POLITICS JUNE 4, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Gores always seemed to have a storybook marriage. They were Mom and Dad: reliable, comforting, occasionally goofy, and totally icky to watch mack in public. Their lives had plenty of high drama, but it never centered on their marriage. High school kids when they fell in love, the Gores long stood as (the increasingly rare) marital grownups on the political stage.
Now it is over. And the overwhelming response from the constitutionally snarky Beltway crowd—regardless of ideology—is neither outrage nor schadenfreude but sadness. This split, in a way arguably unique in recent memory, has touched off a widespread mourning among the chattering class, a mix of shock, depression, and disquiet. “Al and Tipper Gore’s separation makes us fear for our parents, ourselves,” wailed a Washington Post headline. (Opening entreaty: “Please Al and Tipper don’t do this. For our sakes—don’t.”) Or as Salon’s Rebecca Traister bemoaned, “You get through forty years—of ill-behaved children and ill-behaved bosses and stolen elections—and then you split? This is precisely the kind of mysterious and inexplicable narrative of marriage thing that scares the bejesus out of people who are newly or not yet married. Forty years?”
This may in fact be the most common theme now circulating: After all these years, after all they’ve been through together, why throw in the towel now? Note this rambling exchange Wednesday between “American Morning” co-anchors John Roberts and Kiran Chetry:
ROBERTS: It really is—it's such a shock. It's so sad and it's really kind of disappointing, too.
CHETRY: Yes. When you make it through so much in life, and then—
ROBERTS: You figure 40 years—
CHETRY: Yes.
ROBERTS: What's the purpose in breaking up? Wow.
On some level, the question makes perfect sense. But, more than offering insight into the Gore’s domestic life, it challenges our most basic assumption about marriage: namely, that it is something you work at for years—enduring all sorts of trials and tribulations—so that you'll have someone to grow old with. Yeah, marriage can be tough, at times even heartbreaking. But no one wants to die alone, right? So what in god’s name is going on when a couple goes through all this stuff together—much of it in the unblinking hell of the public eye—only to bail out when the home stretch is finally coming into view? The kids are all grown. The grandkids are toddling around waiting to be spoiled rotten. The professional grind is largely behind them. They have damn little left to prove to anyone. Why discard the life they’ve built and start from scratch?
But here’s the thing: While four decades is an impressive chunk of time to spend together, it is not the lifetime it once was, when people viewed 60 as the start—or even shank—of their golden years. Al (62) and Tipper (61) are, as many have pointed out this week, Baby Boomers. And while I don’t buy the nutty notion, floated by some history professor in The New York Times, that divorce is “the iconic Baby Boomer act” and this split is part of Gore’s “psychic competition” with Bill Clinton over who is more representative of their generation, in marriage as in everything, Boomers don’t see 60 as the time to kick back and settle into the big fade. Just because Al and Tipper weathered 40 years together doesn't mean they have the inclination to try for another 20—or 30.
As for the argument that they have already been through so much, that cuts both ways. An awful lot of baggage can pile up over 40 years. (Hell, most couples I know have amassed a scary amount after a mere 10 or 15.) Once you no longer have to worry that separating will scar the kids or derail your career, maybe starting all over again seems less rather than more daunting. And it’s not as though the split cancels out those decades. The shared experience will be with both of you forever (which, let’s face it, may well be a big part of the desire to move on).
It is disappointing, of course, that the Gores didn’t turn out to be the til-death-do-us-part romance that we, from the looks of the public response, so desperately needed them to be. (Perhaps no one craves marital idols more than we who spend our days watching self-important pols chase tail and discard wives like used Kleenex.) But still I can’t bring myself to join in the chorus of Why now, after everything? Al and Tipper are clearly thinking not in terms of the years behind but the years ahead. For them, there is still a whole lot of “everything” to come. It may not be the fairy tale, but it is a classically American tale, with its themes of hope and promise and new beginnings.
Even if it does depress the hell out of the rest of us.
