Speaking of time machines, after stumbling across this old post of Megan McArdle’s, musing over what would have happened if the Supreme Court had declined to hear Bush v. Gore, I began to think about what might have happened if Gore had become president.
Since I’ve beaten the subject of whether Gore would have invaded Iraq or not to death with Dan Nexon of The Duck of Minerva (I think yes; he thinks no), let’s just assume that he would not have. Let me offer a series of speculations of what might have happened. I’ll mark issues on which I have very high confidence VH and issues in which I have high confidence H.
- 9/11 would still have happened (VH)
- We would still have invaded Afghanistan (VH)
- Afghanistan would have drawn the attention of foreign jihadis rather than Iraq (H)
- We would still have forces in Afghanistan and it would be in no better state than it is now (H)
- President Gore would not have pushed for tax cuts in 2001-2002
- He would have wanted to spend more but would have been rebuffed by the Congress
- He would have pushed for environmental reform but he would have been rebuffed by the Congress on that, too
- He would have been re-elected in 2004
- The Congress would have remained in Republican control in 2006
- There would still have been a financial crisis in 2007-2008 (VH)
- Jeb Bush would have defeated Hillary Clinton for the presidency in 2008
- He’d’ve pushed for tax cuts
- He’d be in his second term as president now
- Barack Obama would be the junior senator from Illinois (H)
- He’d be thinking about running for the presidency (VH)
- The PPACA would never have been enacted into law
- People would be wondering if the Democrats would become a minority party permanently
- Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gaddaffi, and Hosni Mubarak would all still be running their countries (H)
- Putin would still have annexed Crimea (VH)
That’s a pretty fair start. What would have happened if Gore had become president in 2000?
Gore bails out the oil companies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suv1hcBA3PY
Dave Schuler: 9/11 would still have happened
Not necessarily. It’s quite possible that shaking the tree would have led to uncovering the plot. But it certainly still could have happened.
Dave Schuler: We would still have invaded Afghanistan.
Given the attacks of 9/11, that is certainly the most likely scenario.
Dave Schuler: Afghanistan would have drawn the attention of foreign jihadis rather than Iraq. We would still have forces in Afghanistan and it would be in no better state than it is now .
That depended on the strategy. A light footprint would have meant lower levels of friction that fed the insurgency. A more coordinated effort at reconstruction rather than picking fights with tribal forces would have tamped down instability. Furthermore, catching bin Laden would have done much to show American resolve.
Dave Schuler: President Gore would not have pushed for tax cuts in 2001-2002
Temporary tax cuts, not permanent and debilitating permanent cuts in the marginal tax rates.
Dave Schuler: There would still have been a financial crisis in 2007-2008
Possible, but even if there were a crisis, it wouldn’t have been aggravated by the pro-cyclical policies of the Bush Administration.
Mostly correct. Baghdad has a special place in Islamic history, so I don’t think many would have gone to Afghanistan. Also, we know that most foreign fighters went there in response to prisoner abuse. Absent Cheney, I don’t see us going whole hog into torture. I am also not so sure about the financial crisis. The state AG’s tried to put a stop to it early in the aughts, but the BUSH OTC stopped their efforts.
Since Jeb would be in the same position as Obama on the economy, with a GOP Congress as you seem to assume, I think 2014 would have been a wave election for the Dems as they demagogued Jeb on Ebola and ISIS and Benghazi.
Steve
If Gore had become president, he would have been working with the same Republican majority in Congress that Bush had. I’m assuming that he would have been re-elected in 2004 (because Americans prefer not to change horses in mid-stream) but the Democrats probably wouldn’t have gained control of the House or Senate in 2006.
By 2008 Americans would have well and truly had Democrat fatigue–it would have been the first postwar instance of the same party holding the White House for four consecutive terms and a Republican would have been elected then. I’m thinking Jeb Bush as the best-positioned but there are other possibilities. So at that point Republicans would have had control of the Congress and the White House.
It’s hard for me to speculate on whether there might have been a Democratic wave in 2014 under those circumstances. Other than being very tired of Clintonites by that point I don’t think much else would have changed. They’d’ve still been faced with the problem of their core constituencies not voting in midterm elections.
