If Gore won in 2000, might the neocons have returned to the Democratic Party?

If Gore won in 2000 and 9/11 still happened, it would be up to a Democratic President to respond to 9/11. If Gore decides to go into Iraq, might he have been able to get the neocons to return to the Democratic Party? The neocons were Democrats before the rise of the New Left, and in the Gore-Bush debates, Gore is defending intervening in the Balkans against Bush's accusations of nation-building.
 
Last edited:
Gore would not go into Iraq. *Insert revisionism of why that Bush-only policy would happen here for me to debate*. Gore would sanction Iraq. Gore could launch strikes at Iraq. But Iraq would remain distinct from the War on Terror, and from 9/11. If anything, 9/11 should have distracted the US further from Iraq. Gore would also seek international cooperation and consensus in any action against Iraq. It would not be an American war. At most, it could be some air strikes that have occurred in any country over the course of the latter 20th century, which did not lead to war.

At most, a Gore presidency will prevent the Neoconservatives from being fully discredited, as occurred because of Bush. And it may keep the centrist New Democrats strong in the Democratic party. I also need to tackle the point that the neocons have a complicated origin story. However, they were not the Democrats prior to the New Left. Some neoconservatives individually may have been, but they changed, not the party. The neocon movement may revise their origin story to be that, they may simplify their belief of their predecessors to be that story, and they did take an element from the pre-New Left Democrats, but the New Deal/Post-New Deal Democrats and the Neoconservatives are not the same by a long shot. Neoconservatives have the hawkish, interventionist, globalist view which may be attributed to certain factions of the pre-New Left Democratic party. It is the view of building up the nuclear arsenal, building up the military, and sending in the military to "nation build". It is a view of military operations and military engagement as simply another form of diplomacy. However, it is very important to note not all Democrats shared that view, nor certainly in the Neoconservative simplicity. It is also important to note that beyond that foreign policy view, the Neoconservatives absolutely do not have the domestic view of the New Deal or New Left phases of Democratic parties. The Neocons do not believe in a welfare state, social safety net, active for the common good government. Neocons believe in Big Government for the purposes of Big Military, while still touting limited government at home.

EDIT:
Honestly, the Neoconsevatives have two origins. One being a bunch of jaded Trotskyists and ex-Communists who turned resentment in their own stupidity into our problem. Two, people who took away the lesson from Vietnam that we were right, but we had simply not gone far enough, and who drifted their political views in that direction accordingly. And if they were Democrats, they sold away every Liberal tenet they had believed in for an aggressive, militarist foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to go after you on the Gore in Iraq issue. That statement was more directed towards the incoming argument that somehow Gore would pursue the same Iraq War Bush did. That is not the case, and that's an odd bit of "history would not change anyway" revisionism that has come about in my lifetime. And that speaks to the problem of Gore in terms of the Neoconservative view. There will possibly be a honeymoon period after 9/11 should it arise. And I say "should it arise" not because Gore would necessarily have prevented it, but because even under Bush, it could have failed to happen. However, Gore may go into Afghanistan, but Iraq is going to be a sideshow to the War on Terror rather than integrated into it, as it was under Bush. And the Neocons will criticize him for that. As I stated, he will take measures short of war towards Iraq over the course of his presidency. He may order strikes. But I argue there is no logical reason to believe Gore would undertake an occupational war in Iraq, and certainly not one that removed the entire government and military apparatus.

The Bush administration was the victory for neoconservatives where they had won after many years of trying, and after the "interregnum" of Clinton, and now had a free hand to show how well their policies worked. And we saw how well those policies worked. That is why they were discredited. Again, in a Gore administration, they would not be discredited, although they may nonetheless fall out of fashion as a new political generation matures all the same. My thinking would not be that the neocons take over the Democrats. My thinking is that whatever influence the neoconservatives had on the Democratic party, or the Republican party, and whatever other influence they had on think tanks and the discourse on foreign policy would remain the same as whatever it was prior to the Bush administration of actual history.
 
Gore may go into Afghanistan? I think some of you are seriously underestimating how angry Americans were.

We might go to war sooner in Iraq under Gore or it might take longer. But, either way it will likely happen because the public was willing to pay at the time the cost of a few hundred casualties that the military and political class believed would be the cost of removing Saddam based on their first Gulf War experiences.
 
Last edited:
Gore may go into Afghanistan? I think some of you are seriously underestimating how angry Americans were.

We might go to war sooner in Iraq under Gore or it might take longer. But, either way it will likely happen because the public was willing to pay the cost of a few hundred casualties that the military and political class believed would be the cost of removing Saddam based on the first Gulf War experiences.

