Ripon Forum Winter 2004 by The Ripon Society

INSIDE: Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie Assistant Secretary Wade Horn Governor Bill Owens Rep. Tom Reynolds Rep. Ralph Regula Rep. Don Manzullo Rep. Nancy Johnson Case Against Kerry The Bush Boom Close Races to Watch Daschle in Disarray French Betrayal

The

VOLUME 38 • NUMBER IV • WINTER 2004

Ripon Forum

BUSH VS. YESTERDAY’S LIBERALISM www.riponsoc.org

The

Ripon Forum

Contents

VOLUME 38 • NUMBER IV WINTER 2004

Note From the Executive Director

POLITICS 5 6 On the cover: President George W. Bush waves from the steps of the Marine One helicopter before departing for Camp David. Photo by Shaun Heasley/Getty Images

The Bush Boom - by Daniel J. Mitchell Republican Worry-Warts Need Not Fear - by Robert Stacy McCain From Entitlement to Ownership - by Governor Bill Owens

COVER STORY 10 John Kerry is Yesterday’s Liberal - by Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Publisher The Ripon Society President Richard S. Kessler Executive Director Elvis Oxley Communications Director, Editor Jeffrey T. Kuhner Policy Research Director, Political Editor Stephen F. Manfredi Foreign Policy Editor Dr. Grace Vuoto Culture Editor Rachel K. Ayerst Editorial Assistants Robin Kessler Karen Padgett Design/Art Direction John Boone Banta PubNet Production Banta Corp. © Copyright 2004 By The Ripon Society • All Rights Reserved One Year Subscription: $25.00 individuals $10.00 students www.riponsoc.org The Ripon Society is a research and policy organization. It is located in Washington, D.C. There are National Associate members throughout the United States. Ripon is supported by chapter dues, individual contributions, and revenues from its publications.

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

ELECTION FORUM 12 14 16 18 20 21 22

Kerry’s Dovish Diplomacy - by John O’Sullivan Costs of Kerry-Care - by John C. Goodman Defeating Daschle - by Stephen F. Manfredi Key Races to Watch - by Donald Lambro GOP Poised for Victory - by U.S. Rep. Tom Reynolds Republican Accomplishments - by U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula Gubernatorial Races in November - By John Hood

INTERVIEW 24 The Republican Moment - Ed Gillespie 26 Strengthening U.S. Energy Security - Spencer Abraham 28 Fostering Strong Families - Wade Horn

PUBLIC POLICY 30 Improving Treatment of Chronic Illnesses - by U.S. Rep. Nancy L. Johnson 32 A 21st Century Jobs Agenda - by U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo 33 Patriot Act Preserves Security - by Patrick M. Garry 34 Large Strides in Trade Policy - by Claude Barfield 35 Reforming the Legal System - by Thomas J. Donohue

FOREIGN AFFAIRS 36 French Betrayal - by Kenneth R. Timmerman 37 Ukraine Confronts Communist Past - by Yarema Gregory Kelebay

THE JUST CAUSE 38 Putin: The New Stalin - by Grace Vuoto

The Ripon Forum (ISSN 0035-5526) is published quarterly by The Ripon Society. The Ripon Society is located at 1300 L Street, NW , Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005. Periodicals postage pending at Washington, DC and additional mailing offices.

Postmaster, send address changes to: The Ripon Forum, 1300 L Street, NW , Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005. Comments, opinion editorials and letters to the magazine should be addressed to: The Ripon Forum, 1300 L Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 or may be transmitted electronically to: letters@riponsoc.org.

www.riponsoc.org

Note From The Executive Director

combination of a significant amount of travel and slowly making my way through Anthony Everitt’s Cicero has led me to the following conclusion: most of us have completely forgotten our basic civics lessons.

