How would a president Al Gore react to 9/11?

While I think that it's an exaggeration to say that Gore would have revived the Dixiecrats, I do think it's at least plausible that he could have a more limited effect on the party's fortunes in the South. Specifically, in the 2004 Senate elections, where IOTL the Democrats lost five southern seats. Supposing he wins re-election that year on the back of a successful defeat of Bin Laden, those five seats could be held. Throw in a victory in the following year's gubernatorial election in Virginia, and the party wouldn't be in a half bad position overall. Gore being the environmentalist that he is, he might use his political capital to implement a cap and trade system like the ones that Europe pursued at the time. That might seem more likely to succeed than another health care push.
 
While I think that it's an exaggeration to say that Gore would have revived the Dixiecrats, I do think it's at least plausible that he could have a more limited effect on the party's fortunes in the South. Specifically, in the 2004 Senate elections, where IOTL the Democrats lost five southern seats. Supposing he wins re-election that year on the back of a successful defeat of Bin Laden, those five seats could be held. Throw in a victory in the following year's gubernatorial election in Virginia, and the party wouldn't be in a half bad position overall. Gore being the environmentalist that he is, he might use his political capital to implement a cap and trade system like the ones that Europe pursued at the time. That might seem more likely to succeed than another health care push.

I can see this and maybe if he ties in his envrionmentalist appraoch with jobs in promoting renewable energies could help out too.

An early caught Bin Laden also steers attention away from froeign politics and to domestic policies given the rise of corproate scandals could mean more attention is given to them
 
While I think that it's an exaggeration to say that Gore would have revived the Dixiecrats, I do think it's at least plausible that he could have a more limited effect on the party's fortunes in the South. Specifically, in the 2004 Senate elections, where IOTL the Democrats lost five southern seats. Supposing he wins re-election that year on the back of a successful defeat of Bin Laden, those five seats could be held. Throw in a victory in the following year's gubernatorial election in Virginia, and the party wouldn't be in a half bad position overall. Gore being the environmentalist that he is, he might use his political capital to implement a cap and trade system like the ones that Europe pursued at the time. That might seem more likely to succeed than another health care push.

Of those southern seats up that year, the only ones the Dems could reasonably have held on to were North Carolina (Edwards runs for reelection) and Florida which was very close IOTL. They are not winning Louisiana, South Carolina or Georgia.

I am also very skeptical that Gore would be able to get cap and trade through considering Obama couldn't with 60 votes in the Senate. We would probably see Gore primarily using executive action to push environmental policy as Obama did.
 
Why are people suggesting that the Financial Crisis is less likely to occur if he were President?. Many of the causes go back quite far, and interest rates were hacked following 9/11.
 
Why are people suggesting that the Financial Crisis is less likely to occur if he were President?. Many of the causes go back quite far, and interest rates were hacked following 9/11.
As comment in P2S, 911 bursted a recession with a minor one and was saved thanks agressive consumer and liquity measures...and bush burned all the surplus in Iraq, maybe Gore(in our case he does) follow the fed suggetion just to improve/avoid a collapse of the economy post 911(and the economy got a slump thanks dot com buble early in the year) and that might set a future one but economics is not set in stone, gore would not mismanaged either mac or allow Enron goes away with a slap on the wrist. But economics will take a side seat against foreign policy for a while
 
Gore would probably go into Iraq anyway. Don't forget that Iraq was Clinton's war long before (and after, for that matter) it was Bush's war. We were bombing Iraq in Feb '01. Democrats didn't "go along with the war" for political sake - they jumped in feet first but had the good sense politically to turn it around later when it went poorly and wasn't what it was sold to be. They can't do that if their party is the one prosecuting it from the White House.
 
Gore would probably go into Iraq anyway. Don't forget that Iraq was Clinton's war long before (and after, for that matter) it was Bush's war. We were bombing Iraq in Feb '01. Democrats didn't "go along with the war" for political sake - they jumped in feet first but had the good sense politically to turn it around later when it went poorly and wasn't what it was sold to be. They can't do that if their party is the one prosecuting it from the White House.

Gore isn't a centralist like Clinton was though and furthermore, with 9/11, the bigger focus would be on Al-Queda and going there.
 

Philip

Donor
Much of this thread seems to confuse the Al Gore after the 2000 election and the Al Gore from before the election.

It also seems to ignore that regime change in Iraq was an explicit part of the 2000 Democratic platform.
 
That said, it's possible to me that 1) he may have decided unlike Bush that practical concerns militated against going after Iraq at least immediately, or that it was better to try alternative methods of pressure first or that 2) he puts going in on the agenda but is canny enough to wait for a better opportunity(say, "wait for Saddam to screw up and do something that everyone and their brother would consider provocative enough to go to war, and until he can be assured of further international support).
 
