Best hope for a troubled time?

The midterm political campaigns are well under way. Early next year, hopefuls for the 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential nominations will shift their campaigns into high gear.

A Democrat’s dream scenario for the next 30 months: Experiencing too many serious problems and expressing record low approval of President Bush, Americans give the Democrats a sweeping victory, and control of both Houses of Congress, in November. The winds of change remain so strong that in 2008 they solidly propel a Democrat into the White House.

The first part of this scenario is quite plausible. The second likely is wishful thinking.

First, midterm elections are notably unreliable predictors of the next presidential contest. In 1974, after two years of the Watergate nightmare, the first “oil shock,” and a major recession, Democrats gained 49 seats in the U.S. House and five seats in the Senate. Yet two years later, Democrat Jimmy Carter won the White House by only a very narrow margin.

In 1994, Republicans won an unprecedented congressional victory, capturing both Houses and Congress. Although pundits said that Bill Clinton would be a one-term president, he handily defeated Bob Dole in 1996.

Overly optimistic Democrats should recall that the most Democratic presidential landslide was in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won 44 states and more than 60 percent of the popular vote. Since then, the Democrats’ most successful nominee was Clinton, who never won a majority of the popular vote of an electoral landslide. A majority of voters long ago broke their good habit of voting Democratic for president.

So the election of 2008 could be as close as the last two. To win, the Democrats will need an extremely strong nominee, whom the public can envision as president.

Perhaps the best candidate to fill that is former Vice President Al Gore.

Although Gore says he is not a candidate, he hasn’t unequivocally shut the door on running in 2008. Should he decide to run, there would be a clear precedent for Gore making a comeback.

In 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon very narrowly lost to John Kennedy. (Even now, some informed analysts say that a totally honest vote count would have given Nixon a victory.)

Nixon kept a fairly low public profile for several years. In 1968, the nation was terribly divided by a failed war, disillusioned by Johnson’s “credibility gap,” and on edge about serious domestic problems. Nixon ran a second time. Acceptable to almost all factions of the Republican Party, he was nominated.

Nixon’s victory in November ushered in 24 years of Republican presidential dominance.

If you change the dates and a few words (please not breathing the word “Watergate”), Gore comes to mind.

Gore has more governmental experience than any prospective candidate of either party. Running in 2008, he would evoke memories of the now seemingly “golden” Clinton-Gore years. Enough time has passed that most Americans have forgotten the unethical and sleazy parts.

It is extremely difficult for a Democrat to win the presidency without carrying some Southern states. Gore easily won two Senate races in his native Tennessee, and he is capable of speaking “Southern.”

With religion a vital force in our politics, Gore’s Baptist faith and the year he spent in divinity school would be assets.

Gore served in the army in Vietnam. Although never a rabid “hawk,” he has been tougher in foreign affairs than many of his cohorts in a party that many still consider soft on national defense.

Two of Gore’s areas of greatest expertise are new technologies and the environment – topics of great importance for the foreseeable future. On other domestic matters, he should be acceptable to all Democrats except some on the left who seem to have a chronic political death wish.

Gore never aroused great popular passion. But passionate support also can lead to passionate opposition, even hatred. After 16 years of highly divisive presidencies, we might benefit from a cooling-off period.

It’s true that in 2000 candidate Gore often seemed as stiff as a tree trunk. However, to political writer Joe Klein stiffness was a campaign strategy. Gore’s consultants had market-tested almost every word he uttered.

Gore is now less cautious than he was in 2000, and acknowledges that he relied excessively on consultants.

Two of Gore’s potentially greatest assets are a bit intangible. First, the American people are familiar with Gore and have a certain comfort level with him. He might be the candidate who most Americans could picture in the White House.

Second, an absence of a raging political “fire in the belly” could liberate Gore. Instead of thinking mainly about how to become president, he could think and talk about what he will do as president. He might tell us the unvarnished truth – a commodity now rare in government and politics.

I freely admit that my first choice for the nomination is someone other than Gore. Some would consider it highly premature to even contemplate settling for “half a loaf.” But after 51/2 years of what the Bush administration has dished out, even a few slices of healthy, nutritious fare are quite appealing.

Alan Ginsberg is a retired professor of history who lives in Corea.