 |
|
| |
|
|
|
 From Loser to LaureatePosted on Oct 17, 2007BOSTON—Until now, I believed that the smallest unit of time was between the moment the traffic light turned green and the car behind you honked. I was wrong. The shortest unit is actually between the moment you win the Nobel Peace Prize and someone asks if you’re running for president. This is the story of Al Gore. It’s wrapped succinctly in the Time magazine headline: “Gore Wins the Nobel. But Will He Run?” The best answer came from congenitally sardonic Congressman Rahm Emanuel: “Why would he run for president when he can be a demigod?” Indeed, if the man who is free at last from politics has learned anything, it’s that becoming a candidate means open season on his weight, his wit, his wisdom and his son’s arrest record. Besides, which would you rather do, save the Earth or dial for dollars in Iowa? The attention on Al Gore’s trajectory from loser to laureate misses something about this second act and second actor. As he approaches 60, Gore’s staking out something of a new path for his generation. Consider the new sixtysomethings. On Monday, 61-year-old Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, the first baby boomer and a retired teacher, signed up for early Social Security benefits. Next Friday, Hillary Clinton turns 60, and her second act is running for president. And when the new Harvard president, Drew Faust, 60, met with her Bryn Mawr classmates last summer? Many were talking about leaving their “extreme jobs” just as she was installed in hers. Baby boomers are the first generation that can look forward to such a lengthy and (fingers crossed) healthy stage of later life. They are as likely to be talking about what they want to do next as about where they want to retire. Never mind all those declarations that 60 is the new 40. In fact, 60 is the new 60. The stage of life called adolescence was invented only a century ago. Today, says Rosabeth Kanter, Harvard Business School professor and a founder of the university’s Advanced Leadership Initiative, “we have a chance to invent another stage of life that doesn’t have a name yet.” But Gore is its poster child, the model for what Marc Freedman calls the “encore career.” The head of Civic Ventures, a think tank promoting civic engagement as the second act for boomers, Freedman says: “Gore found himself by losing himself—literally losing—and being liberated from ambition, the idea that there’s a particular ladder you have to scurry up and if you don’t make it to the top it’s all over. Essentially he found a different ladder.” Alas, Gore’s “liberation” came with a little help from the Supreme Court. But he spent time in the wilderness—bearded and academic, rested and restless—before reconnecting with what he cared most about. It was there, all the time, in the huge satellite photograph of the Earth that hung on the wall of his office. There’s an inconvenient hole in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore never confronts his failure to accomplish more on climate change while vice president. But elsewhere he has implied that he’ll be better at “creating that sea change in mass opinion” to force this agenda from the outside. This, says Freedman, ” is the classic baby-boomer pattern of returning to an earlier dream unclouded by the compromises of midlife.” We have a roster of famous second actors, from Jimmy Carter to Bill Gates. The transition is a lot easier for folks not worrying about 401(k)s and pharmacy bills. Nevertheless, many in what Kanter calls the “Al Gore population” approach their 60s with a different set of values ... and, it must be said, urgency. I cannot forget one more second actor, Niki Tsongas, who became the newest member of Congress this week. At lunch last month, she talked of feeling rejuvenated, young at 61 as she started a new career. Just hours later, her younger sister unexpectedly died. The 60s come with sober reminders as well. As a country, we are at the beginning of an enormous transition. Under the old compact, sixtysomethings were supposed to get out of the way and out of work. They were encouraged by financial incentives and prodded by discrimination. Now we are drawing blueprints for people who see themselves more as citizens than seniors. “We used to say that the choices ran from A to B&B,” says Kanter, author of “America the Principled.” Today, she says, “we have an opportunity to define it as a time when your wisdom gets put to work on complex problems.” Demigod or demographic? Al Gore may not have invented the Internet, but the “Al Gore population” is reinventing this altogether new stage of life. Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Why Do So Few Speak Up for Gaza?
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Frank Cajon, October 22, 2007 at 6:43 pm #
I have heard nothing but bitching about Gore getting this award. People need to get over it. The reality is that as poor a candidate as he was in 2000, America would be a completely different country had he not had the election lifted from him by Nader, and the Bush campaign manager/Florida Secretary of State that rigged the his brother’s state election. I still don’t hear long lists of other deserving candidates for a ‘Peace’ prize in a year when damn near every politician on Earth was hell-bent on war. Will he run or even make a good candidate now? No, but I don’t begrudge him his work to try to reverse the destruction of the planet that der Fuhrer and his deputy seem hellbent on.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, October 19, 2007 at 12:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
RDV:
You ARE stuck in 1968…when ultimately Humphrey was “Dump The Hump”....and we ended up with Nixon.
The far left was wrong. Nixon was FAR worse than Humphrey.
In 2000 it was “Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference Between them”.