Contrary to Zachriel I don’t think that anything resembling a victory in Afghanistan has ever been remotely possible for the simple reason that there was no victory to be had there. Over the period of the last 2,500 years there’s only been one successful strategy for that: colonization. Somehow I don’t see it as very likely that we would have settled a couple of million Americans in Afghanistan.
Dave Schuler: Contrary to Zachriel I don’t think that anything resembling a victory in Afghanistan has ever been remotely possible for the simple reason that there was no victory to be had there.
We didn’t project victory, but the possibility of success. The idea that Americans could or should reorder Afghani society was destined for failure.
Counterfactuals are tough, I think your list is as good as any.
While I don’t think Gore would have invaded Iraq when Bush did, I think another war with Iraq was inevitable.
Zachriel: Not necessarily. It’s quite possible that shaking the tree would have led to uncovering the plot. But it certainly still could have happened.
There’s no evidence a Gore administration would have “shaken the tree.” A Gore administration would likely have continued the policies of the Clinton administration WRT Afghanistan and Al Qaeda which is what the Bush Administration did while working on a policy review. Uncovering plots is typically not the result of high-level political changes anyway – they are discovered by people working the in trenches and those people would be the same people under a Gore or Bush admin.
That depended on the strategy. A light footprint would have meant lower levels of friction that fed the insurgency. A more coordinated effort at reconstruction rather than picking fights with tribal forces would have tamped down instability. Furthermore, catching bin Laden would have done much to show American resolve.
People forget the we deliberately pursued a “light footprint” strategy for many years in Afghanistan. When I was there in 2005 there were less than 20k troops. The “xenophobic” Afghan people was a meme in the early days and that fear of not wanting to repeat Soviet mistakes drove a lot of decisions beginning with the method of invasion (using small numbers of CIA and Special Forces embedded in indigenous forces backed by airpower rather than an “invasion” in the traditional sense). Once the Taliban were routed, the small numbers were deliberate to prevent the perception of an occupation. Of course, that decision was later criticized, notably by President Obama and many Democrats, as a failure to properly resource the conflict. Either way, I agree with Dave – Afghanistan is a colonial creation, an incoherent buffer state that can never really be independent from the machinations of it’s neighbors, particularly Pakistan. What we should have done is kicked the crap out of the Taliban and AQ, withdrawal and make it clear to the Pakistanis that we would hold them accountable to prevent the reestablishment of an AQ safehaven. That would have been politically difficult to do though….
As for capturing bin Laden, again it’s difficult for me to see how a different President would have changed decisions made at the operational level unless Gore had prosecuted the campaign much differently (ie. waiting to build up a conventional invasion force for a more traditional invasion).
We didn’t project victory, but the possibility of success.
“The possibility of success” is a meaningless term. Military campaigns need objectives achievable through military force. Bush laid out a series of objectives – would Gore’s have been any different? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Andy: There’s no evidence a Gore administration would have “shaken the tree.â€
Shaking the tree is what the Clinton Administration did to disrupt previous attacks. Some of the problem was the change in administration, but it’s clear that the Bush Administration dropped the ball. That doesn’t mean the attack would have been stopped, just that it was possible. There were warnings.
Andy: People forget the we deliberately pursued a “light footprint†strategy for many years in Afghanistan.
Low on troops, with lofty goals, and with a destabilizing war in Iraq.
Great power depends on mobility, being able to strike when and where the enemy is weakest. The Romans had their roads. The Mongols the steppes. The British controlled the seas. The Americans controlled the air. But in Vietnam, then again in Iraq, the Americans became bogged down. This saps strength, while allowing the enemy to study for weaknesses. The idea was to get in and out of Afghanistan, not solve all their problems.
The Bush Administration thought they could just walk in wherever they wanted and restructure society. It just doesn’t work that way. Certainly a Gore Administration may have stumbled as well, but they had success stabilizing the Balkans. Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq not only split the American forces and effort, but it drove a wedge between the U.S. and the allies it needed to succeed in Afghanistan.
