jon Stewart and all the way back to Athens.
Would this be a good time to renew my call for Gore '08?
October 5, 2005 in Election 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834594fb069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gore 08 -- Vote for the Firebreather:
» Al Gore's "Marketplace of Ideas" from Angry in the Great White North
Al Gore says that television has rendered the marketplace of ideas powerless against big money. He looks to the Internet to one day deliver America from the grip of wealthy Republicans. But it seems to me that the Internet so far has been helping Re... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 3:22:14 PM
Comments
What to do with Al Gore?
Yes, Ezra, Al Gore's post-2000 speeches have reflected a man of deep convictions, the strong ability to speak these historical truths about our country and the world, and some of that 'ole time religion' that is the product of a southern church background and a lifetime spent in a political family of some success in a conservative state.
So which is the 'real' Al: the wooden and oft-morphing candidate of the 2000 election, or the current thinker and speaker that can move the soul?
I like Al Gore. He isnt' a friend of mine. But I don't know him either, since he proved to have almost enough of the right stuff in 2000, but not enough to reach across the red/blue boundary that was required for uncontested success against a southern Repub. candidate.
Would Hilary be better than Al? Both have political legacies that are not positive overall, but Al has an manifest intellectual depth that is both an asset and a liability, and Hilary is clearly very smart, but also politically cautious in ways that seem manipulative.
I'd vote for Gore over Hilary, but I'm not sure either is the right 2008 candidate. It is good that we don't have to choose now in 2005.
One wonders if Al really would undertake another run for the President. Nixon seemed to show that political rehab can work and win. Maybe Al sees that possibility.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Oct 5, 2005 5:03:06 PM
I don't think that I would count knowledge of Lippman, Jon Stewart and Athens as evidence of erudition.
That said, I'm warming to the guy. Do you have a link to the full video?
Posted by: bostoniangirl | Oct 5, 2005 5:22:15 PM
Ok, at the risk of sounding like a total killjoy, I actually think this was one of Gore's sillier speeches. He made it to the AP partly as a way of introducing the social mission of Current TV (which is pretty good, btw, or at least it looks pretty good judging by what's online) but this wasn't quite the way to do it. Current is sort of defiantly geeky and fun, but it's very much a commercial and entertainment venture, which makes Gore's slamming advertising -- and TV in general -- a bit jarring. Plus, I'm not a historian, but I find the idea that progress came much faster in the US between, say, 1776 and 1850 than is has in the 1960s and 70s, and even in the past 20 years, pretty unconvincing. Of course I think the conservative media structure is toxic in the US -- but that's a much more specific problem than what Gore is talking about.
Which is my frustration with him, much as I like him (and I really, really do) as a potential candidate. I'm not saying he's being hypocritical here, but he doesn't really ever get into explaining the seeming contradictions of what he says. He did, afterall, shepherd the Telecom Act through, and though I'm sure it was a better piece of legislation than what it would have been if the GOP had its way completely -- that's what consumer groups were saying at the time -- it contained provisions that are antithetical to what he says in the speech, i.e. that so few groups control the airwaves (not to mention the radiowaves). That doesn't make him a hypocrite -- ideas change and politics is what's possible -- but if you're going to be erudite, you've got to explain the total package, how you arrived where you are.
Gore had exactly the same problem with campaign finance in 2000. There was nothing inherently hypocritical about his positions on McCain-Feingold given the '96 fundraisng excesses. But he just couldn't create and deliver a convincing narrative for his "conversion" -- or an explanation that when you're from the less corporate-friendly party you have to try harder to raise the cash; you can't be as discreet about it. He just assumed his new position -- McCain Feingold, Democracy Fund etc. -- and argued it relentlessly. That's what he does. The press interpretted it as shiftiness, as avoidance, and was cyncial about it. And it didn't seem that he understood why or knew how to combat it. That's his biggest political problem IMO.
