Quizzing the
candidates
Jeff Jacoby (archive)
January 19,
2004 | 
Print | 
Send
![]()
With the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary coming up fast, the
leisurely "retail" phase of the presidential campaign is ending. For
months, the candidates have been willing to meet with just about anyone and
answer just about anything. Now the campaigns are becoming more
regimented, the candidates less accessible, and their public remarks more
tightly scripted.
So this was a good time, I
thought, to pose a few queries that don't often come up on the campaign trail or
in the editorial-board meetings. I invited all the candidates to answer
five questions that I hoped might elicit some insight into their political
ideals. Only John Kerry and Dick Gephardt didn't respond. The other
candidates' answers are the subject of this and my next
column.
1. Please summarize the most important
lesson(s) of Sept. 11, 2001.
Nothing will have a
greater impact on the election in November than the progress of the war.
Whether George W. Bush retains or loses his job will depend above all on how
Americans judge his handling of the 9/11 attacks and their
aftermath.
For Bush, 9/11 was a brutal wake-up
call. It taught him that the forces of Islamism -- the totalitarian
ideology of militant Islam -- are America's foremost enemy, that terrorism is
their weapon of choice, and that the dictatorships of the Middle East are the
swamps in which they breed. However they judge Bush's conduct of the war,
millions of Americans instinctively share his view of 9/11. Do any of the
Democrats running for president? Question 1 was meant to find
out.
Two of the candidates responded with mere
truisms. For retired General Wesley Clark, the most important lesson of
Sept. 11 "is that we cannot take our security at home for granted" and must
protect it with "offensive and defensive strategies." Senator John Edwards
learned that Americans were "not invincible" and needed to create an effective
homeland security agency.
Other candidates
emphasized multilateralism. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, said
9/11 made it "crystal clear" that the United States must "work with our allies
and the world community . . . to fight terrorism." The attacks also
convinced him that America must attack "terrorism's root causes" by increasing
foreign aid, and promoting democracy and women's rights. Congressman
Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland wrote that of the many things he learned, "the most
important lesson" was that "the world community of humankind everywhere will
reach out to and embrace us when we're in pain . . . if we but let
them."
To Al Sharpton, a key lesson of that
terrible day is that there were "critical intelligence failures within our
national security network" and that "America had no contingency plan for a
catastrophic attack on our own soil."
Only
Senator Joseph Lieberman emphasized the fanatic nature of the enemy: "The most
important lesson we learned from 9/11," he wrote, "is that we are now at war
against a group of religious extremists who hate us more than they love life,
and who as a result will go to any length to kill our people and destroy our way
of life."
(Of necessity, these are excerpts from
the candidates' answers. You can read their complete replies -- including
those of former Senator Carol MoseleyBraun, who responded before ending her
campaign last week -- at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/opinion/jacoby_qa/.)
2. Have federal courts gone too far in requiring the removal of religious
symbols or language from schools and other public
places?
Lawsuits are filed each December to
block the placement of a creche or a menorah on public property. Children
have been barred from reading the Bible in class -- even on their own
time. A US Court of Appeals decided that teachers may not lead students in
the Pledge of Allegiance, since it contains the phrase "under God." The
state of Washington revoked a student's college grant when he decided to major
in theology.
More than ever, it seems, the First
Amendment's command forbidding "an establishment of religion" is being enforced
as a ban on *any* religious _expression_ in the public square. This is a
crucial issue for of millions of voters. What do the Democratic candidates
think about it?
Clark, Kucinich, and Sharpton
all said that the courts have not gone too far in construing the Establishment
Clause. Kucinich suggested bluntly "that they have not gone far enough,"
and that "by removing the trappings of religion" from all government facilities,
"we actually increase the freedom of everyone to freely and openly practice the
beliefs of their choice." Sharpton wrote: "Our public places should not be
used to put forth any particular religious viewpoint or message." Clark
described the separation of church and state as essential "both to protect
religious faith and diversity of faith."
Edwards
had no comment on whether the courts in general have been too hostile toward
religion; he said only that "it is right not to have teachers leading prayers in
public classrooms" and that he opposes the Pledge of Allegiance
decision.