I suspect a far more negative outcome from 9/11, because Gore (or the Democratic exeuctive branch in general) would possess sole ownership of American failures. This seems to substantially weaken the Presidency and possible loss in 2014, while encourage expansive use of executive powers, both militarily and in intelligence. Recall Gore’s recommendation of extraordinary rendition of terrorists when he was VP: “Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.â€
I’m not so sure that would have been the case. My impression is that the Republicans’ reaction to President Obama’s foreign adventurism is that their main complaint has been that he didn’t use enough force. I think that Congress’s response after 9/11 would have been practically identical under Gore to what it was under Bush: Republicans supported the president’s actions and every Democrat with presidential aspirations did, too.
Democrats are afraid of not looking strong enough on defense. They definitely would have invaded Afghanistan. However, I can’t see them invading Iraq since they didn’t have Cheney, Wolfowitz et al in office. I think Dave is correct that GOP critique has largely been one of not being adventurous enough.
Steve
“What would have happened if Gore had become president in 2000?”
The stock prices of lockbox manufacturers would have soared.
“Shaking the tree is what the Clinton Administration did to disrupt previous attacks. Some of the problem was the change in administration, but it’s clear that the Bush Administration dropped the ball. That doesn’t mean the attack would have been stopped, just that it was possible. There were warnings.”
To believe that a Gore administration would have done more than the Bush administration prior to 9/11 is just a fantasy. Gore didn’t run on it and all signs pointed toward him continuing Clinton’s policy. Yes, there were warnings – if you can’t make a convincing argument that the national security apparatus would have pieced those warnings together under a Gore administration, then lets hear it.
“ Low on troops, with lofty goals, and with a destabilizing war in Iraq.”
Yes, we all know the criticisms of Bush policies, repeating them doesn’t somehow mean a Gore administration would have done better in Afghanistan.
Sometimes problems don’t have partisan solutions. 9/11 and Afghanistan are two such problems. If you want to convince anyone that a Gore administration would have done better, you need lay out a policy which would have worked (even given the benefit of hindsight) and then show a Gore administration would have followed that policy, or at least make an argument.
Re: “shaking the tree” I recall
that phrase being used around the time that Richard Clarke was criticizing the Bush administration and making claims of a contrast between Bush and Clinton. One central story though, that Clinton’s approach had led to a success in stopping the “millennium plot”, was thoroughly debunked when the border agent gave her account of how that unfolded (in a routine border stop on a ferry having nothing to do with any intel or even heightened alert from orders higher up the chain.)
The discrediting on that seemed so thorough that it killed Clarke’s credibility IMO and he seemed like a typical public official with an axe to grind and a hide to cover.
Andy: Gore didn’t run on it and all signs pointed toward him continuing Clinton’s policy.
Which was called “shaking the tree” when there were warnings. It’s clear the Bush Administration didn’t take the warnings seriously. There may have been enough information already within the bureaucracy to uncover the plot.
Andy: Yes, we all know the criticisms of Bush policies, repeating them doesn’t somehow mean a Gore administration would have done better in Afghanistan.
As a senior Republican (Karl Rove) said, Clinton-Gore were reality-based, Bush-Cheney created their own reality.
Andy: If you want to convince anyone that a Gore administration would have done better …
It’s hard to imagine worse decisions than the Bush Administration. While the American people were riled up, it’s the leadership that is supposed to show restraint and channel that fury into practical forms.
Which was called “shaking the tree†when there were warnings
It was called that by whom, and what are some examples of actions taken?
“Which was called “shaking the tree†when there were warnings. It’s clear the Bush Administration didn’t take the warnings seriously. There may have been enough information already within the bureaucracy to uncover the plot.”
Uh, yeah…. How then, do you explain the following facts:
– Bush kept the entire Clinton CT bureaucracy (Tenet, Clarke, etc.)
– Most of the attackers got their visas before Clinton left office.
– Several attackers were in the US before Clinton left office.
– Clinton’s CT efforts are well known thanks for FOIA and declassification of primary source documents. “Shaking the tree” is not well supported by the historical record.