On the other hand, if one does want to get moony about Gore, I'd really recommend reading this account by his old policy aide Greg Simon about how they evacuated the NO Charity Hospital during Katrina. IMO what's amazing isn't so much what they did, it's the political street-smarts with which they did it. His post-Katrina speech to the Sierra Club was great too.
Posted by: tlaura | Oct 5, 2005 5:22:18 PM
OK, this is great and all (and, yeah, I'm pretty much on board if it happens), but three things:
1) First and foremost, does anyone know if he's actually, I dunno, interested in running for President right now? He seems happier now that he's not seeking everyone's approval every four years.
2) Donors. The blogosphere will be far more fragmented (and Edwards has been very clever in his cultivation) than it was during the Dean swoon of 2003. Traditional donors will be more reluctant to give to someone they think may be "damaged goods" (how one can be that by winning more votes than the other guy is beyond me, of course).
3) Media spin. I'm sure we're going to hear the Beltway pundits (you know, the ones that said Dean's first major misstep was stating that "we are no safer than we were when Saddam was in power) have a refrain of "Who Is the Real Gore" and "Is Gore Reinveting Himself Like the 'New' Nixon?" Dumb, stupid, childish, but it will happen.
4) Organization. Can't win Iowa without it. I am convinced that Kerry would not have won without Michael Whouley (sp), the guy who organized his Iowa efforts (and Florida-2000 for Gore). If he doesn't get those types of folks -- and soon -- he'll suffer from the same fate Dean-04 faced (inexperienced staffers, promoted above where they should have been simply b/c they signed on before the pros took them seriously).
5) The Dem. establishment doesn't like him. Ultimately, we will need a candidate that can bridge the ever-growing gap b/t the Establishment and the grassroots.
That all said, he has positioned himself brilliantly for a Dem primary. He has national security cred but voted against the war, was eerily prescient concerning a need for an energy policy and enviornmental issues (and was ridiculed for doing so). But he shouldn't make the same mistakes Dean did.
Thoughts?
Posted by: Chris R | Oct 5, 2005 6:28:33 PM
thank you for that interesting piece...
we need someone who can turn this all around.
if only....
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 5, 2005 6:29:23 PM
Love Gore. Love him!
Posted by: Shakespeare's Sister | Oct 5, 2005 6:36:09 PM
hee-hee..."digital brownshirts."
Great name for a band!
Posted by: J.C. | Oct 5, 2005 6:37:55 PM
Look, the speech is fucking awesome. It describes exactly what we liberal activists have seen over the past five years, and presents brilliant explanations of how things got this way and how much it'll take to change them. The things that Gore is angry at are things that we're all horrified by and furious about, and he explains exactly why we're right to feel this way.
But Gore '08? I wish I had enough faith in my fellow Americans to think that they'd hearken to Gore's message, see what he's talking about, and revolt against the right-wing media, leading to the political rebirth of America. But if they had the capacity to do this, the revolt would've happened long ago. That Gore perfectly expresses our frustration and horror doesn't mean that he'll connect with politically disengaged people who are unthinkingly in the grips of the right-wing media. And that's a huge number of voters.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 5, 2005 7:05:35 PM
Big Al has obviously been reading MacLuhan and Postman, applying their media philosophy based on Age of Reason principles.
"You can't tell where you are going, unless you know where you have been."
Gore understands this on all levels, and advocates for it brilliantly.
Posted by: peteypuck | Oct 5, 2005 8:21:24 PM
I think that a majority of Americans might want a "Mulligan" by '08.
Posted by: jim 7 | Oct 5, 2005 8:24:56 PM
Right after 9/11 I can't tell you how many times I heard people say they were glad Gore didn't win, even people who voted for him. That was a common feeling at the time.
He doesn't have national security credibilty, and with his recent turn toward MoveOn.Org not too many people would put this country's security in Gore's hands.
