David Remnick has a piece in The New Yorker about Al Gore, and it's pretty intentionally depressing in some ways.
Gore, along with no small part of the country, is convinced that had things turned out differently in Florida in 2000, had the conservatives on the Supreme Court not outnumbered the liberals by a single vote, the United States would not be in the condition it’s in: the front page would not be describing chaos in Iraq, record budget deficits, the rollback of numerous environmental initiatives, a diminishment of civil liberties, a curtailment of stem-cell research, an erosion of American prestige abroad. Gore does not admit to any bitterness, but it is plain in nearly every speech he gives; and while the feeling may be partly personal—who could blame him?—it runs to a deeper, more public-minded sentiment than the disappointment of his own, or his father’s, ambitions.I'm sure that's how Mr. Gore sees the situation, and were I him I'd be pretty disgruntled about it too."Here you have a guy who worked all his life to achieve the one thing he wanted—to be President of the United States, and it was there, in his grasp," Tony Coelho, Gore’s campaign chairman in 2000, said. "He felt Clinton hurt him, but nevertheless he worked his butt off and brought it off. He won the most votes, by half a million, but then the Supreme Court steps in and it’s gone. It is hard for any of us to understand what that means or how it feels. The truth is that Gore is really a policy guy, not a political guy, and for him to feel that he was on the cusp of the ultimate policy job, that he could affect policy and the world like no one else, and then nothing—well, imagine that!"
The lesson to be learned, if there is one, is that wanting something and working hard for it doesn't entitle you to actually get it. It's a sad, disappointing fact of life. Is it fair? Well, yeah, I think so. The only alternative would be to compel people to give you what you want when you want it enough, and that certainly wouldn't be just.
There are lots of things I want, that I work hard for, that I may never get. For example, I'm waiting to hear back from some publishers about a manuscript I sent out a couple of months ago. I worked really hard on it, and I think it's pretty good. Does that mean they have to buy it? Of course not.
Now, working your whole life for the presidency and then losing it is probably much worse than possibly not getting a book published, but it's the same general principle. Mr. Gore worked hard and did his best, but in the end the country didn't want him. So it goes.
Even Jesus faced disappointment and sadness in his life, so how can we expect any different?
Isaiah 53:3So when people reject you, just remember, you're not alone in that.He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Michael,
I think part of the problem is that we no longer respect people who fight the good fight but still lose. Winning truly is the only thing that seems to matter to most people today. Society ridicules those who lose.
Those who lose and are rejected should accept their fate graciously, even if they are despised in their loss. But it is also incumbent on those who win to show some manner of grace, too. But we have a tendency to want graceless winners -- winners who will continue to mock the defeated losers.
I've seen it more in sports these past few years. When I was growing up and into some later years, two competing teams would duke it out. The winner would celebrate, but the loser would be allowed to depart in respectful silence or at least free of jeering. Now, I see more people who want to rub the loss in.
In the past, a Barry Goldwater could be respected for running a principled campaign. Today, all the focus would be on what a terrible campaign he ran, or what a big mistake the party made in nominating him, etc.
I do think your post makes some very valuable points.
"Mr. Gore worked hard and did his best, but in the end the country didn't want him."
Well, except that a slim majority of the country did want him. He lost based on a railroading in Florida, abetted by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and O'Connor. And yes, he lost; I accept that. It's the rules of the game. But it rankles when his political opponents shellac over the reality with statements like this.
JC: A majority of the individuals wanted him, but the country as a whole -- as we determine it -- didn't. Plus, he was the one who decided to go to court, not Bush. Plus, (almost?) every single recount scenario later revealed that Bush was the true winner.
I guess it depends on what your definition of "country" is. Of course, using your definition, the country of Iraq wanted Saddam Hussein to remain dictator.
Bush is president, I will grant you, at least for the next four months. Though with any luck, the country will be telling him they don't require his services beyond that point in the upcoming election.
JC: Oh, come on, Iraq's "elections" weren't even vaguely democratic or representative. They didn't follow Iraqi law.
"...in the end the country didn't want him."
Look at yourself in the mirror and tell yourself that you would have written this if Bush had won the popular majority and Gore was sitting in the Oval Office and able to [insert your outrage-to-conservatism here] due to a liberal-dominated Supreme Court's interpretation of the election laws in a state where Gore's brother was governor.
Go on. I dare you.
Eric: I would written something similar if the situation were reversed. I win the dare -- yay!