Case in point: A gentleman on my train from Oslo to Bergen stated that he was an Independent voter from Massachusetts. He was unsure he could vote for President Bush once again though he typically voted Republican. Significant differences of opinion on topics like stem-cell research, the national debt and the pro-life/pro-choice debate made it difficult for my traveling mate to be a zealous Bush supporter. However, by applying basic civics to his dilemma, I was able to restructure his mode of thought. First, I noted that, though our President currently is not inclined to promote new stem-cell research, there are several hundred other countries in the world that may choose to do so with their resources. We are not the only R&D source for the world. Similarly, in the next four years and beyond, there is secure federal funding for those lines of stem cells that have already been discovered. Thus, unless there is any legislative or judicial branch interference or augmentation, the status quo will continue. Second, I reminded the gentleman that a large part of the fiscal debt finances the war on terrorism both domestically and abroad. The unexpected catastrophe of 9/11 justifiably prompted higher levels of Homeland Defense spending with the full blessing of the legislative branch. He validated that justification with a deliberate nod. I also asked whether he really thought the President really wished a legacy of debt upon our citizenry, to which he said “no.” Third, I addressed his pro-life/pro-choice dilemma with the most simple of rhetorical questions: “What branch of government was responsible for the final decision on Roe v. Wade? Has any President been a member of that branch since 1973?” The answers to those questions, of course, are “judicial” and “no,” respectively. This moot question is no longer related to the executive branch, nor any legislative election contest for that matter. Thus my plea to my fellow traveler to remember the bottom line… Bottom Line: The president of the United States is one extremely powerful person, but he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Our forefathers designed this three-branched system, with all of its checks and balances, to ensure against despotism and for a rationally regulated, purposely methodical arrangement by which laws are made, maintained, and modified for the common good. So, on November 2, remember your civics and ask yourself: “have I made a civically sound and educated choice with my vote?” By reading The Ripon Forum, we feel you will. Inside this issue you will find a compelling, exclusive interview with Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham by our editor, Jeffery T. Kuhner. Secretary Abraham underscores the importance of drilling for more domestic oil reserves in ANWR, and therefore minimizing our dependence on Middle Eastern controlled OPEC reserves. You will also learn the Secretary’s stance on alternate fuel cell vehicles. In yet another coup for The Ripon Forum, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie took time to discuss politics and the November elections with our editor. He discussed the extreme importance of registering family and friends to vote, and strategies to ensure voter turnout.

If The Ripon Forum was a baseball franchise, that talented team of Abraham and Gillespie would no doubt be leading their League. In addition to this one-two punch, our Election Issue also features such heavy hitters as Colorado Governor Bill Owens’ treatise on an “ownership society” and Representative Don Manzullo’s (R-IL) plan for continued economic growth. Once again The Forum succeeds as a provocative, thoughtful compilation of the most important topical discussions of our times. Enjoy the read. Best regards,

Elvis Oxley Executive Director eoxley@riponsoc.org

www.riponsoc.org

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

Politics

The Bush Boom

Tax cuts spur growth and boost competition By Daniel J. Mitchell uring the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush promised significant tax relief: he has kept his promise. President Bush’s tax cuts are sound policy. By lowering tax rates and reducing the double-taxation of savings and investment, President Bush has improved the economy. The 2003 tax cut was especially beneficial. It reduced the double-taxation of dividends and capital gains. The policy also resulted in accelerating the income tax rate reductions approved in 2001 so that they took effect in 2003 — not in 2004 and 2006 as originally scheduled. This was very important since the original rate-reduction schedule had been encouraging investors and entrepreneurs to postpone productive activity. The economy is affected by more than just tax policy, but there is little doubt that the Bush tax cuts have made America more competitive. The United States has just enjoyed the strongest 12 months of economic growth since the Reagan boom. Moreover, the unemployment rate has dropped from 6.3 percent in June, 2003 to 5.4 percent today. This unemployment rate is far below the level of joblessness in other industrialized nations (France and Germany, for example, suffer from double-digit unemployment), and is also lower than the average unemployment rate in the United States during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The Bush tax cuts are also commendable because they shift the internal revenue code in the direction of fundamental reform. Proposals such as the flat tax and the national sales tax are based on common principles: low tax rates and no double-taxation of savings and investment. Yet this is exactly what is achieved by the main components of President Bush’s tax policy: 1. Marginal tax rates have been reduced for all taxpayers. This is a laudable development since the marginal tax rate (the tax paid on additional increments of income) determines the degree to which the system discourages productive economic behavior. Most important is the fact that the top tax rate on personal income has