Iraq was not part of the War on Terror. It took Bush administration PR to integrate it as a component of the War on Terror. Even then, many Americans, including Gore, criticized Bush in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq because they viewed it as a distraction from the War on Terror which lacked international support. They thought Saddam was working on getting WMDs, because that's what the administration had told the American people. But they did think the administration was going about it terribly, was not planning properly, was not gaining international support, and that the course of action Bush was pursuing was a detriment to the War on Terror and getting bin Laden. The Bush administration had to go out of their way, even against intelligence to the contrary, to promote the idea to the American people that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 and terrorism, was building weapons of mass destruction that would fall into the hands of terrorists, and therefore we had to go into Iraq. The Iraq War, especially as a war of removing Hussein and totally toppling, occupying and attempting to rebuild a nation, was a war of choice by the Bush administration. Americans supported it because the administration actively convinced them to believe a narrative, which the intelligence the administration had contradicted or did not fully support.

In Gore's America, Iraq is going to be an issue outside of the War on Terror, rather than integrated into it. Gore will seek international consensus and support for any action in relation to Iraq. And if Saddam refuses UN inspection, Gore will likely increase sanctions, form a diplomatic coalition of support against Iraq, and potentially initiate military strikes. Gore will also have access to the intelligence Bush had to know well enough what we knew Saddam Hussein was and was not doing. It is not necessarily perfect, but Gore would not twist it and pick and choose from it to support a neoconservative agenda which turned into the Bush policy of the OTL Iraq War. This topic has started to upset me, because this was not a passive matter that just fell into Bush's lap and which would have fallen into any president's lap with the same results. The Iraq War was an active, intentional conflict where the administration went out of it's way to make it occur, and reported falsehoods and half truths to the American people to get support for it.
 
Last edited:
Iraq was not part of the War on Terror. It took Bush administration PR to integrate it as a component of the War on Terror. Even then, many Americans, including Gore, criticized Bush in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq because they viewed it as a distraction from the War on Terror which lacked international support. The Bush administration had to go out of their way, even against intelligence to the contrary, to promote the idea to the American people that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 and terrorism, was building weapons of mass destruction that would fall into the hands of terrorists, and therefore we had to go into Iraq. The Iraq War, especially as a war of removing Hussein and totally toppling, occupying and attempting to rebuild a nation, was a war of choice by the Bush administration. Americans supported it because the administration actively convinced them to believe a narrative, which the intelligence the administration had contradicted or did not fully support.

In Gore's America, Iraq is going to be an issue outside of the War on Terror, rather than integrated into it. Gore will seek international consensus and support for any action in relation to Iraq. And if Saddam refuses UN inspection, Gore will likely increase sanctions, form a diplomatic coalition of support against Iraq, and potentially initiate military strikes.

From 1992: Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism - YouTube

In 2002 two Americans were killed one in Jordan and one a Marine in Kuwait by a terrorist spending most of his time in Baghdad who we and Jordan asked Baghdad to turn over and gave his exact location given we were monitoring his phone calls.

Saddam 'refused to hand over Zarqawi'

DUBAI: Jordan's King Abdullah has accused jailed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein of refusing to turn over wanted extremist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, now head of the Al Qaeda network in Iraq, before the US-led invasion.

"From the time Zarqawi entered Iraq, before the fall of the former regime, we made great efforts to bring him back and try him here, but our requests to the former regime were in vain," Abdullah said in an interview published yesterday in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.

The king said Jordanian authorities had intelligence on Zarqawi entering Iraq from a "neighbouring country," and knew where he was and what he was doing. "We provided the Iraqi authorities with the precise intelligence, but they did not respond favourably" to Amman's requests.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=112592

Saddam himself convinced America that he was very much part a supporter of terror after 911 by inviting in jihadists and celebrating the attack.

hussein_poster_911sm.jpg


Rather then assume Al Gore is going to be wearing 2016 goggles on Saddam, look at what Gore actually said and thought about Saddam and look at why the public including Gore believed at the time Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. Saddam could have pulled an Iran and Gaddafi and kept his head down after 911. Not doing so combined with the low level air war over Iraq that was already going on would make it extremely hard no matter who was President to ignore Iraq after the attack.
 
Last edited:
I strongly doubt there would have been a "successful" 9/11 if Gore had then been president.

Prince Bandar has been nicknamed Bandar "Bush", not Bandar Gore.

Someone else than Cheney would have been VP. Someone else than Rumsfeld would have been secretary of defense. And someone else than Rice would have been NSC.

