September 15, 2004
On September 8th of this year, David Remnick chronicled the current life and times of former Vice-President Albert Gore in pages of The New Yorker. Remnick’s extensive article (39 pages of internet copy) reveals a very insecure man who is still filled with resentment over a presidency lost.
He begins most of his speeches with the line, "Hi, I’m Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States." He always gets a laugh with the line, but it is the uncomfortable laughter of an audience that doesn’t quite know whether he is making fun of himself or he is in need of counseling. After reading this article I would vote for the latter.
Gore’s life now is a study in contrasts. For example, in one place Remnick writes, "When the architect was designing the rear addition to the (Gore’s) house, Gore asked him to curve the walls inward in two places in order to save several trees." This is presented as evidence of Gore’s supposed commitment to the environment. But later in the article Remnick remarks, "Other features of the house are less environmentally correct. A 2004 black Cadillac, which Gore drives, was parked in the driveway. A ’65 mustang -- a Valentine’s Day gift from Al to Tipper -- was parked in the garage."
So is Gore the bastion of environmental protectionism which he portrays himself to be, or does he simply promote causes which allows him to bask in the soft glow of the limelight of the left? Once again, I will choose the latter.
I was fascinated with Gore’s description of his admitted liberation from any suggestion of moderation in his political rhetoric. Remnick describes this new freedom of Gore’s by revealing what Al really felt like saying to the media. "If he felt like calling George Bush a ‘moral coward,’ if he felt like comparing Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to islands in an ‘American gulag’ or the President’s media operatives to ‘digital Brown Shirts,’ well, he just went ahead and did it."
In other words, the Al Gore we are seeing today -- now that he is no longer vice president -- is the "real" Al Gore. He is the Al Gore who can criticize the politics of personal destruction out of one side of his mouth while the politics of personal destruction flows freely out of the other side. Stop and think for just a minute: We almost elected a man to the highest office of the land who has more in common with Michael Moore than with the average American.
The most eyebrow-raising moment in the interview came when Remnick opened the door for Gore to comment on President Bush’s personal faith. Gore says through tight lips, "It’s a particular kind of religiosity. It’s the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world." Gore’s new freedom to speak his mind reveals a very disturbed mind that would compare the tenets of Christian fundamentalism to Muslim extremists.
President Bush’s faith has much in common with the faith of many evangelical, born again Christians and absolutely nothing in common with the Islamofascists who intentionally target children and routinely slaughter innocents. It is outrageous for Gore to try in any way, and for political reasons, to connect the two. His comments point to a disturbing trend in America. It is a well-known and much used tactic to take out those who disagree with you with a simple one, two, three punch.
First, you vilify your opponents by accusing them of being hate mongers or backward peddlers of narrow-mindedness. Then, you marginalize them by pushing them to the perimeter of every discussion and refusing to allow them a place at the table of ideas. Finally, you move to criminalize their behavior so they will be forever silenced. In 1994, when Evangelicals finally went to the polls and turned the control of Congress over to the Republicans, it so infuriated the Left that they have since been on a search-and-destroy mission against anyone who can be identified with fundamental Christianity.