He would lose his home state again, by alot bigger margin.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 5, 2005 10:30:31 PM
Would this be a good time to renew my call for Gore '08?
Um, no; and no, it's not that great a set of remarks either. And no, just because you've suddenly learned how to bend rhetoric to your will, that does not mean that you've managed to lose the petulance and self-aggrandizement that caused your initial implosion; it just means you may be a little better at distracting from it, briefly.
Come on, Ezra, you're better than this.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 5, 2005 11:07:23 PM
Gore's words do not match his deeds.
Like tlaura pointed out above Al carries some of the blame for our current situation.
I'd add that Mr Gore has started his own television network and it is a joke. It offers nothing to change the problems he describes.
Gore is crying, because his side, our side, has gotten their butts handed to them in the war of ideas. The other side has worked the game to their advantage and now that Gore's side is losing he is hating the game.
Stop complaining and start winning. Start by using what influence you have left in DC and organize the Democrats, and liberals. What our side needs is a coach, someone to bring all the players together, and tell them what to do, tell them what plays to run, and hold them accountable when they do not do their job. The right has Norquist and Rove, our side has who?
Al Gore wishing for days that barely existed in this country is all well and good, and I'm sure the warm fuzzies he is giving everyone on the left will keep the blog world aglow for a week, but it does nothing to stop our side from getting beat week in and week out.
Posted by: jbou | Oct 5, 2005 11:12:31 PM
He doesn't have national security credibilty
This is a polite way of saying "I can't count on him to kill brown people who worship the wrong God, without let or hindrance, on little or no pretext."
Do you want 'national security credibility' on those terms.
Or did you just not want to mention General Clark's name??
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Oct 5, 2005 11:30:39 PM
Just to clarify, I'm not saying I think Gore is "responsible", even "partly" for our current situation with the media. If you read Stephanie Merencer or Joe Stiglitz on the telecom bill fights, Gore comes off looking pretty good. I'm just saying he doesn't seem to realise -- even now -- why certain people (like the two people posting above me both of whom are very smart imo) think he's self-aggrandizing and cynical. That's always been his problem and it's an absolutely lethal one for a politician -- not that certain people dislike him, but that he doesn't seem to understand why. It's tough to defend someone who doesn't know the best way to defend himself. If he ran in 2008 I'd support him because he's the pol I most believe in (in the US or Canada) but that's not the same as thinking it's a good idea. (Nor is there any evidence he does.)
jbou -- I think your other comments are a bit unfair. If it's true liberals have "nobody" like Norquist etc., isn't then that a good enough reason for famous liberals to make speeches like this? Also, I really do think Current is pretty good (it's a lot better than I expected), and it *is* an attempt solve the problems he's talking about. It's just a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" thing -- which is why I don't think the speech he made today trashing the medium itself was terribly appropriate.
Posted by: tlaura | Oct 5, 2005 11:41:47 PM
"This is a polite way of saying "I can't count on him to kill brown people who worship the wrong God, without let or hindrance, on little or no pretext."
You got all of that out of "He doesn't have national security credibilty"?
Boy, what a rational, open minded liberal you are. You sound like you'd never prejudge or stereotype.
And you guys actually want normal Americans to vote for your candidates.
By the way, the only Clark is a fool. The only Democrat I'd trust with this country's national security is Joe Leiberman, and the liberal base has made it clear he is not welcome as a Democratic presidential candidate.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 5, 2005 11:47:00 PM
By the way, Clark is a fool.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 5, 2005 11:48:59 PM
Captain Toke, with all the incompetence you have seen from Bush and Republicans you still trust them?
Wes Clark's war is still in it's 2nd stage but at least he took a realistic approach and divided up the country and has peacekeepers in place that aren't being blown up on a weekly basis.
My problem with the Bush admin is they are incompetent, if they want to do the big idea thing they need to follow through and get it right.
