    [Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 36, Number 33 (Monday, August 21, 2000)]
    [Pages 1889-1899]
    [Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    <R04>
    Interview With Ron Brownstein
    of the Los Angeles Times

    August 11, 2000

    Republican National Convention

        Mr. Brownstein. One of the things that was a little surprising at
    the Republican Convention was the extent to which they tried to
    characterize the meaning of your 8 years. Bush said you had coasted
    through prosperity. Cheney said these have been years of prosperity in
    the Nation but little purpose in the White House.
        What is your response to that? How do you feel hearing that?
        The President.  Well, first of all, it was, on the facts, absurd. So
    I think what they're trying to do, their strategy seems to be to hope
    people think it all happened by accident. You know, when they had the
    White House for 12 years, they took credit every time the Sun came up in
    the morning. And also I think they did it because they fought so much of
    what we did.
        You remember what they all said when they opposed the economic plan
    in '93, they said it would bring on another recession. They practically
    said it was the end of civilization as we know it. Then they fought the
    crime bill. They were against the 100,000 police. They were against the
    Brady bill. On welfare reform, we agreed that work should be mandatory
    and that the States should be able to design their own programs, but we
    disagreed on the requirements for national standards for nutrition and
    medical care and transportation and all that. So we just differed on so
    many things.
        I think they were just trying somehow to get the American people to
    discount what's happened.

    Economic Decisionmaking

        Mr. Brownstein. In your mind--this is a legitimate debate--how
    significant a role did your economic decisions, the '93, the '97 budget,
    the other things that you've done, how important has that been in the
    prosperity of the last 8 years?
        The President.  I think it was pivotal. Because if you remember when
    we just announced what we were going to do--we announced we would have a
    deficit reduction plan that would cut the deficit by at least $500
    billion. After the election, but before we took office, there was this
    huge boom in the stock market and interest rates dropped. And then when
    we passed it, it happened all over again.
        And if you look at what's happened, Alan Greenspan said many times
    our fiscal responsibility in bringing the deficit down is what kept
    inflation pressures down and enabled him to leave interest rates lower
    so this whole thing would unfold. Otherwise, we would have had what had
    happened so long in the past--the productive capacity of the American
    people would lift the economy, then it would sag again, lift and sag,
    which is just what had happened before.

    Social Indicators

        Mr. Brownstein. A little bit on social policy, on crime, other
    social trends. Do you think that Federal decisions have been
    significant----
        The President.  Yes.
        Mr. Brownstein. ----in things we've seen on those areas?
        The President.  Yes. I think if you look at it, I saw a study the
    other day--and I'm sorry; I don't remember who did it--which said that
    about 30 percent of the drop in the crime rate could be clearly
    attributable to the improvement in the economy. But I think the rest is
    due to better policing strategies and to more sensible efforts to keep
    guns out of the wrong hands.
        The crime bill that we passed in '94 basically was the product of
    law enforcement officers, community activists, prosecutors, who were
    beginning to do things that were working at the neighborhood level. But
    since 1965, between then and 1992, the violent crime rate had tripled
    and the police forces of the country had gone up only by 10 percent.

    [[Page 1890]]

        So I don't think there's any question that putting 100,000 police in
    the streets, supporting more community prevention efforts, and doing the
    Brady bill, the assault weapons ban made a significant contribution.
    They don't think--the law enforcement people agree. I was in a suburban
    Republican community yesterday, outside Chicago, and I did what I always
    do when I leave, line up the police officers--and they had police
    officers from three different jurisdictions there--and two of them
    mentioned how important the COPS program had been to them and how much
    better they were doing as a result of it.
        On welfare reform, I think starting with all the waivers we gave to
    States to experiment with welfare-to-work projects, right through the
    passage of the bill, and then getting 12,000 companies in the Welfare to
    Work Partnership to commit to hire people off welfare, I don't think
    there is any question that we have maximized the efforts. There again,
    some of the welfare decline has to be attributed to the improving
    economy. But the rest of it has to be attributed to changes in the law
    and the policies.

