Gore's Denials Are Evidence He Will Run

Al Gore will officially become a candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination. He just hasn’t admitted it to himself yet. Although he attempts to deny to the media that he intends to run, his denials themselves actually provide the best evidence that he will in fact seek the presidency again.

Experienced interviewers/interrogators will recognize certain patterns in Gore’s responses to questions about his potential candidacy, patterns consistent with attempts to deceive himself and the interviewer. There are noticeable similarities between Al Gore’s denials of presidential ambition and standard denials of involvement by criminals undergoing law enforcement or intelligence interrogation.

For example, many murderers, when asked during interrogations if they killed the victims, offer the following responses: “I could never do something like that” or “I loved her, how could I hurt her?” While these responses give an outward impression of denial, when examined closely they actually contain no denial of guilt and reveal an avoidance of the actual question. Such answers also demonstrate the inability of the suspect to admit to himself that not only was he capable of murder, but he actually went through with it when the opportunity presented itself. In the minds of many who have murdered or committed violent crimes, there remains the faint hope that what happened did not really happen and that they must be innocent because they have no explanation how they could be involved in something so grave. They literally attempt to convince themselves with internal arguments such as, “that couldn’t have been me, I’m not that kind of person, I would never do that.” Yet these are merely conscious deflections from the unconscious knowledge of what they have done. The conscious cannot admit what the unconscious knows to be true, and the conflict is expressed in the attempted denial that contains a belief about them rather than an admission of what actually occurred.

Now, Al Gore is not a murderer or criminal (although there was that pesky issue of selling military and nuclear technology to China), but his responses when asked if he will enter the presidential campaign contain most elements of deception and denial commonly encountered by law enforcement and intelligence interrogators. In a mere two sentences, Al Gore's words confirmed for me that he fully intends to run but refuses to admit to himself or the media that he cravenly harbors that ambition. In an interview with ABC News this week, Gore was asked the question everyone wants answered: will he run for president in 2008? Gore’s response follows:

Gore underscored in the interview that he is "not a candidate," and that he is "not looking for a set of circumstances that would open the door for me to get back into politics. I'm really not."

But he does leave some wiggle room for the possibility of running in 2008. "Look, we're a year and half away from this election," he said, "[I] see no need to say, 'OK. I'm not ever going to even think about that in the future.'”

As the ABC headline provided by Gore proclaimed, “I Am Not a Candidate.” That was Gore’s initial response when asked if he was running in 2008. While this gives the impression of a denial, it is not a denial but is instead a deflection. In this response Gore is stating a truth: he is currently not a declared candidate. This does not answer the question as to whether he intends to become a candidate. By answering in this fashion, Gore clearly wants to give the impression that he does not intend to seek the presidency but his conscious cannot admit what the unconscious knows to be true: he has already made plans to run.

Gore’s expanded response is even more revealing. He claimed that he is not actively looking for exactly the right circumstances that would force his run for the presidency, such as adulation and begging from his party. He even reinforced this claim by adding “I’m really not.” This statement also bears some resemblance to a denial, but it is not a denial. It demonstrated that Gore cannot consciously admit to himself that he would hungrily seek the presidency if the door appeared open to him. He may not be looking for the open door, but he will walk through it when he comes to it on his own or his party beckons him toward it. “I’m really not” simply means “I really am, but admitting that would mean I am ambitious and power hungry, and I cannot admit that to myself or the media yet. Not until the door is open.”

He has made similar comments in the media. To Time Magazine, Gore stated:

…that he "has fallen out of love with politics" and that he was unlikely to run.

"I haven't ruled it out. But I don't think it's likely to happen," Gore told Time, explaining that he considered the role he was now playing as a global spokesman for awareness on climate change to be an important one.

"If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis. And I'm not convinced the presidency is the highest and best role I could play," he said in the cover story for the Time issue dated May 28.

Gore, who has repeatedly referred to himself as a recovering politician, warned however: "You always have to worry about a relapse."

The problem with falling out of love with politics, or anything else, is that falling back in love is common and unpredictable. In fact, the phrase “fall in love” is entirely inaccurate. Love is developed over time, through experience, trial, and sacrifice. One can become temporarily infatuated, but that is not love. Gore’s lifelong pursuit of political achievement and high office was akin to love, while his obsession with global warming and propaganda movie making is an extended infatuation dedicated to one convenient truth (sorry Al): keeping Gore politically viable while he licked his 2000 election wounds in preparation for 2008. His statement about falling out of love, while giving an impression of denial, was not a denial. If shown sufficient adulation by his party and his pet cause, Gore’s love of politics would quickly rekindle to its normal flame of obsession. Likewise, he claimed that he was not convinced that the presidency was the best role for promoting his global warming hysteria. He did not state, “I can never be convinced,” thus if the right people whispered the right things about global warming and the “bully pulpit” in his ear, he would surely find that convincing enough to jump into the ring while claiming he was issued a call to duty rather than fulfilling the lifelong ambition he publicly conceals.