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

dropped from 39.6 percent to 35 percent — a reform that should encourage entrepreneurs and investors to create more wealth for the American economy. 2. Double-taxation has been mitigated. Because of the capital gains tax, the corporate income tax, personal income tax, and the death tax, it is possible for a single dollar of income to be taxed four times. This is a perverse policy since every economic theory — even Marxism — agrees that capital formation is the key to long-run growth and higher living standards. The good news is that the Bush tax cuts significantly reduced double taxation. The capital gains tax has been reduced from 20 percent to 15 percent, and the top tax rate on dividends has been lowered from 39.6 percent to 15 percent. Last but not least, the death tax will be abolished in 2010. It is especially worth noting that the dividend tax cut already has yielded spectacular results. The American Shareholders Association has reported 298 announcements of initial or increased dividend payments by the 500 largest corporations — significantly higher than the 192 similar announcements in the preceding year. Individual dividend income from Standard & Poor’s 500 firms increased 50 percent in 2003, from $32.7 billion to $49.1 billion. The National Bureau of Economic Research has published a paper estimating that total dividends will rise by $86 billion and that the value of the stock market will climb by $690 billion. To be sure, the Bush tax cuts were not perfect and much remains to be done. The complexity of the tax system is just as bad as it was under President Bill Clinton — and may even be worse. And there are many features of the tax system that still cry out for reform. The alternative minimum tax is a growing nightmare. For instance, it forces millions of taxpayers to calculate their taxes two ways – and then to pay the government whichever amount is higher. The corporate tax is another blemish. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world — higher even www.riponsoc.org

than the corporate rate in welfare states like France and Sweden! Last but not least, the IRS continues to run roughshod over taxpayers and the Constitution. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. The Bush tax cuts were designed to reduce the tax burden and boost the economy. They have achieved these goals. Critics argue that the Bush tax cuts should have been “targeted,” but this assumes that government should pick winners and losers. Moreover, it is important to understand that not all tax cuts are created equal. Some tax cuts, specifically “supply-side” reductions in tax rates on work, savings, investment, and entrepreneurship, can yield large benefits to the economy. In contrast, targeted tax cuts do not boost incentives for productive behavior and are much more likely to further complicate the tax system. The Bush tax cuts are also falsely accused of causing long-run deficits. This is incorrect. From 1951 to 2000, federal tax revenues averaged 18.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Yet since tax revenues for 2012-2014 will average 18.1 percent of GDP (assuming that the tax cuts are made permanent), it is clear that long-run deficits are caused by the growth of spending. Indeed, critics would be on much firmer ground if they lambasted the Bush administration for over-spending. Education spending, farm subsidies and entitlement expansion increase the burden of government on the economy. The tax cuts have helped the economy overcome this burden, but it will be almost impossible to make the tax cuts permanent unless there is a newfound commitment to fiscal discipline. It remains to be seen whether Congress and, should he win in November, President Bush can meet this challenge in the next four years. — Daniel J. Mitchell is McKenna Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Heritage Foundation

