Here's another important point Gore makes. Today, too many young people have a total disinterest in government and politics. They just don't care who is elected or what their government does. Some people attribute this to selfishness or narcissism, others to declining quality of education. Gore says it is neither. His belief is that since people no longer feel like they have any control over government, they see no point in participation. So they pay no attention and don't get involved. I do not know whether he is right, but it's a plausible explanation.

Finally, Gore offers a description of the difference between his view on handling international differences and that of the man who defeated him -- sort of -- for the presidency. I don't think followers of either would necessarily disagree. Gore believes the best sense to instill in the people of the world toward his nation is respect. The other side, he says, believes more in instilling fear. I believe he is correct in this assessment. This is not to say that people on Bush's side don't also want to generate respect, or that people on Gore's do not want to create a certain amount of fear. It is not an all or nothing proposition. However, the rapid use of force in Iraq, and the saber-rattling in places like Iran and Syria show a belief that goals can most readily be achieved through force and fear. Gore's position favors attempting to establish friendly relations with people and talk as much as possible, that is, generate respect so that others will want to cooperate. This includes, in places such as Iran, attempting to appeal over the leaders' heads, directly to the people. One tactic attempts to garner support through reason, the other through fear. Which is more effective is an item of debate, but selecting the superior strategy, whichever that may be, will be crucial to America's survival in the years ahead.