Posted by: jbou | Oct 5, 2005 11:59:42 PM
Right after 9/11 I can't tell you how many times I heard people say they were glad Gore didn't win, even people who voted for him. That was a common feeling at the time.
I said that myself. Because I knew the insanely partisan right wing wouldn't back the president if he was a Democrat, and I did think we needed to stand together. Party before country every time.
And I honestly didn't believe that any president could so put his own insanely wrong agenda ahead of national security that he or she could screw up the response to 9/11. Go get Osama; don't be distracted; invest in homeland defense. It was pretty clear to everyone what needed to be done. And then the Iraq insanity began, and I realized that these guys could screw up a one-car funeral.
Posted by: Magenta | Oct 6, 2005 12:03:34 AM
"I said that myself. Because I knew the insanely partisan right wing wouldn't back the president if he was a Democrat, and I did think we needed to stand together. Party before country every time."
And yet the rest of the country keeps moving to the right, away from liberal leadership.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 6, 2005 12:06:46 AM
tlaura, I would like a famous or not so famous Democrat or liberal with some influence in DC to step up and organize things on the left, train future pundits, gather ideas and sell them to the public, work the press for as much good coverage you can get, get all the talking heads and voices on the left on the same page the way Norquist does with his weekly meeting.
Gore gave a great speech, but we need coaches not players. Gore failed as a player because he lacked a good coach, Bush has done well as a player because he has good coaching.
I'm a former jock, I played football all the way through to college, and I tend to look at things through a sports lense, and I think our side has plenty of players but no good coaches, and we definatly lack a solid gameplan. Gore is still acting like a player when he needs to be thinking like a coach.
Posted by: jbou | Oct 6, 2005 12:08:34 AM
And yet the rest of the country keeps moving to the right, away from liberal leadership.
Right into the hands of the incompetent tax cutters. I only hope that we get some people elected soon that can fix the mess the incomptents have made.
Posted by: jbou | Oct 6, 2005 12:11:26 AM
Seems like a lot of obvious, old arguments. Right, but not new. A bit surprised (since he invented it) that he didn't give enough credit to the internet as a partial antidote to the influence of TV, corporate media, etc. His 'Current TV' is, in my opinion, a dog and won't last long. They're just a perfect bunch of 28 & 29 year olds though, aren't they? It's like 'The Mickey Gore Club' over there.
Posted by: Neil Shakespeare | Oct 6, 2005 12:18:40 AM
jbou -- I like what you say about organization, "coaches and players". I'd add, though, that I don't think it's a coincidence that the right got organized and the left didn't. Liberals are inately less hierarchical -- look at the difference between DKos and RedState for an example. The Dem party has always been a bunch of warring factions and people with their own agendas; the right falls apart occasionally or loses their base for an election cycle here and there, but in general, they are much better at cracking the whip and marshalling homogenous ideas.
For our Rove/Norquist... Mike Whouley? Chris Lehane maybe? But then think about how much liberals hate Lehane, always denouncing, always complaining about his terrible ethics. We want our people pure and non-cynical. And generally, the Dems produce and promote such people -- well-meaning naifs of which Gore (most of the time) is Exhibit A. Plus, I don't see the lefty media being whipped into line by anyone. I don't ever see a "vast left-wing conspiracy" -- the left is too diverse and too headstrong to make it possible. I wish I did see it, but I don't.
Given that, our best bet is to be strong and forceful and put our ideas out there. That means having famous Dems making speeches like this one Gore made today (and, unlike you, I don't think it was "a great speech"; I read it again and think it's a turkey -- but that's unusual for Gore) and just proving liberals and Dems exist and have ideas. And, of course, making sure the right campaign consultants get promoted.
Posted by: tlaura | Oct 6, 2005 12:57:25 AM
Al Gore is a great American and I would enthusiastically support him in the general election. In the 2008 primaries, however, I think I'll hang my hat on Russ Feingold.
Posted by: Nonplussed | Oct 6, 2005 10:58:13 AM
