|
Leon Panetta
Former White House Chief of Staff under President Clinton; Co-director, Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy
Answers to Written Questions from the Floor:
Q: Are things really that much different today than they were back in those halcyon days that you mentioned? For instance, you suggest that the Senate was made up of leaders working together when you first were there. Wasn't it true that the Southern Democrats controlled the Congress, that this was a time of lack of civil rights that prevented social legislation? Fulbright and others on both sides of the aisle fought against civil rights legislation. Were those times really better?
A: This country always has confronted those challenges throughout our history, and indeed in the 1960s there were those kinds of battles as well. But what I recall was that an Everett Dirksen made the decision that we have to do what is right in this country. And he was the Republican leader in the United States Senate. You have to ask yourself if that would happen today. The reality is that he was willing to work with Democrats, with moderate Republicans, with President Johnson to develop civil rights legislation.
But it wasn't just civil rights legislation. We developed some of the key environmental laws on a bipartisan basis. It was Ed Muskie, working together with people like Jacob Javits and Clifford Case and others to develop some of the key environmental legislation at the time - the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act were developed at that time. Tom Kuchel, when it came to developing the redwood forest, worked with Henry Jackson to make that happen, because they worked together. Even when I was in the Congress and I was Chairman of the House Budget Committee, I worked with a fellow called Bill Frenzel from Minnesota so that we would try to work together to develop the approaches we took on the budget. I was on the Agriculture Committee and worked with the republican colleague on hunger issues, because I felt that it was important to work on a bipartisan basis.
So, yes, there have always been challenges and not every issue is proven successful through a bipartisan effort. But, in those days, there was a willingness to at least engage and to respect one another in that process. Today, my sense is when I go to Washington, that the basic drive is not so much about how we find a solution to the problem of prescription drugs, how we find a solution to the problem of these large deficits, how we find a solution to the problems of health care, or how we find a solution to the problem of how we deal with global warming, and so many other issues. The approach is, "How do we develop an approach that basically allows us to take that issue to the election?" - as opposed to trying to develop solutions. And why? Because it comes down to that fundamental issue: If you want to engage in compromise and consensus and take responsibility, it requires risks. And today, both sides, as I said, are locked in trench warfare. They don't want to take the steps necessary to find that consensus, and I think that's dangerous.
Q: Why has political leadership changed from the type you saw in those senators in the 1960s to the atmosphere today? What are the underlying factors you see?
A: I think it relates to several factors. Number one, obviously, there are closer margins of power, and each election is a fight for who will control either the House or the Senate, and so there's much more focus on that battle for power. Secondly, I think there's no question that as technology has changed, particularly in the media, everybody becomes more interested in a 30-second sound byte as opposed to the kind of full debate on the issues that is necessary. Everybody looks for the message, and it's true for both parties. Both parties hire political consultants, and they hire focus groups, and they basically take these issues to their consultants and their focus groups and develop the message that each side has. And they focus on delivering that message.
To deliver that message effectively then, it takes money, and money now is almost the predominant force in Washington. When I was first elected, we would run, but rarely raise money until the election year. My first election in 1976 cost about $185,000. I basically relied on raising money within my district. Today, the members have to spend sometimes 90 percent of their time, largely calling large contributors to raise what, in this state alone, could be as much as $20-40 million in order to run a statewide race. When you do that, obviously you depend not so much on the average voters: it isn't the $5, $10, $20 contribution anymore, it is the large contributors. So you either have to be independently wealthy or there is a temptation to basically sell your soul in order to be able to raise the money necessary. I think that has influenced a lot of what's happening in Washington. And ultimately I think as a result of all of that it just diminishes the risk that both sides are willing to take. Because if a Democratic leader said we ought to engage with the Republicans and we will sit down and do that, that Democratic leader would be subject to a tremendous amount of criticism from his or her own caucus. And the same thing is true on the Republican side. Let's not forget George Bush, when he became president, said it was important to develop bipartisan consensus to change the tone in Washington. That tone, even after September 11, has not changed. It has gotten worse.
