Best of the Web:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005134
BY JAMES TARANTO
Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:25 p.m. EDT
Guilty Gore Goes Gaga
"It is now clear that Al Gore is insane," writes the New York Post's John Podhoretz. "I don't mean that his policy ideas are insane, though many of them are. I mean that based on his behavior, conduct, mien and tone over the past two days, there is every reason to believe that Albert Gore Jr., desperately needs help. I think he needs medication, and I think that if he is already on medication, his doctors need to adjust it or change it entirely."
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times agrees. When he delivered a speech to the far-left outfit MoveOn.org yesterday, she writes, "Mr. Gore hollered so much, he made Howard Dean look like George Pataki." She says the erstwhile veep represents "the wackadoo wing of the Democratic Party."
Well, give Gore credit for helping liberals and conservatives find common ground in this era of polarization. Pretty much everyone agrees Gore is nuts. OK, we did get one e-mail in Gore's defense, from a reader whose name we'll withhold because that's the kind of compassion we practice here at Best of the Web Today:
Al Gore spoke the truth, the real truth, and American truth. The hate speech that we are exposed to on a daily basis comes from the likes of you and the rest of you lying fascist scum that contaminate this country. You are the Republican taliban.
This charming missive pretty much captures the tone and spirit of the Gore speech, though our correspondent at least understands the virtue of brevity. Gore's speech, by contrast, ran more than 6,500 words. Maybe he's hoping for Fidel Castro's job.
How did things go so terribly wrong for Al Gore? When he ran for president in 1988, he was a fresh-faced, moderate "new Democrat." He lost the nomination to the electrifying Michael Dukakis, but he was only 40 and his future looked bright. Yet he never lived up to his potential, and today he is a pitiful, though scary, old man.
An Associated Press account of yesterday's speech notes that "Gore, who served in Vietnam, predicted greater problems for America's involvement in Iraq." The AP apparently means to suggest that Gore suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder, since the Vietnam reference is otherwise a complete non sequitur. But according to WebMD, "symptoms of PTSD usually occur within three months of the traumatic event." True, "they can occur months or years later"--but three decades later?
We've got a better theory: Gore, in our view, has cracked under a crushing burden of guilt.
To explain why, it helps to remember that a desperate anger pervades Gore's entire party at the moment. That's not surprising. For the first time in half a century, the Democrats are out of the White House and have a majority in neither house of Congress. A decisive GOP victory in November would leave the Dems a minority party for a very long time.
Oh, they put on a brave face, noting excitedly every Bush swoon in the polls. They say the president is manifestly incompetent and John Kerry will beat him easily. Maybe they'll even turn out to be right. Who knows? Certainly some Republicans are spooked about Bush's re-election prospects. But the shrillness and hysteria of the Democrats' rhetoric tells us they are far from confident.
Still, the immoderation of Gore's words, combined with the fury of his tone, puts him in a class by himself, or very nearly so, even among angry Dems. And while political candidates routinely engage in hyperbole in order to stir up the party faithful, Gore isn't running for anything. Dick Gephardt stopped ranting about Bush's being a "miserable failure" when he left the presidential race. Gore has nothing to gain by sacrificing his dignity in this way.
How did the Dems come to such a pass? In large part, it's Gore's fault. The Democrats held the White House in 2000, at a time of apparent peace and prosperity. They should have won the election that year, and they surely would have had they only had a decent candidate. But instead they had Al Gore. Even he came close enough to winning that he was tempted to try to steal the election.
There's a telling line right at the beginning of Gore's speech: George W. Bush, he says, "has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon." Here Gore is engaging in what psychologists call "projection": attributing one's own faults to others. The most dishonest president since Richard Nixon obviously is the one who was impeached for lying under oath--the president, that is, whose No. 2 was none other than Al Gore.
Gore would have become president had Bill Clinton resigned after his 1998 impeachment, or had 17 Democratic senators voted to convict him in his impeachment trial. President Gore likely would have been re-elected in 2000, since he would have had the advantage of incumbency and been free of the Clinton taint that (unaccompanied by the Clinton charm) hurt him so much in the "red" states.
Instead, party discipline held, and the Senate acquitted Clinton. This was another missed opportunity for Gore. Had he publicly broken from Clinton and called on the president to resign, other Democrats might well have followed his lead. Instead, he appeared at a White House rally immediately after the impeachment vote and described Clinton as "a man who I believe will be regarded in the history books as one of our greatest presidents."
Thus it was Al Gore, more than anyone else, who assured the election of George W. Bush as president. And if Gore actually believes all the paranoid nonsense he utters about "global warming," "an unprecedented assault on civil liberties," the "American gulag," the "catastrophe" in Iraq and so on, he let down not only his party but his country and the world, which will soon be destroyed thanks to Bush's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto treaty.
That's more guilt than anyone should be forced to endure.