Michelle Cottle is a senior editor of The New Republic.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
14 comments
One need not be a marriage traditionalist to recognize that marriage is not just a relationship (or an institution). It has cultural and affective dimensions, involving a host of fantasies, dreams, hopes, and expectations, which are only dashed at a cost. The gains may outweigh the pain, guilt and regrets, but we shouldn't act as if the emotional costs don't exist. Nor should we avert our eyes from the power dynamics involved in marriage and divorce. Rarely is a decision to divorce completely mutual; separation usually involves partners at very stages of the uncoupling process. In short, we shouldn't assume that both parties are negotiating on equal terms. In addition, even among the affluent, divorce exacts costs. The financial costs are the most obvious, but there are others. Judith Wallerstein's scholarship may have overstated divorce's impact on children, including grown children. Divorce can be a liberation from physically and emotional abusive or loveless relationships--or a recognition that the partners have changed--yet we shouldn't be blind to the longterm impact on feelings of trust, continuity, and security. We inhabit a therapeutic culture that regards even trauma and tragedy as opportunities for insight and growth. This can be healthy. But it would be a mistake to lose the "tragic vision" which allows us to acknowledge losses as well as gains. Of course, it is best for everyone that divorces be amicable and civil. We shouldn't be naive: Divorce, far from an exception or a symptom of personal flaws and misplaced priorities, has become normative. Nevertheless, in our hyper-individualistic culture, shouldn't we at least shed a tear for a relationship that for many symbolized and embodied commitment, selflessness, caring, and a shared history?
- hist4
June 4, 2010 at 9:59am
You are wrong, Michelle, and those you critique are right.
- liberal reformer
June 4, 2010 at 10:40am
Maybe Al is as insufferable as conservatives say he is. Maybe Tipper is a total whack job. Whatever the truth is, where's the trade-up? Do either of them think the freedom of being rid of the other is worth sacrificing the convenience of, say, being able to show up comfortably at family gatherings?
- Mikelawyr22
June 4, 2010 at 11:01am
Just as individuals change over the years, relationships change, as well. Who is to say that the two of them will not remain close as friends. Two people can grow apart without growing to dislike one another. Anyone who feels this split is a tragedy is placing their own expectations on it, which none of us have any right to do. Each of us, after all, must choose what we want to bering into a relationship and what we want to get from it.
- Maxwell86
June 4, 2010 at 11:32am
Regarding the article title: Early 60's is NOT "middle age", no matter how much Boomers would like to redefine it as such.
- santoast
June 4, 2010 at 12:03pm
Maxwell, I don't consider it a tragedy, but it is sad. Here was an example of a successful, happy couple who seemed to be married for life, leading younger people to think it is possible to find such happiness. What is so wrong with wanting "and they lived happily ever after." At least I take some comfort in the fact that most people are sad at this news. If we can be disappointed in this, we still have some "appointment." ok, expectations that such things are still possible.
- blackton
June 4, 2010 at 12:29pm
I wish to add to my earlier brief comment. I do not mean to minimize the difficulties inherent in any marriage, nor to slight the fact that people are living ever longer, so more time means more things can happen. Having said that, though, I still am saddened by the Gores' separation. I have the most wonderful wife in the world. Her name is Sheena, and I am madly in love with her. We were married not quite fifteen months ago, so it is easy for me to pontificate, I know. But we talk frequently about keeping our marriage fresh and exciting and we intend to continue that always. We write affectionate post-it notes to each other on a daily basis and we exchange loving emails multiple times every day. Still, difficulties can transpire, which we know, and which is why we rededicate ourselves to each other frequently. We have arguments quite infrequently, but when we do, we always say we are sorry each to the other, no matter who might have touched the fight off. We never planned to do this, it just evolved and it works very well. Here I wish to address my wife publicly. Sheena: You are the dearest, sweetest, most loving, most understanding person that I have ever known in my life. I am even more in love with you than when we met in May of 2007, more even than when we were married in March, 2009. I wish to be with you forever. You are the joy of all my days, my inspiration, my literary Muse, my help and my hope, my comfort and the color in my life. You are my everything. I listen to your heart, as I always have since I have known you, because I want to know your joys and your sorrows, I want to be there for you, as you have been there for me. You are the best companion that I have ever had, which is why I wanted to marry you so much. Thank you for everything, my tender, sweet baby.