Q: What specific recommendations do you have that will bring our court leaders back to the essence of consensus-building to solve problems?
A: There are good people there; there are people who are willing to fight to do the right thing, and I commend them. But the problem, I'm afraid, is not going to change from the top down. I think it's only going to change from the bottom up, which means that people have to get involved and care. Another factor that I think is producing the small turnout that takes place is that the party is basically focused on what's called their party base. They work at the extremes because they know the extremes are going to turn out to vote, so Republicans will work on their extreme groups, whether it's the Moral Majority or the National Rifle Association. The optimism I have in our process is that ultimately the people will, in fact, react. And they will do it out of frustration that these challenges are not being dealt with, that they are constantly running into this gridlock. At some point, they may very well vote everybody out of office. But I have to tell you that when people in Washington are afraid of losing their jobs, you will begin to change the way that town operates.
Q: Without betraying a good friend, it was slightly amusing when one legislator we invited to participate in this conference said he had to spend time raising money instead, so it's all around us. Do term limits create a scramble for election to the next level? Do they seem counter productive to showing genuine leadership?
A: I think one of the worst things that is happening in California is term limits. In our system of government, people have the right to vote. That's the system of term limits that our forefathers had in mind: If you don't like somebody, you vote them out of office. That's the system of term limits that's built into the Constitution of the United States. When you develop this arbitrary approach to term limits - the idea was, well, let's create citizen legislators. They'll go there and they'll come back home. Baloney. That's not what happens. They go there and they know they are term-limited, so they're looking for the next job to run for. It doesn't make them any less political. It doesn't make them any more involved in issues; it makes them less involved. Because when you're looking to the next race, you obviously begin to trim your sails in terms of what you have to do. In addition to that, you lose fundamental experience and continuity that is so essential to dealing with issues in government.
When I went back to Washington, there were some older chairmen there. But I have to tell you something: I learned something from those older chairmen. They had experience. They knew about these issues. They could provide guidance, the sense of saying, "Hey, wait a minute, don't just simply react to these issues now on a political basis. Think about the future. Think about where the country is going." I think that kind of experience and continuity is essential in our democracy, and we're paying a price for that. I think we're paying a price in Sacramento. I think part of the problem in dealing with a deficit that is confronting the state is that we have lost a great deal of experience in Sacramento. And so what ultimately happens in the atmosphere is that special interests who are there, who are never term-limited, and people who operate in government and staffs, who are often not term-limited, are the ones who basically influence what happens up there, and that's bad.
Q: In response to recent demonstrations in the U.S. and abroad against a possible war with Iraq, President Bush noted that democracy was great - how people were free to protest - but he wasn't going to listen. Does this show a real understanding of democracy?
A: I thought what was worse was that he compared it to a focus group. It's a pretty big focus group that you're dealing with. Again, when you're in the office of president of the United States, I think you have to understand that you've got to be able to say to the American people that they have every right to express themselves. They have every right to indicate what their views and thoughts are, and the president of the United States ought to encourage that, very frankly. That is the nature of what our democracy is all about. He wants people, and he should encourage people to present their thoughts as to where do our national interests lie. He ultimately has to make a judgment about what is in our national interest. And the buck does stop with the president of the United States in the sense that at some point he will make the decision.
But he ought not to take the attitude that somehow because this is where we're going that we ought not to in any way have that kind of debate and discussion, and treat it as somehow being unpatriotic. It is the ultimate of patriotism to engage in this process, and to question, and to debate, and to argue. And, again, nothing is going to detract from the decision that ultimately the president has to make, and he will make it as commander in chief. But he ought to fully encourage the participation of people in that process, because it's healthy for our democracy, particularly now. Let me take it a little further, I think the president ought to not only encourage it, but he ought to listen as well, because every once in a while something important is being said.