So the Administration may have paid attention to the CIA warnings and the air defense may well not have been lowered on 9/11.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I strongly doubt there would have been a "successful" 9/11 if Gore had then been president.

Prince Bandar has been nicknamed Bandar "Bush", not Bandar Gore.

Someone else than Cheney would have been VP. Someone else than Rumsfeld would have been secretary of defense. And someone else than Rice would have been NSC.

So the Administration may have paid attention to the CIA warnings and the air defense may well not have been lowered on 9/11.
That sounds like trutherism, and is frankly kind of ridiculous.

As to the point at large, Bush did not have the support of neoconservatives in the 2000 primaries. They mostly lined up behind John McCain, and Bush was seen as a quasi-isolationist based off of what he was saying, although his foreign policy advisors were mostly from the realist camp with Wolfowitz as the sole neoconservative. Bush was also hammered by neoconservatives in the first few years of his Presidency for continuing to engage with Arafat when it was clear to most that it was a dead end to work with the Palestinians at the peak of the Intifada. When Bush compelled Israel to end the siege of the Mukataa, it was seen as a betrayal.

Gore would not be able to get the neoconservatives on board simply because while he personally might have held views closer to theirs than Bush did initially pre-9/11, he didn't have neoconservatives close to him the way Bush did. Now, having Joe Lieberman as his VP might change that, sure, and there could be a coming home moment for the neoconservatives in the Democratic Party much like we kind of saw with the final day of the recent Democratic convention, as they were definitely turned off by the Moralist edge of the Republican Party that reasserted itself post Lewinsky, but I think its a stretch.
 

One must keep in mind that Gore of 1992 was not the Gore of 2000. In 1988, Gore had run as a moderate to even conservative southern candidate. He was not a liberal of any stripe. And I am not here to defend Al Gore and his political life. I am here to be critical of the idea that the Iraq War, most certainly in the form it occurred in, would have taken place in an administration other than George Bush. As mentioned in to the 2002 speech to which you allude, Gore saw a war against Iraq as a distraction from the war against terrorism, as I have already stated. Not as part of the war on terror. That is a key distinction for the psychological portrait we can create for our Virtual Al Gore. To the OTL Al Gore, Saddam Hussein and the potential for an new war against Iraq is a distinct entity from, and a hindrance to the war against Al-Qaeda, their leaders, and the people who supported them in carrying out attacks against the United States, and terrorism in general. Bearing in mind also that this is Gore not as the president, not abreast of intelligence reports firsthand, but interpreting the narrative the administration has presented, which is being reported by a new media that is taking the Bush administration on it's word. This is Gore giving his feedback on information he is getting through a filter of administration bias. Therefore, Gore believes it is a world where it is certain fact that Hussein is attempting to get weapons of mass destruction that very second. And even so, he is still critical of administration policy and impending action. Our Virtual Gore, in the position of the presidency, would be presented with the intelligence first hand.

Even as a private citizen who believes reality as the administration is presenting it in regards to Iraq, 2002 Al Gore is not hammering the drum for the war the administration pursued. Gore's view on the Iraq situation is that it should be handled in steps. Gore believes the United States should get international support and international cooperation, and a UN resolution against Iraq. He believes the United States needs to be open to and review the opinions and feedback of it's allies, and that the Bush administration is not. He believes that while the United States could take action against Iraq alone, this would seriously hinder the separate issue of the war against terrorism. He also feels the administration's pressing for a war so hastily prevents time for careful analysis of the situation, and for proper planning of the situation, which can be communicated to the American people and American allies. He is critical of the administration turning it's focus from 9/11 and terrorism to Iraq, which squandered international goodwill and support for the United States in the war against terrorism. He is also critical of a policy of preemption, which has the risk of alienating our fellow nations and allies, and creating a precedent for preemptive conflict elsewhere and anywhere. He is critical of Bush policy toward Iraq for distracting from US operations in Afghanistan. I will simply quote another portion to save time:

WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO

I believe, therefore, that the resolution that the President has asked Congress to pass is much too broad in the authorities it grants, and needs to be narrowed. The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration’s thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change.

Specifically, Congress should establish why the president believes that unilateral action will not severely damage the fight against terrorist networks, and that preparations are in place to deal with the effects of chemical and biological attacks against our allies, our forces in the field, and even the home-front. The resolution should also require commitments from the President that action in Iraq will not be permitted to distract from continuing and improving work to reconstruct Afghanistan, an that the United States will commit to stay the course for the reconstruction of Iraq.

