First, let me say that this article was originally posted about six months ago to both Viewpointjournal.com as well as FreeRepublic.com. I made a few small changes to it for publication here at Blogcritics.com
Any scifi fan can tell you that a popular trend in science fiction these days are alternate "what if" stories of earth history. Harry Turtledove, one of the biggest names in alternate history novels, has become very well known in this particular niche of the scifi genre and has written whole series of alternate history stories. His "what if" stories include such topics as what if the Confederacy won the Civil War; what if aliens invaded earth during the height of World War II, and other fascinating looks at what the world could be under slightly, or greatly, different circumstances.
In that spirit, then, I thought it might be worthwhile to pose an alternate history scenario for readers related to the 2000 Presidential elections and then examine what might be happening today if Albert Gore had become the 43rd President Of The United States.
So, lets imagine for the next several minutes that the US Supreme Court, in turning back the Florida Supreme Court recount decision did not, as originally happened, choose to end the election. Instead, they simply overturn the Florida Supreme Court recount decision and sent it back to Florida courts for clarification. Upon further clarification of how the votes should be counted, the new vote is undertaken and, by some quirk of history, Vice President Gore becomes the new President of our United States of America.
No doubt conservatives would react in a similar though, I like to think, less shrill manner over the close election and the court decision which ultimately selected the new president. I have no doubt that Governor Bush would behave in no less a magnanimous way than Gore did once the final decision was declared, and President-elect Gore would then be inaugurated the next president.
Now, let's speed forward to September 11, 2001. It is now President Gore who is at the nation's helm, not Bush, when he receives the devastating news of the terrorist attacks during a speech at an elementary school in Florida. Gore rushes back to Airforce One and is then promptly whisked to safety while he assesses the situation. On that day, the nation wakes up to the reality of what it means to live under the threat of terrorism. Also, as before, Americans realize abruptly that we have been naive and stupid. While other nations have for years lived in fear of terrorism, we had arrogantly assumed we were invunerable. Now we know the truth, and know too that the only path to safety is to meet the problem head on.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hal Pawluk
Six months later, same old propaganda.
2 - Ms. Tek
Spare me. How very dull.
If you think Bush is a buffoon, that has nothing to do with loyalty to the nation. I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Unite States of America. No where does it say I have to say I have to agree with the president or even like him.
Try again.
3 - Mark Saleski
Conservatives do not fault liberals for wanting to ask questions, or challenge decisions made by the President
what the heck are you smokin' anyway?
Despite all of that, there comes a time when bitterness must be set aside and loyalty to the nation must come first
yes, like that lovely day when republicans pocketed their hatred of clinton in order to put the nation first.
now, when was that?
4 - mike
Actually, Gore would have had a much easier time of it because 9/11 never would have happened; the Gore White House would have been competent enough to stop it.
And that's not a joke. It's going to be the judgement of history. So bomb all you want, motherfuckers. We're writing it down.
5 - David Flanagan
now, when was that?
Put the nation first in what crisis? What crisis did Clinton face that is anywhere near what we are dealing with at this time?
David Flanagan
6 - David Flanagan
Actually, Gore would have had a much easier time of it because 9/11 never would have happened; the Gore White House would have been competent enough to stop it.
As opposed to the Clinton White House which said no at least twice when other nations offered to hand Osama bin Laden over to us without us having to fire a shot? Did Clinton/Gore do anything to quell the growing terrorist threat after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, or the embassies in Africa, or the USS Cole?
The Gore White House would have been witness to the same tragedy that the Bush White House witnessed, no doubt. The only difference between the two presidencies would be perhaps Republicans insistence that, unlike Clinton, Gore actually do something about the problem.
Thanks.
David Flanagan
7 - Ms Tek
You're right. "What crisis did Clinton face that is anywhere near what we are dealing with at this time?
"
There were jobs, and crazy arabs weren't attacking us left and right. We still had allies in the world. We didn't have over hundred thousand American boys and girls getting attacked and killed for invading a country that doesn't want them there and seemed to be under more control before the Americans got there. There wasn't a massive deficit. The biggest crisis was that it seemed Clinton was getting more action than the people who were bitching about him the most.
You finally hit the nail on the head. Good for you!
8 - Al Barger
Actually, I suspect that had Gore been president on 9/11, things would have gotten much bloodier much quicker. My guess is that he would have panicked and started bombing shit out of half the Middle East.
9 - mike
Which half?
10 - David Flanagan
The biggest crisis was that it seemed Clinton was getting more action than the people who were bitching about him the most.