Politics

Republican WorryWarts Need Not Fear President’s charm will be deciding factor By Robert Stacy McCain he 2004 campaign offers a field day for Republican worry-warts. Economic recovery has been slow and uneven. Polls show that Americans have qualms about the decision to go to war in Iraq. President George W. Bush’s proposal to offer “guest worker” status to illegal immigrants has alienated some voters in his political base. Yet Democrats, eager to avenge their narrow and hotly contested defeat in 2000, are mobilized, organized and lavishly funded by billionaire George Soros. These factors augment the worrywart’s anxiety. The Republican worry-wart, although steadfastly loyal to the GOP, is always convinced that the political sky is falling. All it takes is a negative headline in The New York Times, a slight slip in the latest USA Today poll, a bad monthly report from the Department of Labor, and the worrywart is certain that November will bring a Democratic landslide. In his daily life, the worry-wart may be confident, cheerful and optimistic, but when it comes to politics, he is a hopeless defeatist. With another crucial election pending, perhaps it will comfort Republican worrywarts to be reminded of the University of Iowa professor whose scientific model — based on election results going back to 1948 — predicted that the Democratic presidential candidate would win with 56.2 percent of the vote. Why should this prediction be so comforting? Because Iowa Professor Michael Lewis-Beck issued that forecast in May 2000.

Indeed, after calculating all the usual factors in presidential elections, Mr. LewisBeck’s computerized analysis indicated that Al Gore would be elected by a landslide. Nor was Mr. Lewis-Beck alone in regarding the 2000 election as a handy win for the Democrats. As CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield points out, “Other forecasters gave Gore anywhere from 52.8 to 60.3 percent of the two-party vote.” Why were these predictions so wrong? Because they omitted a very important factor in any election: the personality of the candidates. Political prophets and pundits routinely underestimate the kind of gut-hunch factors that make voters choose one candidate over another. Despite all the factors weighing in his favor, Mr. Gore was simply a bad candidate. In public appearances and especially on television, Mr. Gore appeared to be uptight and smarmy. As Mr. Greenfield put it, Mr. Gore appeared to be “the kid in the back of the class who reminded the teacher she’d forgotten to give out homework the day before Christmas break.” Mr. Gore’s pompous persona was highlighted in nationally televised debates where his know-it-all manner (“What about Dingell-Norwood?” Mr. Gore demanded when the subject turned to health care) was in stark contrast with the down-home sincerity of George W. Bush. Even Mr. Bush’s Texas accent contributed to the perception that he was a regular guy. Candidates, not issues, win elections. This is a truth so simple and basic that one

“Candidates win elections. This is a truth so simple and basic that one might think it could never be overlooked, and yet it often is.” 6

www.riponsoc.org

might think it could never be overlooked. Yet, it often is. Like the ancient Roman augurs seeking omens in the entrails of birds, pollsters dive into “swing” states to track down undecided voters and to ask them their opinion on foreign policy and free trade. The results are dissected demographically on each issue. Thus, we are told, for example, about the economic views of women who fall into the age group 45-54 and who are in union households. The big picture is left out of this microscopic calculus: Head to head, side by side, which one of these men does the electorate actually like? Whatever his failings, Mr. Bush is basically likeable. This was a key factor in 2000, and is prominent again in 2004. His basic likeability is now giving Democrats nightmares. When the infamous Iowa “scream” derailed the energetic Howard Dean’s Democratic primary campaign, establishment Democrats quickly jumped aboard the John Kerry bandwagon. But once Mr. Kerry secured his party’s nomination, Democrats were dismayed to note that they faced a repeat of the 2000 election: A stiff, pompous, boring Democrat competing with the aw-shucks charm of a smiling Texan. Mr. Kerry’s dour demeanor is only one of his many shortcomings as a candidate. Ever since he won the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Kerry has flip-flopped on every issue — at times campaigning in diametric opposition to his own Senate record. When Mr. Kerry declared, in regard to an $87 billion measure to fund the war in Iraq, that he “voted for it before voting against it,” he encapsulated his tendency to be inconsistent in a single sentence more perfectly than any “Saturday Night Live” writer (or Bush campaign operative) could ever have hoped to do. Who will win on Nov. 2nd? Writing weeks in advance of Election Day, no one can confidently predict the outcome. Whatever the trend in polls, unexpected events (remember that twodecade-old Maine drunk-driving ticket that turned up five days before Election Day 2000?) can always cause a shift in support. But there are plenty of reasons for Republicans — even the worry-warts — to be hopeful. — Robert Stacy McCain is an assistant national editor for The Washington Times Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

