First, most of the candidates mentioned as potential 2008 Democratic Party standard-bearers are fine public servants. Most have served their country with distinction, are honorable, knowledgeable and would, in the minds of many Americans, be far better equipped to exercise the duties and prerogatives of Chief Magistrate compared to our 43rd President when he entered that High Office in 2001.
With that in mind, one prospective Democratic nominee for President stands best-positioned to win the General Election and, by doing so, help restore integrity to our government and secure America’s place in the world as a champion of our democratic ideals.
Why? Because voters tend to elect Presidents based not only on the circumstances and issues of the day, but on the perceived shortcomings of the present or outgoing Administration. This is particularly true during times of intense national debate and uproar over the policies of the prevailing regime, when Americans debate the Great Questions: Who are we as a nation and where do we want to go? Such changes at the Presidential level are generally presaged by dramatic shifts in the midterm congressional elections immediately prior to a realigning, or otherwise consequential, Presidential election cycle. For more, see “Rejection Elections,” a piece written by this author prior to the 2006 congressional elections (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/28/133012/37).
There are many examples of this throughout our history:
In 1800, the electorate rejected the constrained democratic vision of the Federalists and elected the uber-Republican, former Vice President Thomas Jefferson, to lead the general government in a different direction (more inclined to support states’ rights, more likely to espouse a strict constructionist philosophy). Twenty-eight years later, voters rejected the aristocratic-seeming, and internal-improvement backing, Administration of John Quincy Adams in favor of a “champion of the people,” General Andrew Jackson, the leader of the newly organized Democratic Party (a.k.a. the Machine Van Buren built).
By the late 1850s, most Northerners grew weary of the Doughface Democratic Presidents who were willing to sacrifice liberty in exchange for a sectional peace without honor, which led to the elevation of former Congressman Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency as our nation’s first Republican Chief Executive in 1860.
Rejection of utopian Wilsonian-ism and a desire for a return to “normalcy” led to three successive Republican Administrations in the 1920s. President Hoover’s failure to transcend the traditional public policy and economic thinking of his era in order to combat the Depression crisis helped bring about a New Deal coalition that held together, for better or worse, for over 40 years.
Turning to the modern/primary and caucus era of the Presidential nominating process, we have some notable, and successful, examples of “contrasting narrative” candidacies.
Senator John F. Kennedy’s adoption of the theme: “Let’s get the country moving again” in 1960 helped contrast his perceived vigorousness and forward-looking orientation with the seemingly less-than-vital waning days of the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration.
The Carter campaign’s emphasis on personal honesty (“I will never lie to you”) stood in stark juxtaposition to the corruption of the Nixon Era, and helped dash the 1976 election hopes of the honest, yet pardon-tainted, incumbent President Ford.
The Clinton ’92 campaign’s narrative of empathy, populism and focus on domestic concerns helped elect the Arkansas Governor to the Presidency, as it allowed for a favorable comparison to the widespread perception of President George H.W. Bush as 1) disconnected from the lives of everyday Americans and 2) being “out of his depth” when it came to solving the chief domestic policy crisis of his Presidency, the recession of the early 90s.
So now we arrive at another crossroads, a timeless but apt metaphor as we face challenges to not only our Homeland, but to the guiding principles our society holds so dear – the rule of law, a government accountable to a sovereign people, respect for individuals rights and liberties, a sane national security policy, and a recognition of our obligations to one another as citizens of our Republic, to promote a “common good.”
The results of the 2006 mid-term elections indicate that many Americans are dissatisfied with Republican leadership and ineffective GOP solutions and are open to electing a Democratic President in 2008 to take a different approach to the challenges facing our nation.