The Congressional resolution should make explicitly clear that authorities for taking these actions are to be presented as derivatives from existing Security Council resolutions and from international law: not requiring any formal new doctrine of pre-emption, which remains to be discussed subsequently in view of its gravity.

Bearing in mind once again that this is Gore as a private citizen, which has no reason to believe the administration is lying or holding back anything that would distort the reality. This is an Al Gore who lives in a world where Saddam Hussein is, so far as he has been told, seeking to construct weapons of mass destruction. Our Virtual Gore would not have that situation. Our Virtual Gore would be receiving intelligence reports and analysis directly. Our Virtual Gore would see Iraq as distinct from the war against terrorism. Our Virtual Gore would keep focus on the war on terror and not so pressingly Iraq, which would not squander international support for US action. Our Virtual Gore would seek advice from our allies. Our Virtual Gore would seek to build an international coalition of support. Our Virtual Gore would try to analyze and consider the situation. He would take steps short of war against Iraq if they refuse to allow UN inspection. And he would take action only to the degree of punishing Iraq for violation of the truce agreement, which as I said is likely to involve air strikes.

In terms of Saddam Hussein and terrorism, as I pointed out in the Gore speech discussion, OTL Gore himself viewed the two as distinct entities. As intelligence reports stated, Saddam Hussein was not a collaborator of terrorism or Al-Qaeda. His mocking and prodding at the United States is certainly wicked, but celebrating the 9/11 attacks does not equate to having orchestrated them, as intelligence reported there was no credible evidence of foreknowledge or involvement by Iraq. However, such images and statements did fuel the fire of the Bush administration narrative that Hussein was somehow involved in 9/11 and terrorism, and it was an easily exploited image to lend credence to the story the administration wanted to tell. The fact of the matter is Hussein was an evil human being. However, other dictators have mocked the United States. A bruised ego is not a decent casus belli. Our intelligence at the time stated there was no credible evidence of a tie between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. The administration presented it to the American people as if there certainly were, and he was involved in 9/11. There was no certainty that Hussein was seeking weapons of mass destruction, and yet the administration sold it via the news media to the American people that we were absolutely certain. There was no waiting period, time for analysis, or time for collaboration. There were no steps taken short of war, though any decent leader treats war as a last resort. Instead, those two biased, half truth and falsehood driven narratives of terrorism and WMDs were combined, sold to the American people, and used to gain support for a war the American people would not otherwise have gone along with. The American people didn't believe Hussein was involved with 9/11 on their own. The administration convinced them. The American people did not know whether or not Hussein had WMDs. The administration convinced them.

This isn't 2016 rose colored glasses, because we don't live in the best of all possible world. It's not a hippie fantasy to think things would have been different for the better, when the fact is people had to go out of their way to make it different for the worse.
 
Last edited:
Inevitably this is political and depends on what sources you find credible. I'm not certain what Gore's Iraq policy would have been-precisely. I have my doubts that Iraq would have been as early a priority for Gore as Bush. Mylroie's conspiracy theory probably has no influence over a Gore administration for example.

Whatever rhetoric Gore used against Iraq in the 1990's I have doubts that figures in his adminstration will feel inclined to attack Iraq as early as was the case under Bush. Gore's Secretary of Defense probably won't make the same statements Rumsfeld made.

Gore will invade Afghanistan-he has no choice but to do that. But the Gore administration will not have the same reservations about nation building Bush did. His adminstration will spend more resources in Afganistan than Bush did-which reduces his flexibility to prepare for an invasion of Iraq.

A lot depends on how the invasion of Afganistan goes. Gore might be luckier than Bush was. Bin Laden reportedly escaped death narrowly on December 9th 2001. If I remember correctly Zarqawi was injured during that period as well. Him dying is not impossible if I am remembering things correctly.

On the other hand the Anthrax attacks may color Gore's foreign policy towards Iraq the same way those attacks colored Bush's. There will be genuine concern about a chemical or biological attack that when combined with prexisting hostility towards Iraq stemming from how Hussein responded to 9/11 could lead to conflict-but I'm not sure Gore is predestined to make all the decisions Bush did in that period.

There could be to some sort of showdown with Iraq-at the least I'd expect Gore to fight to put inspectors in and threaten Iraq with war should Hussein block their investigation or throw them out again.

As has been mentioned also the issue of Zarqawi having set up shop in Northern Iraq. The Gore administration may feel to attack him-at least to stop him from creating another safe haven for terrorists in the region.

However I'm not sure that issue automatically leads to an invasion rather than some sort of bombing strike in Northern Iraq.

While I feel confident that Gore would have invaded Afganistan I can't be certain he would abandon the preference for air power that defined the Clinton adminstration and would influence Gore's where other issues are concerned. That may be his response to this issue.