The Nader far lefties were even more wrong. Bush is not only far worse than even Nixon, was, it’s not even POSSIBLE to be a worse president and save our Constitution (it may already be too late). Had Gore taken over we wouldn’t be in an economic crisis, a military crisis, an environmental crisis, a corruption crisis, and be facing the end of the world in an nuclear exchange because President Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
I, for one, have abandoned quixotic dreams of clowns like Dennis Kucinich actually getting elected—it only seems to work when they are Re-thuglican clowns…Nixon, Reagan, the Chimpster.
How many times do you have to get burned before you learn the lesson? What do you want, Rudolf Guiliani as President?
“Under this stone Bill Smith Doth Lay.
He died defending his Right-of-Way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along.
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been DEAD WRONG!”
I want there to be SOMETHING of the country founded by George Washington and the blood of patriots given for freedom to leave to my children.
Report thisBy MAR, October 19, 2007 at 10:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
You might say it is not my biz being not of your country. But your choice of Prez and Party affect the whole world. When the elephant moves, the next-door mouse is definitely affected. The question is, why does the US wash up these transitory and fragile candidates? Guliano? Obama? McCain? Save me. (Ans. ambition and money, money, money). I like the blogger who asks what the US and the world would be like if Al had persisted to the Supreme Court. And what kind of a country is founded on Floridian punch holes?
From where I see it, you missed out on Gore. Don’t do it again. He stands high looking over the heads of potential adversaries. The Rep right and the religious right-wing nuts gave your country 8 years of a moron in the Oval. There are plenty more morons but only one Al Gore.
Report thisBy RdV, October 19, 2007 at 3:17 am #
In response to Inherit The Wind—
Twas a far better “McCarthy era” than the one we are in now that harks back to another kind of McCarthy era.
Sometimes I wonder if those who advocate for Clinton are paid hacks, because out here in the real world, I have yet to encounter more than one person enthusiastic about Clinton. This person is an older woman claiming that her reason is because Clinton is a woman, but personally I suspect it is Clinton’s NeoCon allegiance to Israel. I find many American Jews liberal on most issues until it comes to unquestioning support of Israel- in complete alignment with the furthest Right.
Clinton is DLC with more in common with the Right, than promoting a progressive agenda—which is why the Democratic party today has become a study in futility. It has bartered so much away it can not make a strong, unapologetic and uncompromised stand in defense of the country and against the Right due to Clinton-era triangulation manuevering for short-term gain. We are now experiencing the consequences of forfeiting values and meaning to unwit Republicans. Ultimately all it achieved was strenthening Republicans by reinforcing their hand.
I am 52 as well and I have had just about enough of the complete abdication of Democrats. Yesterday alone was enough to put any reasonable person over the edge between their FISA deals, Schips and paving the way for the latest war criminal AG. The only reason Bush has been able to get away with any of this is because of Democratic party unwillingness to hold him accountable.
Mike Moore described Clinton 1 of the Bush-Clinton dynasty as “the best Republican president we ever had”. I do not feel being railroaded into supporting Clinton 2 as the lesser evil is in the best interest of the future of the Democratic party. As long as we keep accepting this as our only choice—it is the only one we will ever get. And, in the meantime, despite the failing mythology of the Right, there will still be momentum towards the policies of the Right due to Clinton pandering to that shrinking base of consolidated power. The bone thrown to keep the pack quiet will be Walmart hailing from where? Arkansas.
I do think Gore represents a divergent path from the Clintons. The Right attacks Gore because they view him as a real threat—a repudiation of the Bush era and what could’ve been in addition to the ruse of denying global warming. With Clinton the Right can’t lose. Her hawk-like views as innoculation against attack, won’t stop the attacks because that is a favorite sport of the Right and at the same time, the hawkishness supports the NeoCon gameplan. This strategy has resulted in Democrats complete inability to be effective. I won’t support that anymore because the enablers are just as evil as those they enable. Gore represents hope for us, Clinton does not.
Report thisBy DennisD, October 18, 2007 at 5:16 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Enough about Al Gore already. He’s not running so get over it. Let the political Gong Show move on, there’s nothing to see there anymore.
Report thisAs usual most of our “learned” voters will be manipulated by the press to vote for the candidate of the media’s choice. That will be whomever is standing on the biggest pile of contributions (IOU’s) at the end of 08, regardless if they have any qualifications for the position or not.
Keep electing these corrupt, irresponsible cartoon characters and see what that gets us. Vote third party or don’t bother voting at all. Make your stand or lie down and be run over.
By Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2007 at 12:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
RdV on 10/18 at 6:00 am
(8 comments total)
Inherit The Wind suggests:
If this country has ANY hope of being saved, the Republican filth MUST be swept from office.
Dont you find irony in the fact that in order to win Clinton postures as if she is the biggest NeoCon of all? That does not bode well for the future of the Democrats. That silly soldier boy warrior act didnt work for Kerry either. I say let the party rip, its better than stagnant logjam from Democrats seeking bipartisanship with Fascists.
