Gil Troy: Why Al Gore Shouldn't Think of Running for President Even Now
[Gil Troy is a history professor at McGill University. His most recent book is Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady.]
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize disproves one of the more depressing observations about the United States. The glittering Great Gatsby novelist of the 1920s, F. Scott Fitzgerald, once said, bitterly, "There are no second acts in American lives."
However, after bottoming out in frustration when the presidency eluded him in 2000, Gore has enjoyed a triumphal second act as an environmental activist.
Gore's unique triple play of snaring an Emmy Award, an Oscar and now the Nobel Peace Prize, will inevitably resurrect talk of a run for the presidency in 2008. But Gore - and American voters - beware: The skills required to succeed as president and to win a Nobel Prize are not only different but contradictory, especially these days.
Americans yearn for a president with George Washington's rectitude and Pope John Paul's certitude. Celluloid and video presidents often have displayed those qualities, most recently in the character Martin Sheen created on NBC's West Wing, President Josiah "Jed" Bartlet. Bartlet is not only honest and principled; he, like Gore, is a Nobel laureate, having won his in economics before becoming governor of New Hampshire and then president.
Alas, the real world usually leaves the Nobel geniuses in academia, the saints in temples and crusaders on the outside agitating for change within. The Al Gore who won the Nobel Peace Prize was very different than the Al Gore who lost the presidency by judicial fiat. Gore as environmentalist is passionate, daring, funny, even if a bit wooden in his Inconvenient Truth lectures.
Candidate Gore was lethargic, hypercautious, and so wooden that the few jokes he made had to do with his resemblance to those old-fashioned cigar-store Indians.
Few remember how awkward Gore was in 2000 - when he should have triumphed with large margins, and did not even win his home state. Few remember that in late October 2001, with Americans still reeling from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, few of Gore's own people missed having him in the Oval Office.
After America's Afghanistan invasion ousted the Taliban and sent Osama bin Laden to the hills, 14 of 15 Al Gore supporters the New York Times interviewed had little good to say about Gore's leadership ability. Most Democrats insisted on speaking anonymously, but they pointed to Gore's tendency to micromanage, to be a know-it-all, to get mired in complexity, and to lack George W. Bush's black-and-white clarity when communicating with the people. Similarly, the current Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has overcome her tendency to be stiff in public and rigid in her policy preferences, demonstrating a remarkable vindicating fluidity so far.
Many Americans also will be able to read the signals coming from Oslo loud and clear. Gore's prize is well-deserved for his activism, for his commitment and for his ability to get millions around the world thinking about our stewardship of this planet.
His success in popularizing the concept of everyone's "carbon footprint," which became the buzzword of this past year, is admirable and important. But the Nobel Prize committee's delight in selecting candidates who are Bush's rivals is not likely to win Gore many votes in America's heartland, even among many fed up with Bush.
At a time when America's international standing is so low, it is important to have Europeans' favourite Americans like Jimmy Carter and Gore wined, dined and prized on the continent. But being a hit in the castles of Europe - or even the seminar rooms and newsrooms of North America - has limited utility during a bruising presidential campaign across all 50 United States.
A healthy democracy needs consensus-building politicians who know how to compromise and Martin Luther King-style "creative extremists" who don't.
Gore has demonstrated great skill as an activist - and is doing noble work, challenging us all to build greater lives by living more modestly. But even in this age of celebrity politics, not all fame is transferable.
Gore should not let the accolades of Hollywood and Oslo go to his head. He should continue his great campaign for a clean future while watching the bruising, intensive, soul-searing, often dirty campaign for president of the United States go on without him.
Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize disproves one of the more depressing observations about the United States. The glittering Great Gatsby novelist of the 1920s, F. Scott Fitzgerald, once said, bitterly, "There are no second acts in American lives."
However, after bottoming out in frustration when the presidency eluded him in 2000, Gore has enjoyed a triumphal second act as an environmental activist.
Gore's unique triple play of snaring an Emmy Award, an Oscar and now the Nobel Peace Prize, will inevitably resurrect talk of a run for the presidency in 2008. But Gore - and American voters - beware: The skills required to succeed as president and to win a Nobel Prize are not only different but contradictory, especially these days.
Americans yearn for a president with George Washington's rectitude and Pope John Paul's certitude. Celluloid and video presidents often have displayed those qualities, most recently in the character Martin Sheen created on NBC's West Wing, President Josiah "Jed" Bartlet. Bartlet is not only honest and principled; he, like Gore, is a Nobel laureate, having won his in economics before becoming governor of New Hampshire and then president.
Alas, the real world usually leaves the Nobel geniuses in academia, the saints in temples and crusaders on the outside agitating for change within. The Al Gore who won the Nobel Peace Prize was very different than the Al Gore who lost the presidency by judicial fiat. Gore as environmentalist is passionate, daring, funny, even if a bit wooden in his Inconvenient Truth lectures.
Candidate Gore was lethargic, hypercautious, and so wooden that the few jokes he made had to do with his resemblance to those old-fashioned cigar-store Indians.
Few remember how awkward Gore was in 2000 - when he should have triumphed with large margins, and did not even win his home state. Few remember that in late October 2001, with Americans still reeling from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, few of Gore's own people missed having him in the Oval Office.
After America's Afghanistan invasion ousted the Taliban and sent Osama bin Laden to the hills, 14 of 15 Al Gore supporters the New York Times interviewed had little good to say about Gore's leadership ability. Most Democrats insisted on speaking anonymously, but they pointed to Gore's tendency to micromanage, to be a know-it-all, to get mired in complexity, and to lack George W. Bush's black-and-white clarity when communicating with the people. Similarly, the current Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has overcome her tendency to be stiff in public and rigid in her policy preferences, demonstrating a remarkable vindicating fluidity so far.
Many Americans also will be able to read the signals coming from Oslo loud and clear. Gore's prize is well-deserved for his activism, for his commitment and for his ability to get millions around the world thinking about our stewardship of this planet.
His success in popularizing the concept of everyone's "carbon footprint," which became the buzzword of this past year, is admirable and important. But the Nobel Prize committee's delight in selecting candidates who are Bush's rivals is not likely to win Gore many votes in America's heartland, even among many fed up with Bush.
At a time when America's international standing is so low, it is important to have Europeans' favourite Americans like Jimmy Carter and Gore wined, dined and prized on the continent. But being a hit in the castles of Europe - or even the seminar rooms and newsrooms of North America - has limited utility during a bruising presidential campaign across all 50 United States.
A healthy democracy needs consensus-building politicians who know how to compromise and Martin Luther King-style "creative extremists" who don't.
Gore has demonstrated great skill as an activist - and is doing noble work, challenging us all to build greater lives by living more modestly. But even in this age of celebrity politics, not all fame is transferable.
Gore should not let the accolades of Hollywood and Oslo go to his head. He should continue his great campaign for a clean future while watching the bruising, intensive, soul-searing, often dirty campaign for president of the United States go on without him.