Tonight, I had the privilege of seeing Al Gore discuss his new book, The Assault on Reason, at the historic 92nd Street YMCA in New York City with famed PBS newsman Charlie Rose. Although I had a previous opportunity to hear Gore speak at a campaign rally just before the midterm election, I feel that he does much better speaking when it is outside the political realm. One of the self-deprecating (yet serious) points that Gore repeatedly made was that he discovered that he wasn't 'that good at politics'. In more of a free-form environment in what essentially amounted to more of a discussion than an interview with Rose, Gore sketched the basic premise of 'Assault' with ease, while interspersing it with particular examples that emphasized his points.
Upon arriving to the 92nd Street Y, I was a bit surprised to see the somewhat fanatical supporters of Lyndon LaRouche protesting Gore's event there; they were handing out pamphlets equating Gore to Dick Cheney (WTF?) and doing their usual idiotic song-in-costume routine as well. They managed to drown out the people from the Draft Gore movement that were outside showing their support. I told one of the guys trying to hand me something that they're insane; I don't know what the hell LaRouche disciples stand for other than to cause a ruckus and possibly get on local TV. When I left, they were still outside in their nature costumes (I believe they dressed up as trees)...it was a hot and humid day here in New York, so they probably sweat off a few pounds.
Once inside the Y, it became clear that there is still a large amount of enthusiasm for Gore. The people who came to see the discussion were a diverse mix of New Yorkers, and particularly striking was the sizable amount of younger folks who had come out to see the former vice president. The Gore 2008 contingent was quite strong at the event; I would say that a fair-sized minority of people (comprised mostly of middle-aged people and older) were wearing Gore 2008 stickers and pins. It's impressive to see such strong support for a potential candidate who has repeatedly insisted that he was not interested in running in this election cycle, and it's easy to see how Gore could be 'flabbergasted' by the kind of support he sees as he tours the country in support of his new book.
Charlie Rose introduced Gore onto the stage, preceding the introduction with several quotes from media members that coupled a review of 'Assault' with a potential Gore candidacy in 2008. One highlight of the night was the interplay between the moderator and the interviewee; they were both quite humorous, and Rose started off the questioning by noting Gore's post-2000 achievements and asking, "Why on earth would you want to run for president?" to roaring laughter. Gore was never asked directly if he would run for president, but he noted several times during the night that it was not something that he was 'looking to do' right now. He did bemoan the fact that the 'spin cycle' of the presidential campaign was starting so early this time around, saying that there was no need for a long head start into the race. One of the last questions Gore received, from a submitted question by an audience member, was what it would take for him to run. Gore didn't answer the question (which had suggested Barack Obama as his running mate), citing the fact that he hadn't been thinking about it and therefore was not sure of what factors would urge him into the race.
In addition, one of the lighter moments of the night came to the banter between Rose and Gore about the highly contested 2000 election. When Rose asked, "You won Florida?", Gore deadpanned, "Well, thank you," to loud applause, taking the question to be a declarative statement of fact. While he largely joked about 2000 when it was brought up, Gore did provide some insight as to why he conceded after the infamous Supreme Court ruling on Bush v. Gore that ended any recounts. "There's very little space between a final Supreme Court ruling and violent revolution," Gore stated. In keeping with his theme in 'Assault', the former vice president also noted that America is built upon the rule of law, and he believed it was best to abide by that tradition. While it would have been interesting for Rose to ask a follow-up concerning the current administration's proclivity for breaking the law, another topic was then discussed.
