From the WSJ Opinion Archives
Gore and Clinton, man and machine, America and Canada.
From "The Graceless Partisan Selfishness of Al Gore," a commentary by Stephen Robinson in London's Daily Telegraph, Nov. 28:
In the New York Times interview, Mr Gore cited the fact that in 1801, Thomas Jefferson needed 36 votes in the House of Representatives before he was finally confirmed as president, yet "Jefferson's healing speech of March 1801 is one of the most notable in the history of the presidency". He also cited John F Kennedy's popularity after his narrow election victory in 1960 as evidence that a Gore administration would not begin under a fatal cloud.
Only Mr Gore, surely, after such a tacky campaign either side of election day could compare himself to two men who, in very different eras, were revered respectively for their wisdom and grace. . . . In his gracelessness and self-righteous fury, Mr Gore uncannily resembles Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings, when the President set himself up as the defender of the constitution against a Republican witch hunt. Mr Clinton even cited his success in heading off conviction on his impeachment charges as one of the two major triumphs of his presidency.
Just as Mr Clinton was prepared to suggest on national television an intern was a fantasist ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"), so Mr Gore supports Jesse Jackson's efforts to portray a vaguely ambiguous ballot paper in Palm Beach as an affront to every black American. There is a perfect continuum in behaviour, and Mr Gore is now seeking, in effect, the third Clinton term, even though he made a great show of campaigning as his own man and would hardly let his boss leave the White House.
From "Beginning of the End," a commentary by Levi Obijiofor in Nigeria's Guardian, Dec. 1:
The American political scene has been fouled by unbelievable allegations of electoral fraud. When these events occur in the developed world, they are described as machine error. In developing countries, they are portrayed as blatant acts of vote rigging. But we must bear in mind that American electoral officials are human after all. The message is that neither Africa nor the developing world holds a patent on the invention of ingenious political machines that award victory or votes to the preferred political candidates. . . .
The battle in Florida over whether ballot papers should be hand-counted or machine-counted is essentially a battle between the ancient and the modern. The fact that the Florida Supreme Court allowed hand-counting to take place in some counties, the fact that some ballot papers were disqualified because technology failed to confirm the intention of voters is a reflection of the magnitude of man's distrust for technology. The message is unambiguous--technology might facilitate the ease and speed with which we carry out activities in the 21st century but we must never abandon accuracy for speed. Should African countries ravaged by hunger and famine, disease and political insurgency now buy Western sales pitch for acquisition of new technologies? Anyone who needs an unequivocal answer should visit Florida.
From "A Little U.S. Gridlock Isn't So Bad," a column by Gordon Barthos in the Toronto Star, Dec. 1:
Gore represents continuity with Clinton's moderate administration. His thinking about Washington's role in the world, and domestically, is nothing if not mainstream. No wildness in his program. And he's open to other views.
Bush may be something else altogether. From a Canadian standpoint he's certainly the bigger question-mark. Hard though it is to credit, the Texas governor is widely reported never to have visited Canada. He looks to Mexico as a natural trading partner despite the far higher volume of business we do across the 49th parallel. His Canadian "learning curve" will be steeper than Gore's, who knows us well. . . .
[Canadian Prime Minister Jean] Chrétien's electoral coup on Monday, and his enhanced Liberal majority, should help insulate us from troubling bits of the Republican agenda. Chrétien needn't bend to pressure from the business lobby, for example, to copy U.S. tax and social investment policy. We've had our debate. Moreover Chrétien is now a veteran leader who needn't feel obliged to play ready-aye-ready to Washington on the international scene.
The Americans know they can count on us when the shooting starts. So Chrétien can feel free to speak his mind without fear of unduly antagonizing the new administration.