    Choices in 2000 Election

        Mr. Brownstein. So when you look at all of that, the economy, the
    social trends, to what extent do you consider this election, the
    November election, a referendum on your two terms, the good and the bad?
        The President.  I think it depends entirely on whether people
    understand what the choices are. And first, even before that, whether
    they think it's a significant election. I mean, the most troubling thing
    to me is--at least before the two conventions--there are a lot of people
    that are saying, ``Well, things are going along well. This probably
    doesn't make much difference, and I don't know what their differences
    are--economy, crime, whatever.''
        I think if people understand with clarity what the choices are, they
    will clearly make a decision to keep changing in the right direction,
    because all the surveys show over 60 percent of the people approve of
    the economic policy, the crime policy, the welfare policy, the health
    care policy, the general direction of the country--the people support
    us.

    Policy Differences

        Mr. Brownstein. So you're saying in your mind you do view this as a
    choice between maintaining the direction you've set out and reverting
    back to the previous, or what?
        The President.  Well, it's different. I think in some ways you could
    argue that the Republican ticket this year is more conservative than
    President Bush in '92 or Senator Dole in '96. They've been quite adroit
    in the presentation of it and adopted a lot of our rhetoric and our
    positioning. And I suppose that's a step forward.
        But the difference is, when we started in '92 we actually changed
    the policies of the Democratic Party, the economic policy, the trade
    policy, the welfare policy, the crime policy, the education policy,
    right across the board. And I think that's important to emphasize that
    distinction.
        So again, from my point of view, for example, their tax policies,
    when you slice them up salami-like, like they're doing now, which is
    better politics for them, there's a compelling argument for each one of
    them individually. But when you add them all up, you're basically back
    in the deficit suit. And that's a big difference.
        So in my view, that would be a reversion. It would take a while to
    have effect, because we've built in a strong base. But once it was clear
    that we were going to get rid of the surplus right off the bat and then
    stop paying down the debt, I think the pressures for--well, Greenspan
    has said if there's a big tax cut, he'll have to raise interest rates
    more. So most people would lose more money in the interest rate increase
    than they'll get in the tax cut.

    Democratic National Convention

        Mr. Brownstein. Is defining the stakes in the election one of the
    goals for your speech?
        The President.  Yes. But I think primarily that has to be done by
    Gore and Lieberman. Now, I do that when I'm out on the stump, you know,
    with our groups, because I want them to be able to go out and talk to
    other people and communicate that. But I think the American--I can say a
    few things about

    [[Page 1891]]

    what I think the choice should be. But this convention is very important
    that it belong to Al Gore and, to a lesser extent, to Joe Lieberman and
    that they define the choices.
        I think that it should be the mission of this convention to have
    clarity of choice--first, to understand the importance of the election,
    then to have clarity of choice, then to make clear what our positions
    are. And that we're not--as I said, if somebody said, ``Vote for me,
    I'll do just what President Clinton did,'' I would not vote for that
    person, because the times are very dynamic. There are still a lot of big
    challenges out there. But I think to keep changing in the direction
    we've taken is clearly what's best for America.

    Choices in 2000 Election/Tone of Politics

        Mr. Brownstein. In terms of defining the choices, when Bush and the
    Republicans define the choice, they put a lot of emphasis on changing
    the tone in Washington, changing the climate in Washington. When he
    talks about restoring honor and decency to the White House, do you feel
    as though he's talking about you, personally? Do you take that
    personally?
        The President.  Well, yes and no. Yes, he's talking about me
    personally; no, I don't take it personally. It's what they have to say.
    They're wrong on economics. They know the people don't agree with them
    on crime. They know the people don't agree with them on turning the
    environment back over to the polluters. They know the people don't agree
    with them on these issues. They know they can't make the case anymore
    that helping the environment hurts the economy. So they basically can't
    win any of the issues that affect the American people, so they have to
    divert the attention of the American people. So, no, I don't take it
    personally.
        I think that what we have to do is talk about what we did for the
    people and the fact that we made specific commitments, and we honored
    them. Five years ago Thomas Patterson, the Presidential scholar, said I
    had already kept a higher percentage of my commitments to the American
    people than the previous five Presidents. And the number has gone up
    since then, and the ones that I haven't kept are ones that I tried and
    couldn't prevail on.
        And the other thing I think is truly ironic, they're saying--they're
    responsible for the tone in Washington. I mean, I gave Bob Dole and Bob
    Michel the Medal of Freedom. I bent over backwards to work with Newt
    Gingrich and Dick Armey, and did, whenever I could. The truth is that
    the harsh tone in Washington, as the American people know, was set by
    the far right. They got rewarded for it in 1994, when there was a high
    level of frustration. They overread their mandate. And they basically
    turned up the volume on a strategy they had really been pursuing in the
    far right since 1980 or before. And then the people didn't like it.
        So now they say they want to change it. What they're basically
    saying is, ``It's Republicans that do this, so put us in. If you let us
    rule, we'll be nice, and the Democrats don't do this sort of thing, so
    you'll have a nicer tone. So reward us for our past misconduct, and then
    everything will be sweet.''
        What I'd like to see the American people do is to say, we want you
    to work together. If they ratify this choice--what we call the New
    Democratic choice--if they ratify the choice of the Republicans when
    they vote with us on balanced budget and welfare reform, and when we
    work together on trade and foreign policy, then that's the direction the
    country will take.
        I think it's predictable that if they essentially reward them for
    first being mean and now being nice, that they will think that as long
    as they're nice they can then implement the policies that they were
    going to implement anyway. And I don't think the American people will
    like that, and I don't think it's good for the country.