Still given that Gore will probably allocate greater resources to Afganistan in the 2001-2002 period-and given that preparing for an invasion of Iraq takes time and resources that here are probably committed there. I have serious doubts that he would pursue an identical policy to Bush's.

A war may still happen-but will probably occur under a different time table and for different reasons-say Saddam shoots down a plane in the no-fly zone or does something stupid to the inspectors as he did in 1998.

For various reasons I think Iraq will loom marginally less large in the eyes of Gore's foreign policy team in 2001 than was the case under Bush-and by the time the anthrax attacks happen he may be too committed to spending in Afganistan to prepare to invade Iraq.

None of this is to say that Iraq will not enter into Gore's thinking. There's a strong case to be made Gore will be more hostile towards Iraq after September 11th and the Anthrax attacks. But however hostile he is there's still a question of relative resource allocation and priorities. At the least I don't think Gore will think of removing Hussein as the panacea some people in the Bush administration thought that outcome would be.

I have serious doubts that Gore's adminstration will behave precisely as Bush's did. The neoconservatives had an ideological commitment to that outcome likely policy makers under Gore wouldn't have shared. More hostility towards Iraq is perhaps probable given how Hussein behaved in that period. But hostility does not automatically mean war.

Again I'm not saying Gore means absolutely no Iraq war-just that his administration will not make the same decisions Bush's did on a one to one ratio-particularly as there will be other priorities that Bush didn't have. Gore will be much more enthusiastic about nation building in Afganistan and will probably be less inclined to try to do that war cheaply-which limits his flexibility where Iraq is concerned.

Gore might pay much more of a political price for 9/11 than Bush did-which could of course impact his flexibility where policy making is concerned. He might well be a one term President.

The neoconservatives would then waltz in under President McCain.
 
Short run no, long run... probably not, but I'm going throw out a 'maybe' anyway.

I don't think that Gore would end up becoming involved in Iraq, but I could see a situation arise akin to the current rhetorical situations with Iran, Syria and North Korea, with Gore often discussing the situations but not willing to engage militarilty, and he could see widespread criticism for this. He was the type to speak loudly more so than the type to use a big stick, from what I can gather, and I think it would hurt him and make him appear a waffler. Backlash to the War on Terror in general could become a reality as well in the long run, with him ending up with a reputation similar to Bush.

Consider this though - if anti-war activists join the Republican Party instead of the Democratic Party, in the wake of a perception that Gore was a war-monger, with Vice President Lieberman as a likely heir apparent, we could nonetheles see neoconservatives aligning with Lieberman instead of the Republican nominee, if they came out against the war. I don't think this is necessarily likely, but it's possible, depending on a lot of in-between elements, such as if a pro-war candidate were defeated in a landslide in a re-election, if Gore even won that far.

Realistically though, I don't think the Republican Party would switch sides on the military issues here, as the 'strong military' perception is too built into them at this stage, which makes that mostly nil.
 
No. Even if he were as hawkish as Bush (which I doubt) it wouldn't matter. By 2000 the neoconservatives had moved to the right on economic and other issues--not just foreign policy.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
No. Even if he were as hawkish as Bush (which I doubt) it wouldn't matter. By 2000 the neoconservatives had moved to the right on economic and other issues--not just foreign policy.
Some had and some hadn't. The views of the neoconservatives on economics varied, but almost none of them would have been wholly out of place with neoliberalism, and most did not mind the Democratic Party under its DLC centrist phase. They had fled the left not out of disdain for left wing economics (remember, the Senatorial godfather of the movement, Scoop Jackson, was a New Dealer to the bone and an avid supporter of unions) but rather out of left wing identity politics, which they saw as undermining the country and our international position, as well as being morally indefensible.

Some, like John Podhoretz, tacked a bit more right economically, while others, like Bill Kristol, have stated in the past that a tax raise for high earners is a desirable outcome.

The view of Neoconservatives on social issues seems to be vaguely right of center, but not quite comfortable with the Moral Majority, and not that opposed to firearm restriction or gay marriage.

The reason they warmed to Bush eventually was because they he had advisors that shared their beliefs, and he showed a commitment to the advancement of democracy in his dealings in the Balkans in early to mid 2001 in a way that was not expected of him.

The only issue that truly tethered them to the Republican Party was the mutual support of Israel, as the Democrats, despite having many pro-Israel voices, have always had people like Jesse Jackson pop up with popular support, while outside of Pat Buchanan and James Baker, the Republicans had no issues with a pro-Israel platform.
 
Top