Getting action from a girl young enough to be his daughter, that is one thing. Lying about it and pressuring Monica to lie about it before a Grand Jury is quite another.
But the truth is, all the signs of the growing terrorist threat appeared during Clinton's term, but he chose to pass the problem on to the next administration. Clinton did a lot of passing on.
Here is what he passed on:
1) A faltering economy - began to decline in 2000, well before Bush took office.
2) The "dot bomb" - The dot com crash began under Clinton's watch.
3) The coming corporate scandals - For all the whining that liberals do about corporations, Clinton never lifted a finger to deal with companies like Enron.
4) The terrorist threat - Osama bin Laden would never have had the opportunity to plan the 9/11 attacks had Clinton chosen to say "yes" when not one, but two foreign powers offered to hand him over.
5) North Korea - Clinton chose to appease NK in a series of unilateral talks rather than deal more firmly with them at the time.
The truth is, Al Gore was lucky that he never became President. One of his central promises was that economic times were going to get even better under his watch. It would have been interesting to watch him explain that campaign promise as he struggled to handle multiple crises all coming in on top of each other.
Though, being a good citizen, I would have been willing to put all that aside for the sake of the nation. Which is just one of the differences between you and I.
BTW - When the impeachment trials began, I wrote to my reps in congress asking that they not vote for impeachment.
David Flanagan
11 - Ms. Tek
"Though, being a good citizen, I would have been willing to put all that aside for the sake of the nation. Which is just one of the differences between you and I."
You're not a good citizen. You bleat like a sheep. If something is wrong, then say it. That is what this nation is about. Not blind following.
Finally, would of, could of, should of. None... Not one of your points has been proven in fact. You cannot say that is Gore were president this would have happened, that would have happened. You don't know, and you are not god. Moreover, living in the past isn't going change the future or what is going on now. What is going on now, at this moment, is PURE Bush. He's had four years to make things better. He hasn't. Time to boot the manager and get in a winning team to take us to the World Series.
12 - David Flanagan
Time to boot the manager and get in a winning team to take us to the World Series.
Very true that the past is the past. Which "winning team" would that be?
No offense but, if Kerry does win the nomination, he has an uphill battle against President Bush. Besides, Kerry voted to authorize the use of Force in Iraq. Never mind the fact that he flip-flopped later to woo angry Democrats.
Fact is Kerry wouldn't do hardly a thing different if he did get into office. The one major issue that both Clinton and Bush have had to face is the terrible intelligence they both received in regards to Iraq, Iran, Libya, and who knows what other nations.
Iraq was supposed to have a nuclear program, they didn't, Libya and Iran were not supposed to have one, they do. I'm sure Bush will have that fixed before he leaves in 2008.
Thanks.
David
13 - Hal Pawluk
Fact is Kerry wouldn't do hardly a thing different if he did get into office.
One thing he would do is boot the neos and replace their self-destructive foreign policy with a policy that would exhibit at least a smidge of sense and be in the best interest of America.
Another would be to stanch the deficit, and benfit the millions rather than the millionnaires.
And ... et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
14 - David Flanagan
One thing he would do is boot the neos and replace their self-destructive foreign policy with a policy that would exhibit at least a smidge of sense and be in the best interest of America.
I'm sorry, catering to the French is not what I would call a "sensible" foreign policy. Where were you when Clinton authorized bombings in Kosovo without UN approval? Clinton did not have UN approval for the invasion of Haiti either, and neither did he bother to go to congress or to UN to get authorization to strike Iraq in 1998.
And do you know what? Kerry supported all those actions. Here is what he wrote to Clinton regarding Iraq in 1998:
"I urge you ... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sounds like Bush's foreign policy is, for the most part, right in line with what Democrats were pushing for in 1998, the only difference being that Bush got it done.
David Flanagan
15 - David Flanagan
Another would be to stanch the deficit, and benfit the millions rather than the millionnaires.
I agree with you on the deficit but the whole "benefitting the millionaires" bit tells me that you've been sold yet another line. Its "us" against "them." The only problem is that most of "them" got to be where they are through incredibly hard work or through innovation, or through creating their own businesses that bloomed into larger businesses that benefitted millions, not just themselves.
Look at Germany, and the onerous taxes they have on their people, and then look at the fact that they are in a huge economic downturn, with jobs disappearing faster than the speed of light, and you'll see why we don't want to harm America's most productive citizens with idiotic tax policies.
