RE: President Gore: A Look Back

From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 20:10:39 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Broderick: "RE: President Gore: A Look Back"

    Charles writes

    > Michael Wiik wrote:
    >
    > > Interesting alternate history scenario. I found it amusing anyway.
    > > Actually, I agree with every word in it.
    >
    > I wish I didn't agree with you. Gore would have been much more polite
    > about things,

    to other nations, I think you mean.

    > but many of the contracts seem to have been let before the
    > election was held, which makes one wonder slightly just how
    > significant it would have been. My general impression is
    > that the Democrats are more concerned with people liking them,
    > and the Republicans are more concerned with shoring up their
    > own power.

    Not at all! Political parties by their very nature do
    everything that they can "to be liked", especially on
    election day. Just apply a little Darwinian logic, and
    see what would happen to parties that didn't care if
    they were liked!

    But yes; there is something disturbingly feminine about
    Democratic approaches to foreign policy and masculine
    about Republican approaches.

    > Still, one must bear in mind that a (small) group in
    > control of power will almost always decide on actions
    > that retain its control over the power, however it
    > may have to justify them to itself.

    Exactly right.

    > That said, Gore appeared from the first to be the
    > "chosen loser" [each of these is spelled with just
    > one "o"] in the election (bland, unemotional, unable
    > to motivate people).

    Well, he only failed by a hair. I'd say in roughly
    half the worlds it *is* "President Gore".

    > And he was as fervently in favor of increased centralized
    > intelligence gathering and surveillance as Bush was. Perhaps
    > more so. He was pushing that during Clinton's term. Still,
    > I got the impression that everyone was surprised as how hard
    > it was to get Bush chosen. (Why they wanted to is still a puzzle.)

    Perhaps I don't understand the depth of your puzzle. For
    me, it was simple: the Republicans badly needed a cynosure,
    or a Shelling point, whatever, that they knew that they could
    all rally around. Despite his appalling inarticulateness (which
    I guess has improved), he was the clear choice that would
    provide the best chance of beating those awful Democrats.
    And that's the only reason he was chosen. Am I missing
    something?

    Lee



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 03 2003 - 20:20:42 MDT