Gore's Words (Part I)

A few days ago, Al Gore made quite a stirring speech to MoveOn's Pac regarding the President's failed policies in Iraq. I read the speech. I read the reactions to the speech. Then I listened to the speech. But it was a busy time for me at work and at home. I'm setting up a couple of workshops in two of the nation's larger metropolises and running some Texas back roads to do some elder care in the meantime, not to mention bracing for the coming majority of the grandson. It keeps a girl hopping. But the brain still works, even if we do run a little low on blood sugar now and then (I ran out of steam years ago), and I've been thinking both about Gore's words and the reaction to his words whenever I had a chance. Still it took me a while to get a chance to write down my thoughts.

Now let me point out first that Al Gore had my vote and my admiration in 2000, but he did not entirely have my heart. He's a fine man. He certainly didn't deserve the ill treatment he got from the press in those days--and since, for that matter. He did not have my heart because I was not convinced that he was passionately committed to being president. I sometimes felt that he would rather be doing something else, and I would have been happy for him to be able to find his own dream, not his father's dream for him.

That means that I tend only to look at Gore's endorsements as matters of idle curiosity these days. When he endorsed Dean for the Presidency, it was interesting, but I was much more concerned to see who Bill Clinton might endorse. When Gore made his speech to MoveOn, it was a matter of interest that he was continuing to involve himself in the national campaign with some higher profile, but it was only after I read so much diverse reaction to his speech that I felt compelled to read the speech.

When I read it, I was moved to tears. I was moved to joy. I was so relieved that someone at last had said the things out loud that so needed to be said--and said them in the terms that made powerful sense--and said them in a way that brought strong attention to the message.

What was so good about the speech? Let me start with the bad stuff, just to get it out of the way. There were some issues with delivery. I missed a couple of minutes at the beginning of the tape and about five minutes at the end, but otherwise watched the rest rather closely, because I had read some rather nasty stuff about Gore's delivery. Most of that, of course, came from Limbaugh (no link, find The Bloviator for yourself) but a little from other sillies who have issues with pronunciation. (I have no clue how Mr. Feith's name should be pronounced myself.) Gore made fairly good use of gesture; the gestures seemed natural, unforced. The stage must have been terribly hot. I kept wishing he'd just take out a handkerchief and wipe his face. Eventually he found a towel and did so, but not effectively enough. He could have made some minimizing joke about it and kept it from being as distracting as it was. There were some passages when he was giving long lists of information rather than opinion where he became somewhat dull in delivery; the most resounding passages came when he expressed judgment and allowed his oratory to soar (these, of course, were the parts that most offended his targets). This dullness was exacerbated, I think, by the lack of a teleprompter, since he was obviously having to refer to a printed text on a lectern. As for that shouting--Hallelujah! It was what I loved. In fact, there were a couple of times when his voice dropped too low for me to hear. There was plenty of variety there. Someone (I'll have to find the link) criticized Gore for delivering the speech as if he'd never read it before he got there--I don't think anything could be further from the truth. Gore milked the lines for audience reaction--and he flat knew when he wanted a reaction. It was a friendly crowd, but I'm not surprised at the number of standing ovations.

On the whole, when his speech delivery was best--and got the best response--he was speaking in the mode of many southern preachers. There's a tone and pace that you can hear in any Sunday sermon that came through rather clearly in the more effective parts of his speech. It's also a tone and pace that Bush tries (and mostly fails) to adopt when he's pausing and emphasizing words somewhat inappropriately in his speeches. Someone more familiar with homiletics might analyze Bush's speeches someday to see what he's trying to accomplish.

So what was so good about this speech? Let me count the ways.

George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility. Instead, he
has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world.

I tend not to want to give George Bush credit for much, but that was a campaign promise that resonated with me. I heartily agreed that a powerful nation still had to conduct itself with some humility in the world. Speaking softly while carrying that old big stick is still a good idea in this day and age, and I had seen enough of the world and the world's attitudes toward the U.S. (pre 9/11) to know that we were already the target of a great deal of ill will whenever we conducted ourselves with too much arrogance and forcefulness. Humility doesn't have to be a sign of weakness by any means--it just means we don't have to be a bully about everything. Instead, we are humiliated. The images from Abu Ghraib overturn every word we've ever said about human rights. And there is a strong whiff of military defeat floating about the lack of security in Iraq.

Why is this a good thing to say? Am I gloating that Al Gore said it? Nope. I'm sickened. I am angry. What pleases me is that it was said in simple and clear terms that reflect the same language that George Bush has used so that anyone who will listen can understand. The promised humility has become humiliation.

He promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House." Instead,
he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as
the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon.

This, too, was one of those campaign promises that galled me to agree with. I surely did like Bill Clinton, and I surely was upset with him. Of course, I was even more upset with the Republicans in Congress for the witch hunt that persisted throughout Clinton's administration and the flimsy grounds for impeachment and the sickening obsession with sex on the part of the apparently very repressed Ken Starr. So I was ready to see the honor and integrity, not of the White House, but of the Presidency, restored. The office of the President does, in fact, mean something in this country. It's not just a chance to be the Chief Fox in the Big Henhouse. It doesn't give you the keys to the national treasury. It carries the hopes and dreams of 250 million people--and the responsibility for their safety and, yes, dammit, their honor and pride and dignity. We don't need to know what kind of underwear the president wears or whether he (or she) sleeps in jammies. We do need to know that the president is alert to matters of concern both domestic and international, is sensitive to the broad diversity of this nation, is intelligent enough to adapt to changing circumstances, is sufficiently knowledgeable in the humanities and the sciences to bring critical thought to debates among his advisors, and is canny enough to discern the human frailties of his advisors and overcome them. After that, we can only hope he (or she) has some discretion in the bedroom.

It is a powerful image now for Al Gore to compare George Bush to Richard Nixon. I remember the day when Lyndon Johnson stated that he would not run for re-election. I was just beginning to become political. That fall was my first chance to vote in a presidential election. I started as a supporter of Eugene McCarthy. When he dropped out of the race, I became a supporter of Robert Kennedy. Then, of course, I voted for Hubert Humphrey. I was overseas when the news of the Watergate break-ins was first published in Newsweek. I wondered what was becoming of my country. A couple of years after my return, I was driving my little VW beetle with the car radio on and heard the news that Nixon was resigning. I did not shout for joy. I cried. I cried for the shame and dishonor that he had brought to that high office. Yes, he was a crook.

Note that Gore steered carefully clear of any hint of allegations of criminality toward Bush. Instead, he switched to a litany of broken promises failures in the concept of honor:

Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind." He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of
Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or
even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins.

Gore asks next:

How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words "We Are All Americans Now" and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world -- to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.

I have an opinion on that, but it's time to try to con the grandson into doing some heavy lifting at the grocery store. *evil grandma grin*