Again, Lieberman stood alone. "I
don't believe that the First Amendment was ever intended to remove from the
public square all displays and expressions of faith," he
wrote.
Dean has called attention to his
religious beliefs in recent weeks, but provided no answer for this
question.
3. What is
the best way to achieve the colorblind society that Martin Luther King dreamed
of?
Before there were racial preferences and minority set-asides,
there was Martin Luther King's stirring plea for colorblindness: "I have a dream
that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be
judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Sadly, 35 years of affirmative action programs have left
American law and culture more relentlessly race-conscious than ever. I wondered
whether any of the Democrats would be bold enough to say so -- and whether any
was prepared to acknowledge that the only realistic way to make King's dream
come true is to act as if it already has: to scrap every law and institutional
practice that treats people differently on the basis of race or color.
But there were no surprises. None of the candidates criticized
racial preferences, not even indirectly. Howard Dean endorsed "diversity and
affirmative action in education" and called platitudinously for "an honest, open
discussion about race." Al Sharpton demanded "racial justice" over "racial
harmony," and said it can be had "only by seeking true remedies to level the
playing field."
Joseph Lieberman answered that "education is the biggest key to
realizing the promise of racial equality," both because it is a "passport to
opportunity" and helps combat prejudice.
Neither John Edwards nor Wesley Clark addressed race at all.
Clark's hackneyed reply merely begged the question: "By bringing our diverse
people together we will all be stronger -- and honor Martin Luther King's
dream." Edwards advised taking steps "to lift up all Americans," in part by
"expanding access to higher education."
Dennis Kucinich, characteristically brash, disputed the premise
of the question. "King did not advise us to be blind to color," he wrote.
"Affirmative action is needed . . . as long as discrimination exists, and
reparations for slavery are long, long overdue."
(The candidates' complete answers to all five questions can be
found online at www.boston.com/news/politics/quiz
.)
4. Is there any serious problem in American society that you do *not*
believe calls for some kind of government response?
The Democrats all prescribe a wide variety of government cures
for the ills from which America suffers. For that matter, so does the Republican
they are running to replace: George W. Bush is burning through money faster than
any president since LBJ, and as his State of the Union address made clear, he's
got even more ideas about involving the federal government in American life.
But what about ways to get the feds *out* of American life?
Question 4 challenged the candidates to identify one national ailment for which
they would not recommend federal intervention. How hard could that be?
Too hard for most Democrats, apparently. Just one of the
contenders -- Lieberman -- came up with a specific answer: "Incivility." While
public officials can lead by example, he said, "government cannot apply laws or
adopt programs to force Americans to be kind and decent to one another. . . .
This is a problem that can only be solved by the standard-setters in our
society."
Sharpton, while not citing a particular social problem, wrote that
"government cannot and should not legislate people's values or regulate the
same." Clark and Dean went only so far as to say that "there are many problems
that can't be solved by government action alone" (Dean's words, but Clark's were
almost identical). Kucinich's reply was unequivocal: "No."
From Edwards I got merely a bromide: "There is no question that
what is most important in our lives is not government, but our families, our
communities, and our faith." Well, stop the presses.
5. In 1981, President Reagan hung Calvin Coolidge's portrait in
the White House Cabinet Room. If you are elected, which president's portrait
will you hang, and why?
Reagan's conspicuous decision to honor Coolidge was
surprising -- and revealing. Years later, Time Magazine's Hugh Sidey recalled
the buzz that went through the press corps when the Coolidge painting appeared.
At first, reporters thought the White House custodian must have fetched the
wrong portrait. But Reagan was sending a message: He was putting Washington on
notice that his campaign platform of lower taxes and limited government -- two
touchstones of the Coolidge administration -- had not been merely
rhetorical.
But there wasn't much "buzz" in the Democrats' portrait
selections. With some of the candidates making two choices, there were three
votes for FDR, two for Truman, and two for JFK. Safe picks all. Only one
candidate broke from the pack: Sharpton said he would honor LBJ "because he had
the courage and vision to pass the Civil Rights Act." And alone among the
Democrats, he also promised "a prominent place" for a (gasp!) Republican.
Lincoln, of course.
