| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this paper, a counter-factual geopolitics is addressed with specific reference to the US presidential election of November 2000. What difference would it have made if President Al Gore had been confirmed as holder of that office rather than George W. Bush? Would we have had a very different kind of response to September 11th for example? By focusing on some of the speeches and remarks given by Al Gore, we consider how a different strategy might have emerged following that momentous event. It is contended, however, that despite what the anti-Bush critics might have wished for, the geopolitical and spatial consequences of a Gore administration might have differed only on tactics and strategies rather than fundamental principles. By way of conclusion, the paper considers how counter-factualism might contribute to the further development of critical geopolitical scholarship
|