Q: Do you want to comment at all on the situation with Iraq? What should be done differently?
A: I think that Saddam Hussein is a threat in that part of the world. I think that, indeed, he should be required to disarm in fulfillment of the UN resolutions and also because for years we have basically known that he's had weapons of mass destruction. He himself has been obligated not only through his own word, but also through the word of the United Nations to disarm. So I think that's important to do. What concerns me is that the president has not exercised the best leadership in building the kind of coalition and unity in approaching the possibility of war in that part of the world. Diplomacy is never easy. Dealing with the French is not easy; dealing with the Germans is not easy - it never has been. When I was in the White House, the French were always a thorn in our side. But, at the same time, you have to deal with them. You have to deal with the Germans. You have to deal with the British. You have to deal with other European nations. You have to deal with Asian nations. We are living at a time in history as a post-Cold War era, where we cannot take on the challenges that are out there - challenges of terrorism, of disease, of environmental degradation, of problems involved in poverty and population growth - alone.
We can't go from crisis to crisis. We have got to develop a vision of the kind of world that we want for the future, and then build the coalitions that are essential to obtaining that vision. That means engaging our allies, engaging the United Nations, working with them to try to develop this approach to confronting those challenges. I have the sense that a decision was made that we're going to do this, and that ultimately there's been a lot of back-filling in approaching just exactly how we're going to do this. I think we're paying a price for that because other countries feel that they haven't been consulted. They have not been talked to, and that, because the United States has made that decision, they're supposed to fall in line. I have to tell you that I think most of these countries understand that Saddam Hussein has to disarm. And that they will support an effort to do that. But I think the challenge right now is for the United States, while we have a military force in place, to take the time to make sure that we exhaust every effort to build the kind of coalition we need if, indeed, we are going to go to war.
Q: Since you left Washington, there have been major events like 9/11 and legal and institutional innovations in order to respond to that. Can you give your opinion of the Department of Homeland Security? How effective will it be? What's the greatest challenge for the office? There's a new Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 that may succeed the current Patriot Act. Any thoughts on how to protect our rights in the face of these innovations?
A: I'm not a big believer, after 30 years in and out of Washington, particularly as chief of staff and director of operations and budget, that the bureaucracy is the answer to any problem we confront in this country. I have to tell you that building a department of 185,000 people is not the answer to homeland security, only because they will spend a great deal of their time basically putting these pieces together. And each of these different agencies becoming part of this department are largely going to be concerned with how much they have to say in this new department, as opposed to what they should be doing, which is basically dealing with a terrorist threat in our society. I happen to believe that you can probably achieve, from the point of view of managing this kind of crisis, a council within the White House that brings together the key people who are involved operating in the White House under the direction of a presidential assistant or aide or chief of staff. That is the most effective way to deal with some of these issues, as opposed to trying to build bureaucracies to try to confront them. Now, having said that, we have a Department of Homeland Security. I have a great deal of respect for Tom Ridge because I work with him as a member of Congress, and I think he is trying to do the right thing for this country. But I'm afraid that when you spend so much time on how you put the parts together instead of making sure that those different agencies and departments are out there doing their job - that is the fundamental challenge here. I think we have become a little too obsessed with organization or movement of the blocks instead of making sure that these agencies are doing it. And understand, also, that the Homeland Security Agency, without the FBI and without the CIA being part of it, still creates some of the same conflicts that we have seen before. The only way to resolve those conflicts is when the White House, the president of the United States, basically says, "Everybody operates as a team in getting this job done."
Q: As a leader, how do you engage the public on complex issues involving sacrifice when the sensationalized 30-second news clip is popular and sacrifice never is? How do you engage college-age youth?
