    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1994, Book II)]
    [August 24, 1994]
    [Pages 1500-1503]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Interview With Gene Burns of WOR Radio, New York City
    August 24, 1994

        The President. Glad to be here, Gene.

        Mr. Burns. Do you feel like Daniel in the mouth of the lion's den?
    You and talk radio these days seem to have this running battle.

        The President. We were talking before we went on the air; I really
    have always enjoyed talk radio and I've done a lot of it, particularly
    when I was Governor, and in my campaign I did a lot. I find that there's
    a certain immediacy to it that I like. I like the interviews and I like
    people being able to call in a question.

    Accomplishments and Goals

        Mr. Burns. George Stephanopoulos was here earlier, and he says in
    his view--and I assume he mirrors your own--your accomplishments in your
    first almost 2 years as President have not gotten through the screen of
    the media to the American people. Do you feel any sense of isolation
    here in terms of what you like, you've told us, that sort of one-on-one
    relationship with constituents?
        The President. Oh, yes. I think part of it is the nature of the
    Presidency and the whole security bubble that's around the President.
    Part of it is the demanding nature of the job and the fact that
    Washington, DC, and its inner workings are a long way from the average
    life of most Americans. And part of it is the way news is reported
    today. News basically tends to be--a lot of studies have shown that the
    way news is reported tends to be more negative and more editorial, more
    commentary rather than what's going on.
        A lot of the research shows that the American people are surprised
    to find out that in 1993, for example, I had more success in getting a
    very big program through Congress, with the economic program and NAFTA
    and family leave, the Brady bill, than any President since the end of
    World War II except President Eisenhower's first year and President
    Johnson's second year.
        So we're doing well here, I think, in moving forward in an extremely
    contentious environment. And I just have to find ways to communicate
    better with the American people not only what we're doing wrong--the
    press will tell them that--but also what we're doing right and where
    we're going.
        Mr. Burns. From your side of the table, what's the nature of that
    contentious environment? I know that you, yourself, have pointed to a
    deep cynicism on the part of the American

    [[Page 1501]]

    people. You feel in some respects the media drives that cynicism. But
    there does seem to be a sense of social disconnect. I mean, Jefferson
    said, Americans have the power; from time to time they give it to folks
    like yourself to exercise for them. And the first amendment ends with,
    ``and they'll always have a direct route for the redress of
    grievances.'' A lot of Americans don't think they have that direct
    route.
        The President. I agree with that. I was reading this morning,
    interestingly enough, James Madison's ``Federalist Papers.'' And he was
    arguing why a republican form of government, meaning representative form
    of government, was better for big countries, that you had to elect
    representatives and then they'd do what they thought was right. Then
    they'd report back, be held accountable, and be elected or defeated by
    the voters.
        I think today there is so much--there's a lot of information about
    what we're doing up here, but I don't think there's a lot of basic
    understanding that we impart. And I think that voters know that too many
    decisions get made here on the basis of organized interest which may or
    may not be the same as the public interest.
        And I think that at a time of real change, when people are uncertain
    about where we're going, it's just easy for negative impulses, for
    fears, for cynicism to overcome hopes in looking toward the future.
        I also believe, and many astute people in the press have pointed
    this out lately, that voters themselves feel a certain ambivalence. That
    is, they want us to do things up here. I got elected to take action, to
    deal with the economy, to deal with crime, to deal with the breakdown of
    family, to promote welfare reform, to deal with the health care crisis.
    But people still basically are very skeptical about the Government's
    ability to do it. So we want, in a way, a Government that is more active
    but basically that is active in empowering the private sector to do
    things, rather than active in doing things directly. I think that's
    where the voters are.
        And a lot of times that explains the apparently contradictory
    feelings people have about what we're doing here, that they want us to
    be active and address the problems but they don't necessarily trust the
    Government to do it. Or as we say at home, a lot of people think
    Government would mess up a one-car parade. [Laughter]
        Mr. Burns. You're a student of history. Do you think that's because
    Camelot was illusory in the last analysis, that it's a mythical thing
    and that people are disappointed with both the Congress and various
    holders of your office? Is that the problem?
        The President. Oh, only partly. I think, first of all, the American
    people have always, always had a deep-seated skepticism about government
    generally and especially their National Government. I think that we've
    also been told for years that government was bad. And I think that we
    need a clearer definition; this is partly my job. I've got to do a
    better job of telling the American people in very clear terms, often
    through a fog of people, you know, disagreeing with me or with my
    characterization of it--I've got to do a better job of saying, okay,
    look, here is what we can do, here are our problems, here are our
    opportunities, here's what the National Government should do and here's
    what we cannot do, here's the partnership we have to have. That's what I
    called my new Democratic philosophy when I ran in 1992.
        I share what I think is the feeling of a majority of our fellow
    citizens, that the government should be limited in many ways and that
    government should do those things which it is required to do but no more
    than it is required to do.
        Mr. Burns. I mean, that's an excellent point. The Wall Street
    Journal reports this morning that Al From of the Democratic leadership
    conference just sent you a big memo, five or six pages long. I'm not
    trying to invade your private correspondence, but one of the things they
    say he said to you was, rightly or wrongly, you have become too
    identified with liberal causes on Capitol Hill and therefore don't
    appear to some of the people who supported you initially as this
    centrist Democrat, which you said you were.
        The President. I think that's right. And I think some of that may be
    my fault in terms of characterization. But if you look at what we've
    actually done, if you look at the economic program that I've put in
    place, it's bringing the deficit down for 3 years in a row, it's
    reducing the Federal Government by 272,000--certainly not a traditional
    liberal thing to do--to the smallest Federal Government we've had since
    Kennedy was President. We're taking all the savings and putting it into
    the fight against crime, which is basically money to people at the
    grassroots local level. We're addressing the issues like welfare reform
    partly with tax cuts for working fam-