Politics

From Entitlement to Ownership Courtesy of Governor Owens’ office

Colorado governor empowers individuals By Governor Bill Owens overnment is notorious as the last institution to recognize changing times. Though this will probably always be true, it is becoming increasingly evident these days that even government is waking up to a new reality: 21st century Americans are savvy, discerning folks who are demanding greater flexibility in making the most important decisions that affect their lives. We are beginning to see a shift in public policy from top-down, bureaucratic solutions to self-directed approaches tailored to the individual. This shift will transform American culture and government: we are moving from an entitlement society to an ownership society. This transformation is the result of changing economic conditions and a more sophisticated workforce. It is also the result of innovative thinking by policy experts and forward-looking leadership. Most notably, President George W. Bush has devoted a good deal of time to promoting new ideas. Economic times are indeed changing. Americans are much more mobile: they change jobs, switch careers, and move across the country. The average American changes careers three to five times during his or her lifetime, and alters jobs 19 times. This remarkable transformation has contributed to the dynamism and vitality of the American economy. Unfortunately, due to our antiquated and bureaucratic social security, health care and pension systems, this greater mobility sometimes brings greater insecurity for individuals. (A good example of this is the worker who is between jobs and has no health care because health care follows the job rather than the individual.) Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the deficiencies of a bureaucracy established for 1950s America — when the job market was much less fluid. In Colorado, we have taken several important steps toward an ownership society. Changing economic times have prompted us to evaluate how government can give citizens the freedom to make decisions concerning health care, retirement, pension and a college education.

This year, we established health-savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs offer both employees and employers flexibility and freedom. Under an HSA, a high-deductible health plan is coupled with a savings account to pay for qualified medical expenses that are not covered by the insurance policy. Employees invest funds in the tax-free account for medical treatment and in CDs, moneymarket funds, mutual funds and other investment vehicles. Unlike similar tax-saving vehicles of the past, outstanding balances at the end of the year roll over to the next year. And, HSAs are highly portable: they follow the individual who changes jobs or even moves to another state. Private health accounts will help control soaring health-insurance costs for employers while simultaneously empowering workers to make their own decisions. In order to improve health care, Colorado has also developed the Consumer Directed Attendant Support Program. This empowers Medicaid recipients with disabilities to direct their own home-care services. They hire and supervise their own attendants. They set their own attendant schedules and determine what services the attendants provide. And at the end of the year, individuals keep half of any unused funds. They can put these funds toward future medical expenses that improve their quality of life (and they return the other half to the state). Consumers thus become more selfsufficient, gain a greater sense of personal responsibility, and lead healthier lives. We are hoping in the coming year to extend this policy to the developmentally disabled. Colorado has also applied the ownership philosophy to pension plans. For decades, Colorado state employees were locked into a defined benefit retirement plan designed in 1931. The plan offered little flexibility and penalized short-term workers. In the present economic climate, the “one size fits all” approach is no longer the appropriate retirement formula. This year, I signed legislation expanding defined contribution plan options to all new employees hired on or after Jan. 1, 2006. Employees will have a choice of mutual funds in which www.riponsoc.org

Governor Bill Owens

to invest their money. They will also be fully vested from Day One. The plan is portable and transferable; it follows employees as they change jobs and careers. Last, but certainly not least, in May, Colorado became the first state in the country to send students to college with vouchers. Previously, state funds for tuition came in the form of block subsidies to our public institutions of higher education. We changed the funding equation, splitting those grants into thousands of individual vouchers that follow students to the institutions of their choice (including three private colleges). As a result, schools will now compete for student funds. The College Opportunity Fund is an important step toward making public institutions more accountable to students and taxpayers. I am proud of our efforts in Colorado to give our citizens greater freedom and the ability to plan for their future. These reforms have been long in coming, but they are absolutely essential in our ever-changing economy. Fortunately, the tide is turning from an administrative state that dispenses entitlements to a streamlined, competitive system that emphasizes choice, free markets, and the active, educated participation of individual citizens. Americans no longer look to government for economic security; rather, they look to their portfolios. The American people are well aware that they can do a far better job than government at protecting their families’ interests. — Bill Owens is governor of Colorado Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