Al Gore loves politics more than Priuses, campaigning more than carbon offsets, and the White House more than greenhouse gas reduction. If you believe Al Gore would rather be the world’s global warming guru than the President of the United States, you do not know Al Gore.

America Overrun By "Crazy" Optimists

Brit Hume has a knack for mining precious gems from the vast caverns of media hysterics to share with Special Report viewers, and yesterday he did it again by exposing Newsweek senior science editor Sharon Begley’s criticism of President Bush for being (inhale sharply!) too optimistic. I remember that the media had similar criticisms of President Reagan, apparently preferring the dour demeanor of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to confidence, a cheery disposition, and hopeful expectations for the future. Begley, who Hume points out has no credentials in the field of psychology, psychiatry, or any other field related to mental illness, declared that the president is “in a state of denial” about the Iraq War. Of course, it is common for presidents to inspire their countrymen when times are tough. Yet Begley does not see inspiration or leadership in the president’s unshaken belief that the war will be won. Instead, she sees what she perceives as symptoms of mental illness. From Brit Hume’s Political Grapevine:

Sharon Begley offers as proof the president's insistence the war will succeed, despite what she calls "setback after setback." She continues: “While it's always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial."

She offers up the fact that as a seven-year-old boy, the president tried to comfort his mother after his baby sister died of leukemia. Begley writes: "The tip-off for denial is perpetual optimism, a pathological certainty that things are going well." She also cites the fact that Mr. Bush has battled alcohol abuse, saying such people, "typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon."

Begley is not the first media personality to equate optimism, also known as faith, with mental illness. Bill Maher referred to religion as a neurological disorder, and placed biblical stories were on a par with other fantasy tales like Jack and the Beanstalk. Maher would surely agree with Begley that President Bush’s “perpetual optimism” is akin to religious faith. I do not know if Begley is an avowed atheist like Maher, but clearly she understands little about the relationship between optimism and religious faith. Most people who are actively involved in religion live life with the certainty that a power greater than themselves is watching over them and all that unfolds in life is part of a plan that will ultimately benefit humanity. That belief is what places setbacks or even suffering into perspective. Knowing that even terrible things happen for a reason makes them tolerable or even turned into opportunities for growth.

Bill Maher and Begley have forgotten the lessons of history. The three most successful wartime leaders in American history, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, suffered nearly overwhelming defeats in the early years of their wars, and they had no illusions that things were going well when they were not. They had disputes with their generals; they faced citizen unrest and dissatisfaction with how the wars were conducted; they were inundated with depressing reports of lost battles and massive casualties. However, they remained optimistic that ultimately their cause would win because it was just, and they did the only thing they could: they pushed forward with “pathological certainty” in eventual victory. President Bush’s approach to the Iraq War is no different. He has acknowledged many times that Iraq has not gone exactly as planned and has adjusted strategies accordingly. Only permanent pessimists like Begley or Maher, or political opportunists like Pelosi or Reid would declare the new surge policy a failure before it has been fully implemented. America should appreciate optimism in its presidents, and beyond appreciation, should desire it from its leaders.

America was founded in a spirit of “pathological certainty.” The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are perhaps the most perpetually optimistic documents ever crafted by mankind. They set forth the certainty the Founders exuded that they were acting out the will of God and that man’s rights came from God rather than government. By placing the care of the nation in God’s hands, the Founders expressed their optimism, or faith, that their efforts would succeed regardless of any temporary setbacks or direct threats from within or abroad.

The compassionate conservative in me feels sorrow for Begley and Maher. If optimism is a mental illness, then what would pessimism be considered? Chronic negativity and a “doom and gloom” outlook which never exhibits hope of eventual success are signs of depression, which is an actual, medically classifiable mental disorder treatable with medication. There is a reason psychiatrists do not prescribe medications for optimism: “perpetual optimism” is a sign of a sound mind and an indomitable will. It is only when all other possibilities are exhausted that a cancer patient must face the reality of pending death. Until that point is reached, the patient presses forward, relying on the only truly dependable source of strength: optimistic faith. With that faith, even death itself cannot conquer the human spirit. Was Winston Churchill psychotic because he vowed that Britain would “never surrender?” The only thing crazier than pressing forward when all seems lost would be retreating when difficulty is encountered.

I am glad that the current president is an optimist who is not easily cowed by challenging decisions or violent attacks. What kind of nation would America be without “perpetual optimism?” The Wright brothers would have stuck with ground transportation in Begley’s version of psychotic America. Every entrepreneur takes a leap of faith when a new business is launched. There will be lean years, and stiff competition, and possible failure at every turn. “Perpetual optimism” is what separates successful Americans from those who live in constant fear of failure, and thus never take risks. Pessimists are the armchair quarterbacks of the world, sitting comfortably in their mediocrity criticizing the performances of those who willingly face seemingly insurmountable odds with faith and cheerful optimism.