When discussing 'The Assault on Reason', Gore really held back no punches. While it would be easy to lay blame on Bush (and Rose humorously noted that some had thought it should be titled The Assault on Bush, to which Gore replied that he had been told to write that book as well), Gore instead focused on largely indicting the media - and in particular, the medium of television - for the degradation of American political discourse. Americans spend more than 4.5 hours per day watching television, and this one-way form of communication that is visually hypnotic to an extent has moved further away from providing a discussion of the news but has instead focused on other goals - making more money, increasing ratings, and broadcasting sensational news stories. Gore traced the initial impact from television back to 1960, when the Kennedy-Nixon debate produced a drastic shift in perception of politicians (most people who watched thought Kennedy won, whereas most people who listened on the radio thought Nixon won). Even radio has suffered a decline of sorts; Gore noted that the consolidation of the media industry and the decline of the 'equal time' provision have created a radio industry that suffered from a lack of quality. Gore contrasted the present day with The Age of Reason, which became an influential period in Western philosophy because of the widespread use of the printing press. What has happened, Gore claims, is that no longer are we a 'well-informed citizenry' but are instead looked down upon as a 'well-amused audience'. Blame was also laid at the feet of the media for being intimidated, especially in the run-up to the war in Iraq. While Rose noted that his program aired several people who did not believe in the inevitable conflict, Gore laid out in quite clear terms that the media felt that it would be 'un-American' to air dissenting opinion - even though it was quite reasonable in the face of the Bush administration conflating Saddam Hussein and Iraq with the attacks on September 11th.
Rose asked Gore what would be 5 things he would do to restore reason, so to speak, if he were elected president in 2008. After the applause died down, Gore said he'd institute more fairness within the media (emphasizing equal time and so forth). But what became evident is that it's hard to force the press to act in a certain manner; after all, freedom of the press is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (although they have taken to restricting and censoring themselves quite nicely under the Bush administration). Gore ultimately settled on telling the truth. In the end, that's what has suffered as a consequence from the assault on reason. Without reason, there can longer be rational discussion about the issues that define our times. And when irrationality sets in, the truth becomes noticeably absent. "Evil is the absence of truth," Gore said, citing M. Scott Peck. And that is what has happened the last 6 years. The truth on everything - from intelligence on Iraq to climate change to Hurricane Katrina - has been deliberately obscured by the Bush administration. It is no wonder that they seem to be the personification of evil.
Towards the end of the discussion, a few interesting points came out about Gore's views on more recent events. When asked about George Tenet and his new book, Gore stated that he believed Tenet (a good friend) was a good person, who, like many others within the government, were intimidated into submission and agreed upon less rational (but also less controversial, at least within the administration) positions, regardless of how lackluster the intelligence may have been. One of the audience questions also asked about the Democratic failure today to send Bush a bill with a timetable. Perhaps not anxious to step on any toes, Gore said that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did pass a bill but had it vetoed, and they simply didn't have the votes to proceed any other way. Nevertheless, it seemed at the same time that Gore was not particularly pleased with the vote. He noted earlier on that everyone who voted for the war in 2002 (Rose cited Senators John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton in the question that preceded this answer) bore responsibility for what occurred. Applying this reasoning to today's vote, it is now on the Democratic Party to bear the responsibility on what happened today.
Afterwards, I had a chance to get my copy of 'Assault' signed by Gore (they wouldn't let me get my somewhat battered copy of Earth in the Balance autographed). I noted that I had been present at the Philadelphia-area rally in late October, and I once again stated my hope that he'd run for president. Honestly - and this is probably what most people want to hear - Gore, when answering questions about potentially running, was definitely thinking about it. To say that he wasn't would mean I was completely misreading him or that everyone else would be lying. But I just don't get the sense that Al Gore - the citizen - wants to be confined to the 30-second ads that he viciously rails against in 'Assault'. He doesn't want to have to hit the stump with a preset message that is repeated ad nauseum. Gore recognizes that he wasn't the best politician when he was in the game - and I got the sense that, despite what Time describes as his last temptation, he is happy where he is at.
With 'An Inconvenient Truth', Gore is trying to save the world. 'Assault' is his pitch for preserving the sanctity of American democracy.
It's something that Al Gore can accomplish. But it's probably not something that the President of the United States would be successful at.