    Bipartisanship

        Mr. Brownstein. Are you disappointed or frustrated at all, though,
    if you think back from when you first ran against brain-dead politics in
    both parties in '92, and you--with really the exception of the '96-'97
    period of welfare reform, Kennedy-Kassebaum, and in the balanced budget
    deal--it's been very hard to get bipartisan, significant bipartisan
    agreement. And there have been significant

    [[Page 1892]]

    voices in the Democratic Party that have basically been cool to the
    idea, post the impeachment fight, very partisan atmosphere.
        Is it tougher to bring the parties together than you would have
    thought?
        The President.  We got a lot done in '98. We got a lot done in '99--
    especially, mostly in the budget process; both times a lot of our
    education reforms went through. Even in 2000, we passed the Africa CBI
    bill with big bipartisan votes; we passed the China bill in the House;
    and the Senate, I think there will be probably more than half of both
    caucuses for the bill when they come back in September.
        So I think it's important not to obscure the fact that things are
    still being done. And I wouldn't be surprised when they come back--if we
    do a good job at our convention, I wouldn't be surprised if we still
    don't get this year a Patients' Bill of Rights, a minimum wage increase,
    and maybe some of the other things we're working on.
        So you know, it's harder, but I think we shouldn't obscure the fact
    that a lot of things still get done. I think we're going to pass a new
    markets initiative, thanks to the fact that the Speaker of the House has
    made it a priority in a bipartisan way. It got almost 400 votes in the
    House. It is a major, major piece of social legislation. It's basically
    the next big block on top of the empowerment zone program we adopted in
    '93.
        So do I wish I could do everything? Yes. Do I wish it were less
    partisan? Yes. But that shouldn't obscure the fact that we're still
    getting quite a lot done.

    Lieberman Selection/Tone of Politics

        Mr. Brownstein. I asked you a moment ago if you thought that Bush
    was referring to you when he talks about honor and decency in the White
    House. The Lieberman selection as Vice President has been widely
    interpreted as signaling at once continuity with your policy, in terms
    of picking the chair of the DLC, but also an effort to separate from
    you, personally. Did you view it that way?
        The President.  Well, I think the far more important thing is the
    continuity of policy, because the thing that has always bothered me
    about these polls--until the last few days, where I think they are
    beginning to tighten up and firm up--is that the Vice President wasn't
    getting the credit he deserved for the role he played in the
    administration.
        I never believed, not for a minute, that the American people were
    going to, in effect, vote against their own interests and their own
    values by holding Al Gore responsible for a personal mistake I made--for
    a second. The whole record here has been obscured. Joe Lieberman was the
    first Democrat to say it, but he didn't say anything different than Al
    Gore said. He certainly didn't say anything different than I said
    contemporaneously.
        The issue is not--as a matter of fact, I think what he proposed was
    right. That doesn't mean that what they did was right. What they did was
    wrong. And what Lieberman said was right, and that's what Gore said.
    That's all Gore said.
        So you know, sooner or--the American people would figure that out
    and they--people are so much more fair than politicians and, sometimes,
    press pundits.
        Mr. Brownstein. Right.
        The President.  And they're also--you know, they don't cut off their
    nose to spite their face very long. All these tactics, even going back
    to the '92 campaign, the Republicans knew that what we were doing was
    best for the American people and that, if the American people understood
    that, we'd win.
        So what have they done from '92 on? They've tried to divert the
    attention of the American people to make them vote against something,
    vote on the basis of something other than their families, their lives,
    their kids' future, and the need to change America in a constructive
    way. So this is just the latest and most subtle incarnation of what I
    see as a very constant strategy, going back until '92.