Gore isn't a centralist like Clinton was though and furthermore, with 9/11, the bigger focus would be on Al-Queda and going there.
Gore was a centrist Democrat. The one issue on which he has gotten a lot of attention is on environmental topics. But if you look at other issues, from his views on NAFTA to crime to social issues to the economy, he was a bog standard centrist Southern Democrat at the time.
 
Why are people suggesting that the Financial Crisis is less likely to occur if he were President?. Many of the causes go back quite far, and interest rates were hacked following 9/11.

For the same reason people think Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq- wishful thinking.
 
One thing Harvey is clear about is that neocons were often vetoed in the Bush admin's steps to war in Iraq, his administration wasn't entirely composed of unilateralists, and eventually disposing of Saddam was the bipartisan foreign policy consensus.
 
I believe that’s called alternate history.

Granted, I admit I know little on Gore though I doubt the Dems would go there like the Neocons did
Who do you think his VP candidate was? Or what the party platform said?

And as for the NeoCons, it is an oversimplification. The realists in the Bush admin wanted Saddam gone as well, and they were more numerous. The alt-right trope of Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz cooking up a cabal to invade Iraq is a tired one.
 
Last edited:

Philip

Donor
Exactly, regime change in Iraq was made official US government policy in 1998 with massive bipartisan support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Indeed. And the official platform of the Democratic Party reiterated their support for regime change:


In Iraq, we are committed to working with our international partners to keep Saddam Hussein boxed in, and we will work to see him out of power. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have stood up to Saddam Hussein time and time again. As President, Al Gore will not hesitate to use America's military might against Iraq when and where it is necessary.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29612

VP Gore made a speech in the run-up to Operation Desert Fox detailing, in his words, the need to degrade Iraq's proven weapons of mass destruction program and to prevent him from supplying terrorists. I'm sure the text/video are floating around the intertubes somewhere.
 
There would've been a war in Afghanistan, and one that's better executed than OTL, with more resources committed to it than OTL, so we may very well see Bin Laden and his lackeys captured or killed in late 2001 or 2002. It also would've been less likely that Gore would piss away all the international goodwill we had from our allies in the aftermath of the attacks, so there'd be no invasion of Iraq. The policies of Containment and No Fly Zones would've continued however, so expect a bombing or two of Iraq to take place. With that said, while Gore probably would've seen a rally around the flag effect as Bush did, it wouldn't have been as big and it wouldn't have lasted as long, as he and Clinton would've gotten far more scrutiny for it than Bush did OTL ("why didn't you guys do more to prevent this in the 90's," etc...), so with this, a slight recession followed by a weak recovery as in OTL, and a Republican controlled Congress gridlocking Gore domestically, I think he loses re election in 2004 to a Republican like McCain (likely McCain himself), although it would be a close race. Gore is probably remembered similarly to HW Bush and a Republican elected in 2004 would get saddled with Katrina, and presides over the financial crisis (it'll still happen, but possibly later like in 2009 or 10, so the GOP might win again in 2008), so a Democrat is elected in a landslide in 2008 or 2012 depending on when the economy collapses. McCain, or whoever defeats Gore is likely remembered slightly better or worse than Dubya is now, depending on who it is.
 
There would've been a war in Afghanistan, and one that's better executed than OTL, with more resources committed to it than OTL, so we may very well see Bin Laden and his lackeys captured or killed in late 2001 or 2002. It also would've been less likely that Gore would piss away all the international goodwill we had from our allies in the aftermath of the attacks, so there'd be no invasion of Iraq. The policies of Containment and No Fly Zones would've continued however, so expect a bombing or two of Iraq to take place. With that said, while Gore probably would've seen a rally around the flag effect as Bush did, it wouldn't have been as big and it wouldn't have lasted as long, as he and Clinton would've gotten far more scrutiny for it than Bush did OTL ("why didn't you guys do more to prevent this in the 90's," etc...), so with this, a slight recession followed by a weak recovery as in OTL, and a Republican controlled Congress gridlocking Gore domestically, I think he loses re election in 2004 to a Republican like McCain (likely McCain himself), although it would be a close race. Gore is probably remembered similarly to HW Bush and a Republican elected in 2004 would get saddled with Katrina, and presides over the financial crisis (it'll still happen, but possibly later like in 2009 or 10, so the GOP might win again in 2008), so a Democrat is elected in a landslide in 2008 or 2012 depending on when the economy collapses. McCain, or whoever defeats Gore is likely remembered slightly better or worse than Dubya is now, depending on who it is.

Yeah, but mayve the early success by Gore would've helped with that.
 
Top