A: I think the problem is that nobody has really reached out to young people in a long time in this country and asked them to be part of the process. If you go back to the last presidential campaign, few of these candidates took the time to go to a university campus to engage students. They're probably afraid of the kind of reception they might get. I think they're just appealing to their base, and their base is not on university campuses. Their base is already out there. So they're not engaging young people in that process. I really think that those leaders who are willing to stand up and say, We're going to reach out to young people; we want them to be part of this process; we're willing to have them engage. The kind of national service idea that I talked about is important because if you provided a GI Bill that says to young people, "We'll help pay for your education in return for your service to this country," that's saying we want you to be part of something in this country.
I was raised in the draft period. I'll admit that I didn't particularly like the draft. I have to tell you that the ability to go into service and be able to serve with other people from across this country, and understand what a sense of mission was all about, and working together was all about, was important to do. One of the things that has always concerned me is this slogan that the Army now uses that says, you can be "an army of one." I don't want an army of one. I want an army of people who can work together as a team to accomplish a mission with a sense of sacrifice, with a sense of discipline. It's important to do that. If we encourage that kind of thing in this society, I think young people want to respond. We have a Congressional Intern Program at our institute. We have a leadership program. We try to engage young people in our America Reads Program, where they go into schools and help teach kids how to read. If you reach out to them, they are willing to be part of that process. But if you simply ignore them, they'll go off and do other things. That concerns me because you don't have a generation that says, "We want to get involved in deciding what our democracy is going to look like." That needs to take place. Every generation ultimately has to have young people who are willing to get involved in our process, because it is their lives and their children's lives that will be affected.
Q: What do you say to those who are cynical about the role they can play in effecting change in today's society?
A: People who are cynical and therefore turned off about getting involved in the process don't realize the power they have to change what is happening today. As I said, our forefathers and their genius wanted the power of this country to rest with the people. Too often we take that power for granted. We assume that it's there, but many people don't exercise it. I know from my own experience that when a group of citizens came into my office and said to me, "Look. We are interested in this issue. We care about this issue. We are willing to walk not only to your office, but to any office to make sure that this issue is engaged in," that made an impact on me because I knew that here were constituents who really cared about that issue. When people go back to Washington and they're walking to their member's office as a group or as a delegation, and make a point to them, that has an impact. When people say to a member of Congress, "We care so much about this issue that if you don't do the right thing, we're going to vote against you," that has an impact. The power to vote, the power to participate in this process, is an enormous power.
I've always had a difficult time explaining to people just how powerful you are when you come together and you unify behind issues. Special interests understand it. Why do you think special interests get things done in Washington? Because they provide a lot of money; because they go into those offices; because they are constantly paying attention to those members who they care about, who are in key positions. And because, ultimately, those members know that they're not going to survive in office unless they have money, unless they have the support of those kinds of interests. You can counterbalance that by saying, "Look, if you pay attention to those interests and you don't pay attention to the interests of the people, we will come out to vote and make sure that you are not there."
I think there is tremendous power in all of you to change the course of our democracy - to improve the policies that you care about. I mean, of course, you'll have differences. But I think the most important thing is to engage. The person who stays home and watches reality TV is the person I don't want to participate. I want people who are going to engage, who care about what the society is going to look like. As I said, it is about the future of our children. I can't tell you the frustration I felt when I went back to Washington, having fought against deficits when I was in Washington and finally getting a balanced budget and surplus, only to see it go to hell. I was testifying before the Senate Finance Committee a few weeks ago. I looked up and I said to every member up there, Democrat and Republican, "There isn't a member among you who has not criticized uncontrolled deficits. And now you're all making excuses for why you can't deal with it." And I said, "Ultimately, you're going to pay a price. You may not be here, but somebody is going to pay a price for that kind of irresponsibility today." I think we all have keep in mind that this is about the quality of life we pass on to our children. If we care about that, we will all get involved. All you need to do is take that one step - put a call in, or walk in to see your member of Congress or your representative - and say to them, "You better damn well listen." ?
Marwan Muasher
Arianna Huffington
Ben Stein