The Speech: After scouring the Web, I found exactly one thoughtful review of Al Gore's speech from last Monday. Joe Klein, over on
Slate, succeeds in
cutting to the core of all the Gore-bashing this week. Basically, when the ex-Vice President said, a few months ago, that he planned to "let the chips fall where they may," and ignore what was politically convinient, he meant it. Now, for many journalists, any time Gore speaks is an ample opportunity to attack him again. As Klein puts it:
The default position on Al Gore appears to be ridicule. He opens his mouth and is immediately assumed cynical, tactical, self-serving, self-pitying, awkward, embarrassing, unintentionally hilarious, or all of the above. Much of this comes from Republicans, who seem afflicted by near-psychotic rhetorical twitching whenever the man who won the popular vote in the year 2000 makes a public appearance.
Thus, there hadn't been any solid deconstructions of the true implications of Gore's speech until now. Yet perhaps, more important than anything the absent-minded punditry suggests, Klein argues that Gore's speech did this:
But raising an important issue for tactical effect is quite different from ignoring an issue for tactical convenience. Gore performed an essential public service. He nudged a necessary debate. And he raised a crucial distinction: A war against Iraq and the war on terrorism are not identical.
President Bush has been lauded by most political experts for how he has controlled the topic of our national discourse recently. Quite frankly, while it is his responsibility to do such a thing, the media was right to admire how, in the course of days, the American public seemingly forgot corporate scandals, the diseased stock market, and other "kitchen table" issues. But, though Bush is certainly allowed to focus on the most important matters of national security, other are similarly permitted to refine the debate and ask questions. Perhaps Gore's speech will serve best as a wake-up call to Democrats who would sooner change the subject than vote on a war resolution. Yes, the proximity of the debate to the elections is obviously a political tactic of the White House, and it is unfounded and unfair to suggest that a failure to fall in line behind the president's war plans is unpatriotic. Regardless though, this is a debate we need to have, and it's happening now.
The New Republic acts boldly,
calling out the Democrats for their failure to take a stance on "perhaps the most important foreign policy debate in a generation." Hopefully for their sake, those in the party will be goaded by Gore's criticisms into actually conveying what they believe to their constituents, and not have a single-minded focus on the election. Hard as it is to say, some things are more important the politics.