Even though President George W. Bush will not be on the ballot in 2008, the candidate who is the best “Anti-Bush” stands the best chance of being elected. In my estimation, Al Gore is that candidate. Consider the following:
- Experience. Gore has been in the public eye for decades, having been a Congressman, a Senator, and Vice President of the United States. Elected twice (and arguably three times) on a national ticket. He is a known figure. By comparison, George W. Bush was elected in 2000 not so much because of who he was and what he accomplished as Governor of Texas, but because of his family name, the power of primogeniture in GOP circles, and the perception put forth by his campaign that he would be a “compassionate conservative” who would restore morality to the White House. In these dangerous and uncertain times, the electorate will be looking for someone who is a serious, sober, and established, quantity. Few of the other potential Democratic nominees even come close to matching Gore in this regard.
- Approach to governance. Whereas there is a perception that Bush II’s style of governance centers on governing from the gut (or heart, if you prefer), voters will be more inclined to support a candidate whose worldview is based less on instinct and more on logic, critical thinking and analysis, careful reflection, investigation and reason. There is a book coming out in 2007 with the title, “The Assault on Reason,” authored by none other than former Vice President Al Gore. For fans of the television program, “The West Wing,” a Josiah Bartlet will look very good to voters in 2008 while a Robert Ritchie-type will be far less appealing. Among the Democratic hopefuls, Al Gore comes very close to the Bartlet model.
- Policy wonk-itude. In 2000, many (but hardly all) Republicans were comforted by the notion that George W. Bush would surround himself with some of the GOP’s “Best and the Brightest” to help govern the nation. In 2008, Americans will want more. They will want to elect someone who will listen to his advisors with an open and probing mind, but who also has the intellectual heft and policy expertise to make informed decisions without relying on staff. While an old knock against Gore (particularly in the pre-An Inconvenient Truth days) was that he was “stiff,” no one ever doubted his considerable expertise on a host of public policy issues, including but certainly not limited to, national defense, government reorganization, and of course, the environment. Of all the potential Democratic nominees for President, Gore still holds the title of Wonk-in-Chief.
- Right on the Big Issues of the Day. In 2007, this means the War in Iraq. Al Gore came out early in opposition to the Administration’s handling of the Iraq War. He did so when few other Democratic leaders were willing to voice a strong and principled stand against the War out of concern for being labeled soft on the War against Terrorism. Unlike the Bush Administration, Vice President Gore’s views on Iraq and the War on Terror are well within the mainstream of American public opinion. His willingness to speak out demonstrated his courage, especially during a time when many GOP operatives were actively questioning the patriotism of those who voiced dissent. In a similar vein, had Karl Rove been Tom Dewey’s campaign manager in 1948, he might have labeled President Truman as being soft on Fascism, given Senator Truman’s investigation of war profiteering during World War II. History has shown that Truman was right and will show that Gore was right. Whereas some potential Democratic Presidential hopefuls are still grappling with their views on the Iraq War, Vice President Gore offers clarity, consistency and conviction.
- A President for all Americans, not only the powerful. The Clinton/Gore Administration demonstrated that economic growth could be done responsibly, without a reliance on trickle-down theory where most of the prosperity is enjoyed by the “special interests” (as the Progressives of the early 20th century would use the term). Moreover, the election of progressive populists such as Senator Jim Webb of Virginia and Senator Jon Tester in Montana provides credence to the hypothesis that Americans are ready to embrace a new populism, that the Gore campaign slogan of 2000, “the people, not the powerful” (as both terms are perceived now) was both prescient and more compelling now than it was then. While some Democratic hopefuls can run on a progressive platform, few can run on a progressive record. Al Gore can talk about vision and results.
So, I close on this point:
I strongly encourage Al Gore to seek the Democratic nomination in 2008, for the sake of the Republic. I believe many Democratic voters think as I do, that he is the right candidate at the right time. Given the monumental tasks that are sure to face the nation’s 44th President, why should we settle for anyone less than the very best?
Moreover, regardless of whether or not he announces his candidacy, I encourage voters to cast their Presidential primary ballot/caucus vote for Al Gore. In doing so, we give our best hope the delegates he needs to win the nomination, or at least give like-minded Democratic leaders and activists the ability to influence the national debate over the course of our Party and the nation.
The author of this piece, Jason Booms, is the President & CEO of an Alexandria, VA-based opinion research and strategic communications firm, Booms Research & Consulting.