    Impeachment Process

        Mr. Brownstein. I want to ask you one last question in this area.
    That rather extraordinary session you had yesterday, talking with the
    ministers, and you talked at great length about your personal feelings,
    about the whole controversy. You didn't say much about looking back and
    how you felt about the impeachment process itself.

    [[Page 1893]]

        Do you feel now that it was only partisanship at work, or could
    there have been legitimate reasons for some Republicans to feel the way
    they did?
        The President.  Well, first of all, some of them--I think Peter King
    gave the best speech on that. I'll use his words. Peter King said, ``I'm
    voting against this because if it was a Republican President you'd be
    against it, too.'' It's basically what I think. But you know, the
    American people can evaluate that. The most important thing was not what
    I say; it's what those 800 or 900 constitutional experts said. Way over
    90 percent of the people with an informed opinion about the history and
    the law said it was wrong. Two-thirds of the American people thought it
    was wrong.
        But that's all behind us. What the American people need to vote, in
    my judgment, the way they nearly always vote--they need to vote based on
    what kind of future they want. And if they believe that I have kept
    faith with the commitments I made and that we implemented those things
    and they had a good impact on the American way of life and our future
    and they understand what the choices are between the two candidates now
    and the two parties, I think we'll do fine.

    Direction of Democratic Party

        Mr. Brownstein. So it is the public record, in effect, the outward-
    looking record on which you think the judgment should be rendered and
    the vote should be based?
        The President.  Because that's the only thing that matters to them
    in their lives. And because, you know, if I were running again, they
    could evaluate me in whole, all my strengths and all my weaknesses. But
    I'm not running.
        However, the things that we stood for--the reason I was thrilled
    about Lieberman's selection is that we've been working together in the
    DLC for years. It was a clear statement from Al Gore that he's going to
    continue this New Democratic course. It should be encouraging to
    independents and moderate Republicans that there will be a basis for
    bipartisan cooperation and that we're going to continue the kinds of
    change that have wrought so much good in this country in the last 8
    years.
        One of the things that will happen--as I said, I think Lieberman's
    selection will help the Vice President to get more of the credit he
    deserves for the good things that have happened the last 8 years.
        Mr. Brownstein. You know, I wasn't planning to ask you this, but
    since you brought it up, one thing that's interesting about that, what
    you just said, though, is that the policy direction of the Vice
    President is quite similar to yours, overwhelmingly extending the kinds
    of things the administration has done, in some cases, literally, like
    CHIPS for adults or class size reductions through 12th grade or more
    police officers. But the music is a little different. He talks in a more
    traditionally Democratic language. He talks about big oil, big tobacco,
    whose side are you on. And some people feel that he's a more partisan--
    more comfortable in the Democratic Party, less comfortable reaching out
    across party lines.
        Do you think there is a difference between the two of you and the
    extent to which you are comfortable challenging the party base and/or
    working with Republicans?
        The President.  Not really. I think that we're living in a time when
    the issues at hand and our frustration at not being able to pass the
    Patients' Bill of Rights, for example, not being able to close the gun
    show loophole, having the NRA say they'll have an office in the White
    House if the Republicans are elected, have highlighted the differences
    between the special interests that dominate policy in their party and
    what we believe is in the public interest. And I think that accounts for
    some of the rhetoric.
        I also believe, you know, when you're--if you go back to '92, the
    two New Democrats in the race were Tsongas and me, and Kerrey was, to
    some extent a New Democrat, we all had some pretty populist rhetoric.
    And there was reason for it then because people were suffering, really
    suffering. The reason for it now is that specific interest groups are
    holding up progress on issues even that a majority of the Republicans in
    the country favor.
        For example, I think a majority of the Republicans clearly favor the
    Patients' Bill of Rights we're supporting. That's just one example.
    That's why I'm saying I think Lieberman coming on ticket sends a clear

    [[Page 1894]]

    signal. I also think he--Joe and I spent more years and just had the
    opportunity, for different reasons, to spend more time in the DLC than
    the Vice President did. If he hadn't become Vice President, I think one
    of these last 8 years he would have been chairman of the DLC. You think,
    if you have a chance to think about all this in a different way.
        But I don't see it as a big substantive problem. I know how
    important it is to him, personally, to try to get bipartisan support for
    the work of a country. I know how important it is to try to get
    bipartisan support out in the country. I know how profoundly troubled he
    was in the last 2 or 3 years that even foreign policy began to get more
    partisan--the most amazing expression was the defeat of the
    Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the first time in 80 years the Congress
    had defeated a major treaty like this.