- liberal reformer
June 4, 2010 at 4:06pm
I have to admit that Al & Tippers seperation caught me off guard. For some reason it is hitting me harder than I imagined. First, this has to be the first ex-VP to divorce. Going back 30 years I remeber discussions about whether America would vote for the Divorcee Ronald Reagan. Now the Vice President seperates and it's not a big deal? I am a little suspicious that the New York Times Style Section would pick up on this if it was anyone other than the Gore's. Second, I think there is a big dose of irony here. If I told you 10 years ago that Al Gore and John Edwards would be divorcing in 10 years, and that Bill & Hillary would be going strong, I think most people would have thought those ideas crazy. I can see Sarah Palin divorcing 10 years from now, but recent VP Candidates's that's about it. You have to go back to Happy Rockerfeller to find something similar to this. And that was before Nelson was VP. Still there were raised eyebrows and questions. I get Michelle's point that Al & Tipper have 20 years in front of them and time is wasting. But I still don't get it.
- CRS9TNR
June 4, 2010 at 8:57pm
Liberal, Nice verbal reinactment of The Kiss.
- Oberdier
June 4, 2010 at 11:46pm
Is there no one who agrees that their marriage is none of our business and says nothing significant about the institution of marriage? True, the Gores are public figures. And they don't have the same claim to privacy that non-public figures do. But theirs is still only one of about 2 million marriages in the U.S. Some, like the Clintons' seem disastrous, but yet survive. Others, like the Edwards', seem disastrous, and end. Some, like the Reagans', seem very good, and they last. Some, like the Gores', seem very good, and it comes as a surprise when they end. But seemingly good marriages that end are hardly uncommon. Why should we believe, or have ever believed, that we really knew anything about their real relationship anyway? It's a mistake to make the Gores, or any other couple, a symbol of anything. Each of us must work out our own relationships, our own marriages, and our own life.
- Oberdier
June 4, 2010 at 11:56pm
Oberdier - You are right, we never really know about a marriage. And it's so painful on the children when the partents divorce. I have a solution. We should put warning labels on every marriage. Perhaps a Parental Advisory. 'Warning this marriage may contain violent or suggestive material. Not suitable for all persons.' If we had warning labels, then people could make educated decisions. And not to gossip too much, I heard Tipper's Carbon Footprint was getting a little bit too large. He decided to Cap & Trade.
- CRS9TNR
June 5, 2010 at 8:14am
Look: it IS sad when a long-standing relationship, particularly a marriage, dissolves, no matter who the parties are (excluding instances of physical/psychic/emotional abuse). As many posters noted, we don't know the details (no one can ever know anyone else's details obviously, in any situation) but it is true that people "change" or "grow apart". But again, in absence of abuse/suffering, why don't people allow the institution some flexibility. Unless either party has intimated that they may wish to explore the next phase of their life in the context of another relationship (surely intimate companionship is the preferred state for most humans), then why split? This one is sad for sure not because we hold these 2 individuals in higher esteem than others (although some might; and some might still not forgive Tipper for the PMRC), but because they got closer than most others to hitting the (admittedly romantic) "til death do we part" line.
- ericad
June 7, 2010 at 11:22am
Are we really writing about other people's marriage?
- Carter
June 7, 2010 at 8:51pm
There is nothing mystifying about a tendency to disappointment at such news. In the history of human affairs widespread divorce is a new phenomenon. The oldest archetype in the book is of Father, Mother, Child. That this union is exclusive is what gives the individual a sense of uniqueness thus individuality. In this day of mass everything we try to cling to something which will help us stem the tides of globalized commoditization. To stand before Science and Reason and Polling Data and the Markets and proclaim personal unique value.
- jacko
June 8, 2010 at 9:38am