***************
Still stuck in the 1968 McCarthy campaign, are you? We were all furious that Bobby Kennedy jumped into the race AFTER Gene McCarthy had done the hard work and forced LBJ out. RFK was the opportunist that was stealing the hard-earned prize from McCarthy.
My excuse for my anger at RFK was that I wasn’t even 13 years old then.
Now I’m 52 and know DAMN well that despite all the leftie smears of her, Hillary Clinton will be a HUGE and positive change from President Mussolini. Remember: In 1993, Hillary was FAR too leftist for the centrists. Now she’s (somehow) far to rightist.
I don’t really think she’s changed, but I think ANY Democrat in the race is FAR better than ANY Republican, even Ron Paul (who, with 1 or 2 pct of the GOP vote is without a prayer).
I HOPE the GOP nominates Rudy Guiliani. He’s got more vulnerabilities than Bill Clinton EVER had—and may cause a right-wing-nut splinter to a third party—and Hillary will win in a landslide then—probably with LONG coat tails.
Democrats in Congress are corrupt and cowardly. But, with few exceptions, Republicans in Congress are working to end Democracy in America. And they’ve spend the last 6 years PROVING it!
Report thisBy ocjim, October 18, 2007 at 6:42 am #
Always in the back of my mind, especially considering the damage done by Bush, is why didn’t Gore fight for victory in Florida in the 2000 primary? I know that fighting the Supreme Court is taking the fight to the streets and would be challenging our Constitution. Perhaps this speaks to the dangers to the protection of individual rights and majority from our current neocon Supreme Court .
Report thisBy RdV, October 18, 2007 at 6:00 am #
Inherit The Wind suggests:
“If this country has ANY hope of being saved, the Republican filth MUST be swept from office.”
Don’t you find irony in the fact that in order to win Clinton postures as if she is the biggest NeoCon of all? That does not bode well for the future of the Democrats. That silly soldier boy warrior act didn’t work for Kerry either. I say let the party rip, it’s better than stagnant logjam from Democrats seeking bipartisanship with Fascists.
Report thisBy RdV, October 18, 2007 at 5:47 am #
Annoying little tidbit hidden in there:
The notion that someone is more effective outside the system begs the question of why anyone seeks to be elected to representitive government in the first place. Constantly we hear the rallying cry to take our country\government\party back by entering the arena where policy is ultimately decided, but when an outsider actually threatens the status quo then the oft echoed suggestion is one is more effective as an outsider. It is as if our government has become a gated community of special interests and those willing to speak only on their behalf. No others need apply for the bully pulpit.
This “more effective from the outside” statement stems from an underlying agenda to insure that Gore doesn’t kick Clinton’s ass. Outside of the diminishing, but established well-heeled liberal-except-when-it comes-to-Israel set, Hillary is wildly unpopular with the politically-informed base.
Report thisBy John Borowski, October 18, 2007 at 5:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Last week I observed my birthday. I decided to really live it up so I went to McDonalds. I talked to a black box in the drive-through and the black box told me that the bill came to $4.81. Having a 5 dollar bill I spent about 5 seconds retrieving a penny. The woman behind me honked her horn. An experienced driver like me knows the difference between an angry honk and a polite honk. She shouted that she has to go to work. I shouted back that shes more lucky than me. My boss fired me for being too slow. One phenomenon I cant understand is why a 5 minute wait in a check-out line at the store seems like 5 hours.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, October 18, 2007 at 2:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Perhaps the most mis-quoted and mis-used line is Thomas Wolfe’s “You Can’t Go Home Again”. Yet it is a valid idea that moving on is the ONLY way to redeem the past. Sartre (before he went nuts and Communist) expressed the very same idea in Le Jeux Sont Fait—those who try to go back will fail.
Al Gore would make a marvelous president. Had he taken his rightful office instead of having it usurped in the greatest coup d’etat in our nation’s history, hundreds of thousands of people who are dead would still be alive. Our economy would be healthier, the threats to our security would be far less, and our prestige in the world would remain high.
But, alas, the coup succeeded and President Mussolini has turned everything he’s touched to corruption and garbage and war.
Clearly Gore could do better than Bush. But Hillary Clinton is clearly steam-rolling to the nomination, and, unless she completely blows it, the Presidency. For Gore, that means looking elsewhere. Clinton (despite the leftie’s 1968 view of her) will be a VAST improvement—and Gore knows it. Also he doesn’t want to take on the task of running against her—he might be a better and more deserving candidate, but shredding the Democratic Party, no matter HOW f***ed up it is, would be disastrous.
If this country has ANY hope of being saved, the Republican filth MUST be swept from office. The GOP has many fine, honorable members, but they have been dominated by the Neocons, nutty christo-fascists, and perverts and won’t clean itself up and find it’s TRUE core until those three sink the party to near obscurity. So it HAS to be the Democrats.
Plus, unless there was a HUGE groundswell for Gore, which there should be but isn’t, why should he run for president again?
Like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore’s second, post-office career is far more successful, influential and ethical than his first.
Report this