In the 1980s, I interviewed Paul Rees, the evangelical leader who has since passed on. One of my questions was simply, “What magazines do you read.” He mentioned several which I expected, and added, “The Christian Century.” That surprised me, it being a mainstream Protestant publication. He noted my surprise, and said, “I don’t agree with much of what they say, but I want to know what they’re saying.”

That’s been my attitude toward many things. And it’s why I read a lengthy profile of Al Gore in the New Yorker a few months ago. I would never vote for the guy for President, but he’s a good thinker (with a different view of the world than me, and therefore different conclusions) and a good writer. The profile was excellent, one of the best articles I’ve read during the past year. It focused on showing what Gore’s life is like now after his disappointment in the 2001 election.

I was weeding out old magazines this morning, and came across that article. I reread some parts I had highlighted. I thought I’d print some of what Gore had to say about George Bush, because I found it quite fascinating. Gore said:

“The real distinction of this Presidency is that, at its core, he is a very weak man. He projects himself as incredibly strong, but behind closed doors he is incapable of saying no to his biggest financial supporters and his coalition in the Oval Office. He’s been shockingly malleable to Cheney and Rumsfield and Wolfowitz…. He was rolled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was too weak to resist it.

“I’m not of the school that questions his intelligence. There are different kinds of intelligence, and it’s arrogant for a person with one kind of intelligence to question someone with another kind. He certainly is a master at some things, and he has a following. He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in today’s world, that’s often a problem. I don’t think that he’s weak intellectually. I think that he is incurious.

“I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and like all bullies, he’s a coward when confronted with a force that he’s fearful of. His reactions to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish lists of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying ‚Äòyes, yes, yes, yes yes’ to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a whole‚Äîthat can only come from genuine moral cowardice. I don’t see any other explanation for it.”

I’m not printing this because I agree with it. But I do find it interesting.

I’m also conscious of the fact that in my circles–working for a conservative evangelical denomination that skews very heavily toward the Republican Party–printing anything negative about George Bush is almost heresy. I know way to many people who give Bush a pass on just about anything he does. That frightens me. Though I voted for Bush twice, without regrets, and will admit that he had some shining moments after 9/11, I’m not a big fan and I don’t think history will treat him very well. But that’s something I can tackle later, if I dare.