New Archive:

November 2000 Issue

Gore's Campaign Choices May Have Cost Him the Presidency

By Dan Fink

What Went Wrong?

After Tuesday we will finally be able to go back to Regis' suit and tie combination and The Iron Chef. There will be no more propaganda, no more late night CNN reporting, and finally, no more polls. After over a year of campaigning, America can finally rest her head under the auspices of--George W. Bush?

The hundreds of TV advertisements, millions of dollars spent, late night pollster meetings and Ralph Nader rhetoric have culminated into the most unsatisfied feeling that I could have expected with the end of an election. I expected something cathartic. I expected the people of the United States to take a deep breath and a sigh of relief. I expected to have all of our questions answered . For the most part they were.

I found out the Katie Couric has no business in doing in-depth political coverage and that Tom Brokaw's voice gets progressively huskier into the night. The one thing I have yet to find out is what went wrong. What went wrong with this election? There was something more malicious, more baneful, and less cathartic (excuse my rhetorical device) in the outcome of this election. Forget the fact that there were mistakes made by the producers when it came to the ballot counting and that Florida went from Gore to Bush to Gore to Bush to__?

Had there not been the additional controversy there still would have been something wrong with the election. What upsets me even more is that it had to be the election where I first got to vote. I must admit that when I punched that oddly shaped marker into the hole that signified a vote for Al Gore, I was not inspired. Chills didn't run down my spine. I didn't hear the Star Spangled Banner in the back of my head. I didn't feel like I was casting a vote for the man that represented my ideologies. But for some reason, he was the best candidate for me.

Nader wanted an isolationist country, whereas the only thing that I liked about Bush was his vacant smirk that has endeared itself to me over the year. Buchanan, on the other hand, simply scares me. Where did these candidates go wrong? More specifically, where did Gore go wrong?

Every one of my contemporaries who voted for Gore did so with a half-half sort of attitude. That's the only way I can explain it. They voted for him because they didn't like anyone else (including Nader). They voted for him because he coincided with them on the single issues: abortion, school vouchers, social security, and national defense. With this being said, his supporters (and my contemporaries) were still not enthusiastic for him. He received votes from fellow Brandeisians (and other college students) because there was no one else who spoke to them. No other candidate was able to espouse realistic liberal views (sorry Ralph).

Gore spoke to us in single segments. He spoke to us in pixels rather than a picture. He failed to embrace the one thing that would have endeared himself to my peers: an ideology. This election was philosophically dry. There was almost no talk regarding conservative or liberal principles. Had Gore embraced the Democratic ideology he could have ridden it into the Oval office. He could have appealed to voters by linking himself to the more liberal school of thought. Instead of talking about abortion and welfare, he could have spoken to us about a social consciousness and moral responsibility.

Gore's party used to represent change. Their ideologies were based upon progressive thought. Why did Gore fail to link himself with progressives? Had he taken advantage of the Democrat rhetoric he surely would have boosted himself in the polls, especially among college students. Had he done this Nader would have been a non-entity.

I was looking for someone with a philosophy--someone who believed in something that added up to more than the sum of its parts. I was looking for someone who had a thought process that transcended singularity. My peers, and Democrats in general, were looking for the same thing. They were looking for someone who could speak to them in terms they could understand--in terms that would resonate with them. This is how votes are won.

Gore had the opportunity to talk to us about a progressive movement that dealt with social issues in a more congenial way. He could have appealed to us by making references to "social justice" and "a newer system." These are the issues that appeal to Democrats. The single issues are slivers of a much larger piece--a piece with which most Democrats can identify. Gore could have capitalized on this.

The Democratic platform was progressive and carried with it motifs of change and justice. The tools were there for Gore. He had the means to appeal to his constituents. Why did he choose not to use them? This choice could have cost him the election.

Younger voters are looking for ideologies. They yearn for the passion that progressives in the sixties and seventies had. We have no Korea or Vietnam. We aren't familiar with civil rights or women's suffrage. There aren't the cliche instances for progressiveness. Instead, we turn our heads to the ignorance of the WTO protesters in Seattle and the World Bank hooligans in our Capital.

These weren't instances of progressive movements. They were examples of young angst. These protesters didn't know what they were protesting. They don't understand the system of globalization. They were there because no one else was. Because the progressive movement in this country is being diluted by hypocrisy (sorry Ralph) and disillusionment among young voters who are void of a strong candidate in this election.

I am going to remember this election as the election in which philosophies were lost. Ideologies were replaced with "pop-politics" and platforms were traded in for singular issues. This election had the potential to change things. Gore had the opportunity to appeal to a young group of Americans who were going to vote in their first election. Instead, he chose to distance himself from the progressive movement. He could have spoken to us and done away with the idiocy of Nader. Instead, we are left without a leader, without someone to identify with. The tragedy of it is that we aren't going to find one within these four years.

Dan Fink, alumnus of the Genesis Program at Brandeis University, hopes to make the world a better place.

This article originally appeared on JVibe.com.

lifestyles | fiction | politics | daily buzz | relationships | culture | social action | spirituality | chatroom | J-TV giude | win stuff | e-postcard | about us | archive | disclaimer