    Electoral Fortunes of the Democratic Party

        Mr. Brownstein. Let me ask you to sort of take a step back and think
    about the political ledger for a minute. You've become the first
    Democrat to be reelected since Roosevelt. The party was averaging about
    50 electoral votes an election in the three elections before you. So
    clearly, there has been a restoration of the capacity to compete at the
    Presidential level.
        On the other hand, you've lost Congress, fewer Governors, and Gore
    is in this ambiguous position here as the campaign begins--or in the
    middle of the campaign. Do you feel that you are leaving the Democratic
    Party in a stronger position than, in effect, when you found it in the
    fall of '91?
        The President.  Oh, yes, I do. Because a lot of those congressional
    seats we held because we had a guy who had been there for a long, long
    time, while the districts had been changing, more Republican. I feel
    terrible about what I did to weaken our position in Congress and, by
    extension, probably in the governorships in '94, because we got all the
    downside of voting for the crime bill. That is, the NRA was out there
    telling all those people we're going to take their guns away, and they
    hadn't seen it work, and they hadn't seen that the fear tactics were
    wrong.
        We got the downside of voting for the economic plan because people
    didn't feel the economy going better, and the Republicans were out there
    telling everybody we raised their taxes. In fact, you know, for most
    people, the vast majority, they didn't get their taxes raised. We had
    more tax cuts than tax increases. But there was this general sense of,
    well, nothing is really all that much better yet. And I felt terrible
    because--you know, I got the benefit in '96, and we began to win seats
    back.
        But what I think now is, the '98 election I think was a true
    watershed election, because the President's party won seats in the House
    for the first time since 1822, in the sixth year of a Presidency. That
    was a long time ago. And even though we only won 5, they thought they
    were going to win 20 or 30, and they spent $100 million more than we
    did. They thought they were going to win four to six Senate seats, and
    they didn't win any.
        This year we're well positioned to pick up seats in the House and
    the Senate. In '98 Senator Hollings was reelected; we got a Democratic
    Governor in South Carolina; we got a Democratic Governor in Alabama; we
    got a Democratic Governor in Georgia; we got two African-American State-
    elected officials in Georgia. I think Zell Miller will be elected in
    Georgia in November.
        So I think that the Democratic Party is coming back, and I think
    that it is a party reborn in the direction that we have taken in the
    last 8 years.

    Status of Democratic Party Changes

        Mr. Brownstein. Do you think Gore has to win in 2000 to
    institutionalize that in the party? Or do you think it is cemented now,
    the big things that you have changed--on crime, welfare, the budget--are
    they--free trade--are these cemented, regardless? Or if Gore loses, or
    do we reopen the debates?
        The President.  First of all, I've always thought he would win, and
    I still believe he's going to win. I thought he would win when he was
    down 18 points. Vice Presidents have always had a difficult time
    winning, but I believe he'll win. And I believe he'll win in a positive
    way.

    [[Page 1895]]

        President Bush won, basically, by demolishing Mike Dukakis. I think
    Al Gore will win for the right reasons, because the country is better
    off than it was 8 years ago, and it's a stronger country. It's also a
    more just country. And I think when people understand where we were,
    where we are now, where he wants to lead us, I think after they see Al
    and Joe and Tipper and Hadassah and their families and they hear him
    talk, I think the comfort level will go way up. And I think they'll have
    what I believe this election is about. I think they have four fine
    people running for President and Vice President with very different
    levels of experience and very different positions on the issues about
    the future. And I think they'll choose him. That's what I think will
    happen. I've always thought that would happen.