    [[Page 1502]]

    ilies with lower incomes and tougher child support enforcement--not
    traditional liberal programs.
        I think what happened was, more than anything else, the health care
    program has been characterized as a big Government program, even though
    it took what, at the time I proposed it, was the moderate course, which
    is not having a Government-financed health care program but simply
    having a program in which the Government requires everybody to buy
    private insurance and then gives tax breaks or discounts to people who
    can't afford it on their own. That was the moderate proposal when we
    started. And every time we've sought to compromise, the other guys have
    always moved kind of further and further to the right.
        But I think that the health care debate more than anything else--
    we've had $140 million now spent in lobbying and advertising on health
    care by organized interests, the largest amount in American history, far
    more than was spent by the candidates in the Presidential campaign last
    time.
        When that happened, I think that that--I have been portrayed as sort
    of the apostle of big Government. Actually, that is not an accurate
    portrayal. I'm about reinventing Government. I'm trying to bring the
    Federal Government down. My Republican predecessors never attempted to
    do anything as ambitious as reducing the Federal Government to its
    smallest size in 30 years. I have fought for things that Democrats often
    don't fight for, including all these trade agreements to expand trade. I
    have fought to put the Government in partnership with our business
    interests overseas. Yesterday, just to give you a little example, we
    announced that for the first time in over 20 years, farmers in the
    Pacific Northwest will be able to sell their apples in Japan. For the
    first time ever, farmers in California are selling rice in Japan. These
    are the things that I have worked on.
        But there are some things that I believe--and this is worth
    debating--that the Government has to do. And when we have to do
    something, it should be as limited and efficient as possible. But there
    are some things that if we don't do it, it won't get done.
        Mr. Burns. Well, Mr. President, on the lobbying money, John Connally
    spent $10 million because he wanted to be President of the United
    States, and it was all wasted money, as we both know.
        The President. He got one delegate----
        Mr. Burns. He got one delegate----
        The President. ----from my home State. I know her.
        Mr. Burns. Well, there you are.
        The President. I know her well.
        Mr. Burns. That's a pretty high delegate, you know. So all of this
    money being spent by the special interests on health care, which has to
    be conceded has been spent, is not going to get a warm reception unless
    there is a general fear of the growth of Government in the first place.
        The President. I think that's right. I agree with that. I think--one
    of the things that Al From said to me with the Democratic Leadership
    Council--not in this memo, but I think it captures in one sentence the
    dilemma I face as President in trying to move into a post-cold-war world
    and take this country into the 21st century with a strategy for growth
    and opportunity, where the Government is not either just sitting on the
    sidelines or trying to solve problems but is being a partner with the
    American people--he said we are basically back in 1965 in what we want
    Government to do, but we're about in 1980 in what we trust Government to
    do, that is, the year President Reagan was elected.
        So people have high aspirations for what they wish us to do, but
    they don't trust us to do much. And they're afraid we'll mess it up. So
    it's easy to derail almost any initiative by saying, well, this thing is
    wrong with it or that or the other thing. We are a people of--a
    democratic government requires some flexibility and compromise and
    people working together. And somehow, we've got to find a way to
    recreate that spirit. Now, it happened on the NAFTA debate, and it
    happened last week on crime in the House. It was wonderful to see these
    Democrats and Republicans sitting down together, cutting unnecessary
    spending, redirecting the programs, making sure we only told the
    American people we were going to spend what we could, in fact, spend
    from reducing the size of the Federal Government. That's what we need
    more of, that sort of thing.

    Anticrime Legislation

        Mr. Burns. George Stephanopoulos answered this question. I guess
    this is a test as to whether he's really reflecting what you believe as
    President of the United States. Why not break out

    [[Page 1503]]

    the component parts of the crime bill? You and I both know that many of
    those components would fly through the Congress with no opposition--more
    police, more prisons. You might even win the assault weapons ban issue.
    Why doggedly say it's all or nothing?
        The President. Well, for one thing, I'm not sure that it would all
    pass. There is an answer to that. The first answer is, the House adopted
    them separately and together. The Senate, 95 to 4, before this issue got
    politicized, voted for a crime bill that is very much like the crime
    bill now before it that is so far not being permitted to come to a
    vote--95 to 4. They voted for a bill that had prevention, punishment,
    prisons, police----

    Note: The President spoke at 4:18 p.m. from Room 459 of the Old
    Executive Office Building. The broadcast of this interview was
    terminated by the station's scheduled 4:30 newscast.