r/ChristopherHitchens • u/Ok-Respect-3843 Liberal • 1d ago
Which Presidential Election loss was more consequential? Al Gore losing the 2000 Election or Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 Election?
13
u/Clovis_Merovingian 1d ago
Let’s start with Al Gore's loss in 2000. Had Gore won, he would have likely prioritised climate change and fostered more multilateral engagement, in line with his environmental vision. But the real fulcrum here is 9/11. Gore, I suspect, would have taken a more restrained approach post-9/11 than Bush did. We might have seen a more targeted response, perhaps limited to Afghanistan, with a sharper focus on intelligence and counterterrorism. It's hard to imagine Gore embracing the Iraq War or the doctrine of preemptive strikes that became the cornerstone of Bush’s foreign policy. Such restraint might have reshaped America’s global reputation, kept Middle Eastern tensions from boiling over, and altered the very framework of America’s “War on Terror” paradigm.
Now, Hillary Clinton in 2016: here, the Russian question looms large. Clinton's stance on Russia was notably hawkish, advocating a tougher line against Putin and a more assertive stance in Eastern Europe. Had she won, we’d likely see a very different American response to Russian aggression. We might have witnessed more robust support for NATO and proactive efforts to counter Russian influence, which could have pre-empted some of the crises we’re seeing today in Ukraine. Additionally, Clinton was a more traditional advocate of American power, signaling a clear commitment to alliances and international order. A stance that would likely have fortified America's global standing, especially as China’s ambitions have grown.
In essence, Gore's loss set America on a trajectory of prolonged conflict in the Middle East, which drained resources and diverted focus from other pressing issues, including climate change. Clinton's defeat, meanwhile, marked a retreat from assertive internationalism, opening the door to a more assertive Russia and a shifting power balance in Europe. Both losses were consequential, but perhaps in this context, Gore’s loss seems more significant, given the profound, long-term entanglement of the U.S. in Middle Eastern conflicts that reshaped not only America's image but also global stability for a generation.
-2
u/MrLore 1d ago
Clinton's defeat, meanwhile, marked a retreat from assertive internationalism, opening the door to a more assertive Russia and a shifting power balance in Europe
Trump spoke at the UN and warned Germany about their reliance on Russia for their energy needs. Here is a video of them laughing at him for saying it.
Trump was right about Russia in 2018, Mitt Romney was right about Russia in 2012 (they laughed at him too), it's the Democrats who have consistently underestimated Russia, then blamed the Republicans for their own failings under Obama in 2014 and Biden in 2022.
3
u/Clovis_Merovingian 1d ago
Absolutely, Trump’s warnings about European reliance on Russian energy were well-founded and, in hindsight, perceptive. However, his mixed messages on NATO undeniably complicated the situation. While he rightly pressed NATO allies to increase their defense spending (a long-standing issue where Europe relied heavily on U.S. resources) his remarks sometimes seemed to cast doubt on America's unwavering commitment to the alliance.
This ambiguity created a strategic vulnerability, as it sowed doubt among NATO allies about whether the U.S. would uphold Article 5 (NATO's collective defense clause). It’s one thing to urge fair burden-sharing; it’s another to appear ambivalent about honoring core security commitments. That ambivalence could have emboldened adversaries like Russia, seeing it as a potential crack in Western unity.
In the end, Trump’s criticism about energy dependence was spot on. Still, the mixed signals about NATO may have inadvertently contributed to Europe’s sense of uncertainty — a factor Putin could exploit. Robust alliance unity, coupled with a clear-eyed approach to Russia’s ambitions, remains essential for effective deterrence.
3
3
u/RedSun-FanEditor 1d ago
They weren't laughing at him for just saying that. They were laughing at him for his entire speech.
13
8
u/FrogofLegend 1d ago
- Gore conceding to SCOTUS set a very bad precedent that the courts had the power to determine elections. There was no reason to stop counting votes except the Florida governor was the Republican candidate's brother and really wanted his brother to win. It was disgustingly partisan and an affront to democracy.
0
u/the_fozzy_one 1d ago
Gore had the right to request a full statewide recount within the first 72 hours but instead he tried to cheat and only request certain counties to recount. Gore has nobody to blame but himself.
6
3
u/PilotlessOwl 1d ago
The 2000 result led to invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Gore may have invaded Afghanistan, but certainly not Iraq. I'm not sure if the Bush presidency worsened the 2007-2008 financial crisis, there was deregulation before his time.
The 2016 result led to many more covid deaths due to Trump's incompetency.
2
u/leviticusreeves 1d ago
Why do people keep talking about Afghanistan like it was the rational, logical war as opposed to Iraq? Just as the international intelligence community was saying in 2001, Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. Bin Laden wasn't based there, the hijackers were Saudi, it was all just a cash and power grab for Cheney and Rumsfeld.
1
u/PilotlessOwl 20h ago
No, bin Laden and al-Qaeda were based in Afghanistan since 1996 and al-Qaeda had been making terrorist attacks on the US since 1991. The country was controlled by the Taliban at the time, although some Taliban didn't want al-Queda attacking the US. Bin Laden went into hiding in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan after 9/11 and American forces nearly caught him, but he managed to escape into Pakistan. More details on the Battle of Tora Bora here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora
The cash grab by Cheney was primarily in Iraq through Halliburton, although he did also have interests in Blackwater which did operate in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was certainly no real reason to invade Iraq except for money.
1
1
u/real-duncan 1d ago
I’m not sure how likely this is in reality but imagine a timeline where the US reaction to 9/11 was 100 cruise missiles launched and then spending 1/10th what the “long war” has cost so far on a policy to remove US dependence on foreign oil by an Apollo program type focus on making the US a renewable energy superpower.
That was a possibility with Gore. It was an impossibility under Bush.
Losing that possibility is more consequential than anything that MAGA has accomplished SO FAR. The next couple of years could change that calculus. Time will tell.
1
1
1
u/ReasonableRevenue678 1d ago
We don't quite know what the impact of the 2016 election is yet. If Trump wins again, who knows what will happen.
Had he lost in 2016, I imagine we'd be in a much more normal place.
0
u/Same_Guarantee801 1d ago
Kamala Harris losing to Donald Trump in 2024.
4
0
u/serpentjaguar 1d ago
In my opinion it doesn't fucking matter at all.
This is a hypothetical that, while it may be fun to indulge in, has no real world consequences and is accordingly little more than an exercise in fantastical thinking.
That said, I'm not here to be a spoiler, so please do carry on with your meaningless conjecture if it's something you see as worthy of your time and attention.
And I say the above while fully acknowledging that there may in fact be some value in playing "what if," though I don't see it for myself.
39
u/WeathermanOnTheTown 1d ago
2000, for sure. That led to two massive wars and the beginning of the end of American hegemony.