    Republican Strategy

        Mr. Brownstein. And that question of experience--your comments the
    other night in Rhode Island, sort of the humorous comments about Bush
    that sort of sparked a little--let me just ask you, so we can interpret
    those correctly. In your mind, does he have sufficient experience and
    those personal qualities it takes to be President?
        The President.  First, let me say I was surprised by the reaction.
    It isn't true that I was trying to get him. And I think it came probably
    because sometimes when I'm talking without notes I lapse into southern
    talk. We don't mean anything disparaging by ``daddy.'' I talk about my
    daddy all the time. I think if I had said ``father,'' it would have had
    a different resonance with them. And I didn't mean to do that.
        But the point I'm making is, Bush has been a Governor for, what, 5
    years. And I was a Governor for 11 years when I took office, and had
    been involved in a lot of these things. The point I was trying to make
    was a different one. It's not that being Governor of a State, big State,
    for 5 years is not enough to be President. It is that the argument that
    they're making is based far more on atmospherics and the rhetorical
    positioning of the candidate than on specific positions on the issues.
    That was the argument I'm making.
        In other words, you didn't hear anybody up there talking about,
    here's how I'm going to change the environmental policy; here's how I'm
    going to change the way I appoint judges to the Supreme Court; here's
    how I'm going to change the tax policy.
        Oh, they talked about particular popular tax cuts, but they didn't
    say, here's the difference in my approach than theirs. That's the
    argument I was making. Their argument is: This economy is on automatic;
    nobody can mess it up; nobody was responsible for it; the Government
    doesn't have anything to do with it; we're going to give you the money
    back; let us govern. That's what I was trying to say.
        It wasn't meant to be a personal barb in any way. I was actually
    complimenting their strategy, because it's the only way they can win.
    That is, the only way they can win is to take all the guys that really
    run the Republican Party--in other words, Mr. Armey and Mr. DeLay and
    all those guys, they still have their positions--if they took everybody
    that's really in control and they didn't show them to the American
    people, then they took their policies on--whether it was guns or the
    environment or health care or hate crimes or choice--and they put them
    in a closet for the convention, and they showed a whole different face
    to America to try to make people say, ``Well, I feel okay about these
    guys. I'm going to give them job. You know, the other guy has had it for
    8 years. Maybe we'll give it to them.'' That is their strategy. That's
    plainly their strategy and I----
        Mr. Brownstein. Is it meant to deceive the American people about
    what they really intend?
        The President.  Well, that's your word, not mine. I just think that
    they would prefer not to talk about the issue differences. I don't think
    they think of it as deceit, because if you talk to any of them, they
    basically think they should always rule. They thought I was an
    historical accident. They thought they'd never lose the White House
    again. They thought they had sort of a proven strategy for beating all
    Democrats, which is, basically, if you listen to all their campaigns
    from the beginning, that we're not like normal folks, and they are, so
    we ought to vote for them.
        And I think they obviously have two candidates of enormous skill,
    enormous political skill, running. And I don't think they think

    [[Page 1896]]

    of it as deceit. I think they think, if they get elected, they'll do the
    best job they can. But they ought to tell the American people what
    they're going to do in all these areas, and we ought to tell the
    American people what we're going to do. And that's what the debates
    ought to be about.

    Qualifications of the Candidates

        Mr. Brownstein. Let me go back to my question, though, from a moment
    ago. Even if you didn't intend anything to that effect in Rhode Island--
    let me ask you directly--do you think Governor Bush is sufficiently
    experienced to serve as President?
        The President.  Well, that's always a relative question. The point
    I've made about Al Gore is that he had a distinguished record in
    Congress, a distinguished record in the Senate. And he had the most
    extraordinary record of achievement in his present job than anyone in
    history. So he is much better qualified. He's also shown a peculiar
    qualification for this moment in history. That is, he's one of the most
    future-oriented people in American public life in the last 25 years. And
    he always has been.
        Contrary to Governor Bush's jab at him, he never claimed to have
    invented the Internet. He did sponsor legislation which transformed what
    was called something else into the Internet, a public access means of
    communication that's the fastest growing one in history. And that's just
    one example. He understood all this genetic business before everybody
    else did. He was talking about climate change when they were still
    making fun of him in '92. Now the oil companies say it's real. So I
    think that he has had more relevant experience.
        So compared to the Vice President, he's not experienced enough. If
    you think experience is important, the Vice President has much more than
    he does. So that's not an objective statement; it's a relevant
    statement. No disrespect to his service as Governor, but look at Al
    Gore's experience and look at the results of that experience. I think he
    wins on that experience hands down.

