Gore provokes a unique reaction. A few nights ago, for example, I posted a comment suggesting if Al Gore gets the nomination, he will have difficulty winning the White House. This drew anger and troll-ratings from Gore-supporters, which in turn drew from others denunciations of TR-abuse. One asked why Gore-defenders are "so friggin' mad." I thought the question worth exploring.
Gore-supporters do act different, no question. In the past, I've posted comments criticizing and/or joking at the expense of Kucinich, Edwards, Nader, Obama, and even Clark. Others have, too. Supporters of these candidates responded sometimes with patient counter-argument, sometimes with anger; but never with cursing, slander, or troll-rating. So why do criticisms of Gore provoke such emotional response?
It cannot be that Gore is more sacred than the others. He can't be more sacred than Clark who stopped a genocide. He can't be more sacred than Kucinich who worked so much harder than Gore to stop the War in Iraq. He can't be more sacred than Obama, a candidate so "clean" the Republicans can't find a way to criticize him without resorting to Manchurian Candidate lunacy.
I don't believe Gore holds a special appeal for the emotionally unstable. So why do Gore-supporters show such touchiness?
I was going to say I myself have never been so defensive about a candidate, but then I realized I have in exactly one case: when I was campaigning for Howard Dean. But not during the entire campaign. When I first joined the Dean campaign, the only sniping Dean took was from Kucinich-supporters worried Dean would steal Kucinich's votes. I shrugged it off.
As Dean rose, he took vicious attacks from the campaigns of other Democrats and of George W. Bush. I took these attacks in stride; they just confirmed that Dean had the right people scared.
The mainstream media treated Dean unfairly compared to even the other Democrats in the race. It disappointed me, but I didn't get emotional. I figured with the internet Dean would communicate and win even without media fairness.
Then Iowa happened.
My emotional response changed. I could no longer bear to watch late night comedians because they infuriated me, kicking Dean while he was down. In my futile efforts to turn things around, I wore my Howard Dean t-shirt every day until my own state's primary, and I bristled as strangers snickered at me or felt some need to share, "Dean made an ass of himself with that yelling."
I could no longer take criticism in stride because Dean had become a sore spot. Before Iowa, I felt confident our side would have the last laugh, and that was enough. After Iowa, I was plagued with doubts, and I didn't need people rubbing them in.
In Gore-supporters, I see the same insecurity. But what is the cause? Gore has not enjoyed front-runner status since the days when he was taking advantage of Bill Bradley's decency. Nor is he being kicked while down, since he hasn't taken a fall in several years.
I believe the soreness grows from the conflict between emotion and reason.
Gore's support arises largely from a desire for a 2000 do-over. In 2000, we came so close to winning, and then we lost everything. Everything. We lost our peace and we lost our prosperity. We lost what was left of our country.
And Democrats kill ourselves. If only. If only.
If only a few hundred voters ...
If only the Supreme Court ...
If only ...
It's natural in such a case to want another try, demand best-two-out-of-three.
But logic tells us if we nominate the same candidate, we may get the same result. Or worse. If Gore couldn't win as the incumbent riding on peace and prosperity, running against a blundering, inexperienced frat boy, then how can he win as a has-been running against what might be a formidable Republican? A 2000 do-over may become a 2000 repeat.
The Gore-supporter is like the woman who dates only bad boys, hoping this time she's got the one she can reform and it will vindicate all her past, disastrous relationships. It's a painful tension between desire and reason. It causes soreness as much as it causes denial.
Gore-supporters insist Gore is better than implied by the 2000 results. Their excuses for 2000 are usually one of following three:
- Gore only lost because the Supreme Court was dominated by Republicans.
- Gore only lost because Ralph Nader was too much of an egomaniac to drop out.
- Gore only lost because the mainstream media was biased against him.
Each excuse has its degree of validity. The problem is that each excuse will be equally valid for 2008. The media have gotten no more liberal. Ralph Nader has gotten no more humble. And the only change in our courts has been the addition of Bush-appointees.
How can Gore win in 2008 when he couldn't win in 2000? The answer from Gore-supporters is usually one of these four:
- "Fuck you, you troll!!!!" Then change the subject.
- "Gore WON in 2000, and he'll do it again in 2008!" Music to Republican ears.
- "Well, no other Democrat can overcome these hurdles, either." If that were true, we'd be better off conceding the election now and using our resources to make changes outside of D.C.
- "Gore has changed. He's a better man than he was in 2000." Whenever I hear this one, I'm reminded of a former co-worker. During the time I knew her, she had only one boyfriend, but she broke up with him eight times. Each time she went back to him, she justified it with, "He's changed. He's a different person now."
These responses are designed to avoid the core problem. The fantasy of turning back the 2000 election, the fantasy of Gore taking the White House, is seductive; but it is no more realistic than the fantasies described on porn sites. And chasing that mirage will send us over a cliff. Gore may well win the nomination again; and if he does, it will likely bring another four years of Republican rule.
To avoid another disaster, we must put aside fantasies and strategize realistically. If we want the White House, we must nominate a winner. Clinton, Obama, and Clark all show promise. All three have impressive records of success, launched with amazing academic achievements and carried through with fast climbs to their current positions.
If we believe, as some Gore-supporters insist, that no Democrat can win the White House under current circumstances, then we should nominate someone who can do good in the process of losing, someone who can change the circumstances for future elections. If we nominate Dennis Kucinich, he will lose more badly than Gore, I'm sure, but he will use his spotlight expanding the margins of debate, making liberal ideas more acceptable to the average American. Gore, by contrast, has never stood up for an idea that was not already popular with the voters. In Tennessee, he would not stand up for a woman's right to choose; nor would he, in a nation-wide election, continue standing up for "the unborn." He focuses on environmentalism precisely because it requires no courage. Sacrifice, yes; but courage, no. No one favors pollution. No one favors global warming. Some ignore environmental problems, but no one desires them. Gore will not lead people to accept values they once scorned, nor will he shift America in a progressive direction.
What makes Gore such a painful sore spot is that, as a candidate, he can do no good without winning; and he has no clear way to win.
The big question is: will the emotions provoked by Gore's candidacy rip apart progressive unity? Those who see the danger of nominating Gore cannot be expected to keep silent as they watch well-meaning Gore-supporters drive us off a cliff. Nor can we expect Gore-supporters to suppress their sensitivities; if they could put aside their emotions, they would already support other Democrats.
The best thing for the Democratic Party going into 2008 would be for Al Gore to issue a clear statement withdrawing from this race and urging his supporters to back another candidate. If he did, we could all let go of these fantasies of changing 2000 and focus on making a logical choice for a brighter future.