Almost a year ago, our nation decided between Texas Gov. George W. Bush, viewed as a socially privileged, unintelligent candidate with a morally questionable past, and Vice President Al Gore, seen as booksmart, but distant and untrustworthy. A few hundred votes in Florida and a court battle later, Dubya was sworn in, leaving many questioning the fairness of the endgame and whether he could indeed be an effective president.
Now, we have a president with an 88 percent job-approval rating. The public sees him as strong and decisive, sincere and confident. Yes, the terrorist attacks caused the president's public opinion to skyrocket, but voters last November, despite an apparent lack of knowledge on issues, picked Bush based on character and leadership style. Most agree that while Gore failed to exude personality, he did offer an intelligent, thoughtful presence. That's really what the ultra-close election came down to: personality vs. intelligence.
What if \intelligence"" had won? What if our nation had Gore sitting in the White House? How would he have handled the aftermath of Sept. 11? Certainly, many responses would have been similar, but what about a Gore presidency would have been challenging? It's useful to look at three groups a president must deal with for effective policy development: Congress, the U.S. public and the world community.
President Gore would have had a Democratic Senate and a Republican House just like Bush. Most likely the Senate would have supported President Gore's policy proposals, just as it has for Bush. But in the Republican House, Gore might have received a cooler welcome. Even though he didn't perceive his presidency as an extension of Clinton's, the more polarized House might have held Gore accountable for his predecessor's lapses in intelligence, military presence and health infrastructure.
Wary that post-Sept. 11 policy wouldn't be complete enough to deal with solving terrorism, the House might have proposed bills with more federal investigatory authority, a move which Gore, a proponent of broad civil liberties, might have deemed extreme. But overall, Gore would find little opposition from Congress.
However, the two areas where Gore would have found great obstacles are in relations with the American public and with other nations. A year ago, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert declared that Gore's problem was personality.
""Now that the debates are over, the polls are showing some movement back toward the vice president, which should tell you something,"" Herbert said. ""The less he's seen, the better he does.""
Analysis from a late October 2000 CBS/New York Times poll stated that voters saw Bush as ""implicitly making the case that one of his greatest strengths, an often warm and engaging personality, is not merely a social asset but a political one.""
Would Gore have been as effective a ""comforter in chief""? Bush has been appearing often in front of the cameras since Sept. 11 with a strength and resolve that, arguably, the American people needed to see for peace of mind. Could Gore has done it as effectively? Probably not.
Even though Bush was seen as partisan during the campaign, few refuted his ""I'm a uniter, not a divider"" mantra. Bush has, in a way, become the Great Uniter, bringing together a nation through appearance and personal appeals. Gore did not have that reputation.
Bush was labeled during the campaign and early part of his presidency by critics as a foreign-policy novice, detached from international issues. Now, those same critics praise Bush for creating a pro-active foreign-policy/national-security team. Gore might have taken a more academic position in evaluating and reacting to the attacks, but could he have built a better versed, more interdisciplinary cohort of advisers? Furthermore, would Gore's admitted need to entrench himself in every issue have caused division between and among him and his Cabinet? Gore was known as inflexible when individuals presented effective policy alternatives. Those close to the Bush administration have stated that Bush himself is personally playing an integral role in creating and maintaining the international coalition against terrorism. Gore might have struggled to build as wide-ranging a coalition, both fearing that allying with nations with questionable human rights records might be counterproductive and personally connecting with other international leaders.
In the end, while certainly reaction would have been similar, a Gore presidency probably wouldn't have been as effective post-Sept. 11. The intangibles cited last election'personality, strength of advisers, seeming ""presidential""'have proven to be assets for Bush. Gore's personal knowledge about the issues'issues that today seem irrelevant to our world'and inability to relate to the American public may have actually hindered our nation from quickly and comprehensively dealing with both the problem and the need to heal.