    Post-Presidential Plans

        Mr. Brownstein. Would you accept any kind of position--special
    ambassadorship--in a Gore administration? Do you have any interest in
    the Supreme Court?
        The President.  Well, I can't imagine that that would happen. I told
    Al once that if he got elected President my main goal would be to stay
    out of his way--because America can only have one President at a time.
    But if he ever wanted to talk to me, I'd be glad to talk to him. If he
    ever wanted me to do anything, I'd be glad to do it. If he just wanted
    me to go to funerals for him, I'd be glad to go. I will do whatever I
    can to be helpful to him, because I know what it's like to have that job
    and have to make the calls.
        So my main concern as I look ahead is to try to find ways that I can
    use all the experience and the knowledge that I've acquired to be an
    effective citizen of America and to do some positive things around the
    world in ways that absolutely do not interfere in any way, shape, or
    form with his performance of his responsibilities, which are unique.
        So if I ever did anything, it would be strictly within the confines
    of what I was asked to do. And I would guess if it ever amounted to
    anything, it would be one specific something that might come up in some
    area where I had a lot of involvement. But my main focus is on--I'm
    going to be a private citizen again, and I just want to be a good one,
    and that's what I expect to be.

    Defining the Vice President's Role

        Mr. Brownstein. In the last few minutes I have, I was asked by
    colleague Ed Chen to ask you a couple of questions for a profile of the
    Vice President that will be running during convention week. And I'm
    wondering if--this goes back to '92--but the first question he wanted me
    to ask was, when you talked with then-Senator Gore about the Vice
    Presidency, did he have any specific ideas of what he wanted the job to
    be? And how did they jibe with your view of what the Vice President--did
    you negotiate in advance about what the Vice Presidency would be?
        The President.  I don't know if I would say ``negotiate.'' But yes,
    he did, particularly after we talked a second time. He knew that
    basically--that Vice President Mondale and

    [[Page 1897]]

    Vice President Bush had had more institutional--had a more
    institutionalized partnership than any Vice Presidents before them. So
    he said, ``You know, if I do this I want to know that we'll have lunch
    once a week,'' and we have, faithfully, until he got involved in more
    important things. ``I want to know that I can be a part of any meeting
    and a part of all important decisions.'' And I said he would.
        And then he said, ``What do you have in mind? What do you want me to
    do?'' And I said, ``Well, I'm asking you to do this because I think
    you'd be a good President. I think you'd be a good partner, and because
    you know things I don't know--arms control, defense, the environment,
    technology, principally.'' And I said, ``As we unfold this
    administration, I will want you to do specific things. I want you to
    have adequate staff to do it. I want you to have adequate support to do
    it, and I don't want you to have some separate satellite operation. I
    want us to have an integrated White House operation--you, the Cabinet,
    the staff--I want us all working as a team.''
        And I rather suspect that the model that we have established
    operationally will be followed by subsequent administrations, Republican
    and Democrat, because it's just crazy that other people haven't used the
    Vice President more. I mean, I think it doesn't make any sense.
        Mr. Brownstein. It very well leads into question two, which was--the
    question is, how aware were you in the early days of the administration
    to resistance within the Presidential staff to the Vice President having
    an active role? And what did you do to let people--and here it says,
    like George or Harold Ickes--know that Gore had to be a central part of
    decisionmaking? Was there resistance, in your mind, originally, among
    some of the White House staff to this--what you describe as a kind of
    unique, new, and different integrated role.
        The President.  Well, I don't know if I would--let me just say this.
    I don't know if I would describe it in that way. But when we got
    started, we had to create a culture, and we had thousands and thousands
    of decisions to make. And the deal I made with him, which I initiated, I
    said, ``Look, if you think we're not doing something right or if you
    feel you should be involved in something you're not, the one thing I
    cannot tolerate, we'll never survive around here if this happens, is if
    you or anyone else sits around and fumes about something instead of
    bringing it out.'' I said, ``If you think that we've messed up, you come
    and tell me, personally. And if I agree with you, we'll fix it.''
        So over the last 8 years maybe--maybe once a year something would
    come up where he'd say, ``Look, this is how I think it should be, and
    we'd like to be more involved, and we're not,'' or, ``This is something
    I think I should run myself.'' But it hasn't happened a lot. But in the
    beginning, you know, it took us a while to get this up and going. It's
    not easy. If you read these accounts of previous White Houses and how
    they operated, I mean, you would see--you've got a thousand different
    external pressures operating on you; you feel like you're in the fourth
    quarter of a game every day with the time running out. So it took us a
    while to work it out, but we did work it out, and I think on balance
    it's worked quite well.