– The bulk of after-action reports on failures leading to 9/11 pointed to structural problems within the bureaucracy.
With that in mind you say it’s “clear the Bush administration dropped the ball.” As I’ve said before I think it’s clear the national security establishment dropped the ball and it would have made no difference had Gore or even Clinton been President. You might as well try to argue that WWII would have been avoided if only Wendell Willkie had been elected. Some things in life don’t hinge on who wins the Presidency….
It’s a measure of how completely inferior a person and President Bush was that years after his mistakes, people are desperate to affirm that they would have happened to anybody, not just him. Would President Gore have invaded Iraq? Who knows. However–given that Gore’s base opposed the war throughout, it seems like what Dave is saying is that the opposition was clearly political and that Al Gore would have made everyone I knew, including me, act like war-crazy Republicans. Would we? Perhaps. But it’s a terrible argument, one that basically treats any one who was not a Republican as amoral operatives. Unlike Tea Partiers, for whom it is negative and wrong to think might be opposing Obama for reasons other than race and partisanship.
It goes hand-in-hand with the fact that however impossible it may have been to stop 9/11, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were the people who would never, not in any possible universe, perform this feat. To steal from Henry James: they are the people on whom everything is lost. Richard Clarke would always be a Clinton-era stooge; Iraq, with the rare exception of a week or two in September 2011, was always the principle obsession.
I meant, for reasons of race and partisanship.
Not exactly. What I’m saying is that Senate Democrats would have and you would have voted to re-elect them anyway.
Also, please produce evidence that a majority of the Democratic base opposed invading Iraq in January of 2003. Quite to the contrary I think that a majority of Democrats supported it at that point. Just in the blogosphere Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, and Matthew Yglesias all supported the invasion.
Another thing you might want to recall: I opposed the invasion of Iraq. Heck, I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan because it was obvious to me that what has actually happened would happen.
“However–given that Gore’s base opposed the war throughout, it seems like what Dave is saying is that the opposition was clearly political and that Al Gore would have made everyone I knew, including me, act like war-crazy Republicans.”
President Obama’s base opposes war too, yet Obama has hasn’t shied away from war and his base still defends him; and they don’t criticize him much for surrounding himself with a coterie of R2P advocates who almost got us into another ruinous war in Syria, nor do they criticize him much for giving Congress the Heisman when it comes to supporting what Jay Carney euphemistically called “time limited, scope limited military actions”. Also, I don’t recall their attitudes exactly, but I don’t remember Gore’s anti-war base howling at Clinton’s multiple interventions and wars of choice.
Comparatively, I do give them credit though. President Obama and most Democrats (and even a lot of Republicans) learned that fulfilling neocon or R2P geopolitical fantasies will not be achieved by sending the 3rd ID to do Thunder Runs in Damascus. The unicorn “moderate” Syrian opposition is just as much a fantasy, but at least it’s one our government can pursue without getting a large number of Americans killed, so I suppose that’s progress.
Anyway, perhaps I disagree with Dave on one point – I don’t think a Gore Presidency would have advocated and pushed for an invasion of Iraq. As Dave said, a lot of Democrats voted for it, but I think many of them did so for political reasons and not out of conviction. Iraq was a war that had to be sold to the public and the Congress and absent that sales pitch I don’t think there would have been a vote or a war at that time.
In short, when it comes to counterfactuals, I think the big divergence in foreign policy comes from proactive and not reactive policies. 9/11 and Afghanistan was a reactive policy and most Presidents would have done largely the same thing Bush did. Iraq was a proactive policy and I think few Presidents would have done the same thing.
On March 16, 2003, 40% opposed the invasion. (By the way, the write-up on that poll is fantastic: 40% against the invasion becomes being ready for an invasion.) This with the invasion a certainty, Saddam Hussein a dictator, 9/11 everywhere, and the actual fact that Americans were about enter combat, and 40% were opposed. Wild guess: they were not Republicans.
Also, I’m pretty certain that Yglesias and Marshall turned against the invasion right before it happened.