The deficit, that is a REAL issue to discuss, and many Republicans, including myself, are downright upset with Republicans in Washington for spending like there's no tomorrow. They are spending like Democrats! If they don't start bringing all of that under control, that will be the issue that sends Republicans home en masse and brings Democrats back into the majority in congress.
David Flanagan
16 - Eric Olsen
Interesting that you have Gore taking the same actions as Bush and that the main difference is the press reaction and response of congress.
I think Gore would have gone to Afghanistan but probably not Iraq.
I don't think the mainstream media has treated Bush all that badly.
mike, it's absurd to say Gore would have averted 9/11 - little or nothing had changed with the way Bush was handling our dealings with terrorists from the way Clinton did. Gore wouldn't have been doing anything differently either. And I voted for Gore.
I don't see conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats any more or less likely to rally behind a president in time of crisis, both equally crave power, both equally assume to have the moral upper hand.
17 - Tom
I hate liberals like this. I am sick an tired of saying that things are worse now than 4 years ago.
You just don't get it do you? You don't see that there is a world out there that does not like us. The didn't like us when Clinton was in office, they don't like us now. They never will.
Some of them want us dead, some just want to continue to hate us.
There IS evil in the world.
You demonize us for liberating Iraq. I want you to go to Iraq, and tell the relatives of those who were gang raped or shot in the back of the head, and/or buried alive in mass graves that we should never have came there to stop this madman.
You are the same people who probably would have looked the other way as the Nazi's exterminated jews.
Get a clue, get a life, and grow up.
Realize that there is evil in the world, and sometimes we are the only country in the world capable of stopping them.
18 - Mark Saleski
grow up? this coming from the guy with "Stupid Liberal Of The Week"?
nice.
19 - Tom
i forgot, when you libs say mean things you mean it. You don't know the meaning of jokes and fun.
20 - Hal Pawluk
"but the whole "benefiting the millionaires" bit tells me that you've been sold yet another line. Its "us" against "them." The only problem is that most of "them" got to be where they are through incredibly hard work or through ..."
I call that "the Robert Novak Defense" - when the rich get perks they don't deserve and someone complains, they call it "class warfare" and raise the us vs. them flag. How about changing your script?
Quite obviously you've bought their line that it's okay for them to get more and the poor to get less, and that's exactly what's happening (check the stats). Even rightie Joe Scarborough commented on the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer in America yesterday. It is a real problem, unless you feel that it's good social policy, perhaps because "you've got yours and may the devil take the hindmost."
The particular "them" that are a special problem are the 535 members of the Senate and the House. Part of the issue is that they keep passing laws to get them even more wealth; the other part is that their campaign contributors keeping paying them to do so.
The situation in Germany is simply a red herring and is not analogous.
21 - gerrard
I love it when conservatives trot out the old "well, the rich deserve their sucess because they earned it" tripe as a justification for helping the rich get even richer. I guess that means that the people who aren't as well off deserve not to have health care or a fair share at education. I just wish conservatives would be more honest about it with the american voters, most of whom probably wouldn't agree that the rich deserve to get sweetheart tax cuts or corporations the ability to set policy. What's really important is that Paris Hilton have as much wealth as possible, right? Only a crazy anarchist could disagree with that.
22 - Ms. Tek
Tom,
I don't think your "Stupid Liberal of the Week" is a joke, or in good fun. I think that you are just saying that so as to deflect the criticisms. As your current "Stupid Liberal of the Week", I think that you didn't get the response out of me that you expected. What is even more telling is someone who has not read me for a long time is classing me as a "liberal" and against the second amendment. Anyone who knows me knows how far off base that is.
23 - Mark Saleski
i think it's funny...just not for the same reasons that tom thinks it's funny.
24 - JR
mike, it's absurd to say Gore would have averted 9/11 - little or nothing had changed with the way Bush was handling our dealings with terrorists from the way Clinton did. Gore wouldn't have been doing anything differently either.
Didn't the Clinton White House have weekly meetings on terrorism, a practice the Bush White House discontinued? Didn't the Clinton aides specifically tell Bush's team that Osama bin Laden was going to be a problem? Didn't the government prevent a millenium attack on LAX under Clinton?
It seems reasonable to assume that Gore would have maintained that focus; and he wouldn't have been on vacation for the enire month before the attack. That doesn't mean Gore would have prevented the 9-11 attacks. But it sure would have given us better odds.
25 - JR
David Flanagan: No doubt conservatives would react in a similar though, I like to think, less shrill manner over the close election and the court decision which ultimately selected the new president.
Conservatives like Tom DeLay who sent busloads of conservatives down to Florida to disrupt the recount?
I think you're already living in an alternate history.