Last Tuesday, Connor Dugan wrote an article concerning Vice President Al Gore that, though entertaining, was unencumbered by facts. By grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting Gore's comments and policy positions, Mr. Dugan fed into the rampant cynicism that has come to characterize American politics. In response, we would like to provide a truthful and accurate representation of the Democratic frontrunner.
First and most egregious are Dugan's comments regarding Al Gore's record on abortion. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Gore disapproved of the use of federal funding for abortions, a position which garnered him a more-than-respectable record with the National Right to Life Committee. However, he never supported the prohibition of abortion, and he has unequivocally supported Roe v. Wade and the principle of a woman's right to choose. Mr. Gore noted early in his political career, "I wrestled with the philosophical question of whether or not the government should have any role at all, either in criminalizing the procedure -- which I was against, always -- or in providing financial support for the procedure, which would use the resources of the tax money of individuals who personally were opposed to it." The Vice President has since decided that denying federal funding is inequitable and unacceptable. Simply because his view evolved does not make him any less pro-choice.
Second, at no point has Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet. Rather, he has stated -- and rightly so -- that he was instrumental in the initial stages of Internet development. As the San Jose Mercury News reports, "Vice President Al Gore has a legitimate claim to laying a cornerstone for today's wired world. When few other politicians in Washington were paying attention to high technology, Gore was plugged in. As a congressman, then a senator, he sponsored little-noticed legislation and held sparsely attended hearings that helped transform the Defense Department's obscure computer network into the modern Internet."
Third, with regard to campaign finance reform, Mr. Dugan states that the Vice President unfairly claimed sponsorship of campaign finance reform legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the 1980s, when Gore served in the U.S. Senate, he did indeed support legislation to reduce the overpowering role of money in politics. He maintained and even strengthened his stand in the 1990s when the McCain-Feingold bill was introduced. Apparently Mr. Dugan has forgotten the critical role that the sitting vice president does and must play in senatorial politics, including breaking important tie votes.
Mr. Dugan's inaccurate portrayal of the Vice President underscores the negativity of the contemporary political arena. It is negativity, which is no longer necessary. If these purported "lies" are the greatest flaws the Vice President's opponents can find in him, their overwhelming pettiness is demonstrative. Mr. Gore is a decent man and an honest politician, exactly what the American public has been waiting for. He is honest enough to talk about the issues that Americans care about and which will determine the future of our country. Why, then, is it necessary to exaggerate minor incidents and fabricate tales of deception? It is a sad commentary when Republicans are so desperate for dirt on their opponents that they have to invent it.
At the same time, rampant mudslinging from the likes of Mr. Dugan obscures the spectacular feats and accomplishments of Al Gore to date. Putting his brilliance and ability aside for the moment, Gore has fought the battles that need fighting, regardless of issues of popularity. As a principled fighter, he has achieved victories on a number of fronts ranging from social security to health care to foreign policy. His distinguished career in public service gives him unique qualifications to be the next president, all of which are lacking in his opponents.
Finally, when Al Gore has made mistakes, in either his words or his actions, he has admitted to them and allowed himself to evolve rather than stick intransigently to the past. Should we criticize a man for changing his mind and responding to the dynamics of American politics? For the sake of the future of our democracy, let us hope not.