    Unfinished Agenda

        Mr. Brownstein. My last question, so I'm going back to one of my own
    questions, instead of the Gore questions, which is: In the last few
    years, despite what we've talked about before, a lot of what you have
    proposed has been blocked. I mean, there has been, sort of, gridlock on
    a lot of things in Washington.
        If you were going to look at one or two things, try to narrow it
    down, of the unfinished business of your Presidency that you think
    should be the top priority for the next President, areas or even
    specific proposals that you think are really right at the top of the
    agenda for a new Congress and a new President should focus, what would
    those be?
        The President.  Well, before they spend the whole surplus, in my
    judgment, they need to do the following things. There needs to be a
    long-term plan for what we're going to do on Social Security and
    Medicare that will require some more money and some substantive reform.
    I really regret--basically, neither party wanted to tackle Social
    Security

    [[Page 1898]]

    this year, because we could have done it. So they need to think about
    that.
        Then I think they need a longer term strategy--I would advise the
    Vice President when he becomes President to think about this--really
    longer term strategy for education, because we're really beginning to
    see some improvement in these schools now. And we need to accelerate the
    pace of it, because now we know what works. And we're going to hit a
    roadblock when you have 2 million teachers retire over the next few
    years, really over the service of the next President, if the President
    is a two-termer.
        Then I think--the third thing I think that really needs to be
    thought through is this whole complex of health care issues. I would
    recommend that we block out everything. For example, we could take a lot
    of the--the most vulnerable people without health insurance, we could
    take care of if we let all the parents of the CHIP kids buy into CHIP,
    if we let everybody over 55 who lost their health insurance at work buy
    into Medicare and give them a little tax credit to do it. And if then we
    let all young single people have access at least to some sort of
    catastrophic plan, along the lines of the slimmest plan offered by the
    Federal employees plan. And then we should beef up the public health
    network in America. I think that's important.
        So those three areas, domestically.
        Now, in foreign policy, I think that there are two things that need
    to be more work done. The one area, as you know, that I have failed to
    get a majority consensus in my party on is for the imperative of
    continuing world trade networks and to continue to have America benefit
    from the increasing interdependence of the global economic system. And I
    failed to get the Republicans to agree that you can't have an economic
    system that is interdependent without more of an interdependent social
    system. That's what the labor and environmental standards are all about.
    I think there ought to be a serious effort on that.
        And then one other thing on foreign policy that I think is
    important. I've talked a lot about this, but we don't have the
    institutionalized commitment that I think we need to deal with the new
    security threats and the new opportunities in the 21st century. The
    Republicans made fun of me when we said AIDS was a security threat, but
    it is. The breakdown of public health networks all over the world and
    the rise of AIDS, TB, and malaria, but also just a breakdown of health
    care systems--in Russia, not just in Africa, in Russia and lots of other
    countries in the former Soviet Union and other places--it's a serious
    problem. And I think there should be much more money spent in
    nonmilitary massive security, foreign policy areas.
        We do real well on an ad-hoc basis, like we've got a great
    bipartisan commitment on Plan Colombia. I know it's controversial, but I
    think it's right. I think we're going to do it right, and I think my
    successors will do it right. But we're spending much less in nonmilitary
    foreign policy expenditures than we were at the end of the cold war.
    That budget has been cut in real dollar terms even more than the defense
    budget. The difference is that we could cut the defense budget because
    we didn't need 200,000 troops in Europe. We can cut back some other
    places and still have the dominant military in the world. And even now
    we're starting to replenish, rebuild the defense budget, which we have
    to, because we need more investment and readiness and weapons
    modernization and things like that. We have got to invest more money in
    development.
        If we get a Middle East peace, the Congress, I'm sure, will do what
    we should do.
        If time permitted, I could give you a dozen examples where the
    direct, long-term interests of the United States are adversely affected
    by our inability to invest nonmilitary money in certain areas. And I'm
    not talking about just writing people a blank check and throwing the
    money away. But those are the areas, if I were in charge of a transition
    planning team for the new administration, those are the things that I
    would urge them to be looking at.

     Note:  The interview began at 4:43 p.m. aboard Air Force One en route
    to Los Angeles, CA. In his remarks, the President referred to former
    Senator Bob Dole; former Representative Robert H. Michel; 1988
    Democratic Presidential candidate former Gov. Michael Dukakis of
    Massachusetts; Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Senator Joseph I.
    Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah;

    [[Page 1899]]

    newly appointed Senator Zell Miller, who filled the seat of the late
    Senator Paul Coverdell from Georgia; and former Assistant to the
    President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Political Affairs
    Harold Ickes. This interview was released by the Office of the Press
    Secretary on August 15. A tape was not available for verification of the
    content of this interview.