If you're a fan of the Late Show With David Letterman, you probably like the segment 'Great Moments in Presidential Speeches' in which Letterman starts off with showing clips from FDR’s First Inaugural Address in 1933 - "The only thing you have to fear is fear itself" - and JFK's memorable line from his 1961 Inaugural Address - "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."
These two clips are followed by George W. Bush uttering something totally inane and unforgettable. The contrast is meant to convey a presidency devoid of substance, direction, and gravitas. And a president whose misguided domestic and international policies are exceeded only by his inability to communicate and articulate anything effectively.
Who then can provide a cure for this leadership deficit that ails our country today?
Enter Al Gore.
**** Update ****
I just got this email with a link to a Toronto Sun Article about a Gore Event yesterday in Toronto, Canada. It quotes Dylan Malone, who runs one of the Draft Gore web sites
A close "friend" of Al Gore says it's only a matter of time before he throws his hat in the ring in the race for president of the United States.
"His time has come," says Dylan Malone. "We are pretty confident he will run."
There also are many Draft Gore web sites, including one by Malone. "Wait a couple of months," he says. "There are hundreds of groups wanting this and eventually there will be thousands."
"If I were a betting man, I would say yes," Malone said over the phone from Washington state.
I sure hope it's true.
--------------------------------------------
The clear implication of Letterman's sketch is that the country is yearning to return to an era in which it had charismatic and capable leaders whose policies and personal communications skills were not only respected internationally but could also inspire this country towards a sense of purpose and greatness.
Which brings me to this article in The Nation magazine by Nicholas Von Hoffman in which he evaluates Gore's appearance on Capitol Hill this past Wednesday. Referring to various 'wars' that all political leaders pledge to wage - The war against cancer, The war against terrorism, The war against poverty, The war against drugs, and the like - Hoffman writes
Al Gore does not play those politics. Instead of a war-against list, Gore can speak on a single topic for half an hour, an hour, an hour and a half. He has facts. He has figures. He has long thought out complicated ideas. The man has something to say.
Hoffman goes on to list some of Gore's "intriguing" ideas. Among them
- Immediate cap on any further growth of carbon dioxide emissions.
- Not building any new electric generating plants without carbon dioxide traps.
- Spurring economic growth by taxing carbon dioxide emissions by businesses - to be offset by a cut in payroll taxes which provides much-needed economic relief to the lower/middle classes.
- Increase transparency by requiring corporations to include an energy/carbon dioxide audit statement in their annual report and stock prospectus.
- Replacing incandescent light bulb as they burn too much electricity.
While some of these proposals by themselves may not inspire and excite political activists, they do point to an important missing ingredient in our politics today: bold leadership.
And how did Gore personally conduct himself in the light of hostile questioning by some Republican Members of Congress? I posted my own thoughts here and here in this diary yesterday by Meteor Blades. Hoffman points out
Gore has something of the 19th century about him. He is almost courtly in his manners. He can talk to Republicans, at least of the non-flat-earth variety. He has a deep voice and sometimes he thunders as few modern politicians can (about problems) reaching crisis proportions in our century.
It has been so long since we have seen one that we may not remember what one looks like. We may not recognize that Al Gore has become a statesman.
I could not agree more.
Compared to the disaster of a presidency like George W. Bush's, I find the efforts of Al Gore to forge an international - not national - consensus on the important issue of global warming as a very encouraging sign. Some call it conspicuous conservation. The promise of international cooperation and the resulting spillover effect into other areas is endless. What else explains his international popularity or, for that matter, that of former President Jimmy Carter's?
In the post, post-Cold War era, what we need in our politics is a new kind of internationalism - one that transcends our own selfish, material concerns and zest for conspicuous consumption. Important as it might be - and even as we place undue emphasis on our parochial well being - we ought to look beyond our naturally isolationist tendencies and embrace the world in our everyday thinking and, indeed, in our politics. What we should strive for is a genuine world community, not an empire.
That ought to be our destiny. We are, after all, Americans.