Cover Storyy

John Kerry is Yesterday’s Liberal Candidate lacks new ideas at home and abroad By Jeffrey T. Kuhner en. John Kerry is the wrong man to lead America in the 21st century. His 20-year Senate record and his numerous vacillations on the campaign stump reveal his true character: the Massachusetts Democrat is an old-style liberal who changes his tune according to convenience. Mr. Kerry currently attempts to present himself as a budget-slashing, fiscal hawk: this is akin to Ted Kennedy running for president on a pro-life, pro-guns, pro-abstinence platform. In fact, Mr. Kerry has been one of the most liberal members of the Senate. He has voted for countless tax hikes and spending increases. He has opposed every major effort to reform Social Security and Medicare. Like many in the Democratic Party, he supports Big Government. However, unless major entitlement programs are revamped and partially privatized, the country is doomed to longterm structural deficits. Any serious shortterm effort to control the budget deficit will require curtailing further non-defense discretionary spending. In order to tackle the burgeoning national debt, it will be necessary to reform Social Security and Medicare — which together account for one-third of total federal expenditures. Mr. Kerry simply lacks credibility on these breadand-butter issues.

to the Democratic base. However, it is also a lethal mixture of populist demagoguery and bad economics. The result will be a less prosperous and more stagnant America. Nor will Mr. Kerry’s promise to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year be sufficient to fund his lavish new spending proposals — or, as he claims, to reduce the existing budget deficit. Mr. Kerry’s wish list of new government programs, including his massive health care plan, will total about $2 trillion over ten years. Even by the Kerry team’s own estimate, the candidate’s tax-hike plan will bring in about $800 billion. Thus, if Mr. Kerry fulfills his new spending initiatives, his presidency will add over $1 trillion to the national debt over ten years. The only way for the Massachusetts liberal to prevent his plan from blowing the budget sky-high will be to raise taxes on the middle class. It is unlikely that he will hesitate to do this since he has done so repeatedly during his Senate career. But a broad-based tax increase will almost certainly plunge the country into a serious recession, as it did in the early 1990s after the elder President George H.W. Bush agreed to boost taxes. Furthermore, this will occur at a time when the United States needs a dynamic, surging economy to underwrite the global campaign against Islamic radicalAP Photo/Gerald Herbert

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Moreover, his economic proposals will result in unraveling the economic recovery. If he is elected, Mr. Kerry will be the first protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. Although he voted for NAFTA, the Democratic nominee says he “regrets” his decision and would now vote against it. He regards U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick as a traitor for negotiating freetrade deals. Mr. Kerry vows to impose severe environmental standards and labor regulations on America’s trading partners. This is equivalent to erecting trade barriers through the back door. It will also severely impoverish the economies of developing nations — those we are supposedly trying to help. Erecting trade walls will hurt U.S. exports and job creation, as well as undermine the shaky global economy. Mr. Kerry’s tax plan is another dagger aimed at the heart of the U.S. economy. He proposes to raise the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent; the dividend tax-rate from 15 percent to a high of 39.6 percent; and the top income tax-rate from 35 to 40 percent. By raising taxes, Mr. Kerry will depress both the economic activity and the entrepreneurial risk-taking that is vital to achieving a robust economy. He resorts to the facile rhetoric of class warfare — the invocation to “tax the rich.” This is attractive

U.S. President George W. Bush speaks at an “Ask President Bush” event in Clive, Iowa, October 4, 2004.

Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., speaks at a campaign rally at the Philadelphia Art Museum in Philadelphia, July 27, 2004.

www.riponsoc.org

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

ism. Mr. Kerry’s tax-and-spend policies will therefore weaken our ability to win the war on terror. Mr. Kerry’s archaic economic strategy pales in comparison to President Bush’s taxcutting, pro-growth and free-trade agenda. The President successfully bolstered the economy following the aftershocks of the 9/11 attacks, corporate scandals and the burst of the high-tech bubble. His economic record is impressive: over 1.7 million new jobs have been created this year. This amounts to the highest economic growth rate in nearly 20 years. Also, a record number of Americans own homes. In contrast to the Bush boom, Mr. Kerry offers more of the same failed, liberal policies of the past. The same holds true of the Massachusetts senator’s foreign policy. Mr. Kerry insists that he can bring more allies into Iraq than the President: he vaguely promises to “restore our alliances.” But the Democrat is not specific regarding which countries he will be able to persuade to join us. The governments of Russia, France and Germany have publicly professed that, even if Mr. Kerry is elected, they will not send troops into Iraq. Paris, Berlin and Moscow do not want to assist the United States in this case — and never will. Hence, Mr. Kerry is either naïve or disingenuous when he claims he can get more of our European “allies” to participate in the war. In fact, during a 1997 debate on CNN’s “Crossfire,” Mr. Kerry made the case for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq without France and Russia. At the time, he argued that Paris and Moscow were compromised by their business dealings with Baghdad and could not be trusted to take action against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. “We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians,” Mr. Kerry said. “We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest.” Mr. Kerry has been remarkably inconsistent on the issue of Iraq. He voted for the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the President to use military force; he then voted against the $87 billion bill providing aid for military equipment and reconstruction. He did this after saying only months earlier that it would be “deeply irresponsible” to send U.S. forces into war without the necessary funds. Also, Mr. Kerry chastised Howard Dean during the primaries for refusing to admit that the world is safer Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

without Saddam in power. Yet, the senator then called President Bush’s decision to attack Iraq a “monumental mistake.” The Democrat even said that the President’s decision was like “President Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.” Furthermore, Mr. Kerry cannot adequately explain his decision to vote against the 1991 Persian Gulf War. That conflict supposedly had all the ingredients he says are necessary to unleash U.S. military power: U.N. approval, a broad “international” coalition and a clear exit strategy. Yet, he still didn’t support it. Clearly, Mr. Kerry is a shallow political opportunist. He has vacillated so often on the central issue of our time. In fact, he has placed himself in a box: He argues both that the war in Iraq is a mistake and that it is not; he maintains at once that the war is vital to American security and that it is a grand diversion in the war on terror. He does not have the steadfast courage to successfully defeat Islamic fascism. Ultimately, his opposition to both Iraq wars reveals that Mr. Kerry remains a product of the 1960s anti-war left. Like many post-Vietnam liberals, he believes that America is not a force for good in the world. Rather, its imperialist and militaristic instincts need to be tethered to larger international institutions, such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. The Massachusetts Democrat may claim to be a born-again military hawk, hellbent on smashing Islamic terrorists. But he remains a pacifist at heart. Mr. Kerry’s core worldview was formed when he began to protest against the Vietnam War. His subsequent Senate record reflects this. He consistently sought arms control deals with the Soviets. He voted against every major missile program. He was a leading critic of President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to roll back Marxist regimes in Afghanistan, Nicaragua and Grenada. In short, he was on the wrong side of almost every major policy debate of the Cold War. His judgments on the war on terror are equally erroneous. Mr. Kerry, along with most Democrats and European elites, remains wedded to the old, pre-9/11 view of the world. They mistakenly maintain that the Islamic Jihadists who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are extremists engaged in essentially isolated acts of terrorism. Therefore, they insist that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda killers can be defeated by using the same tactics that governments use to deal with the IRA, violent Basque www.riponsoc.org

separatists and Palestinian suicide bombers: tough law enforcement and tighter intelligence surveillance. This approach may work with traditional terrorist groups, but it is a recipe for disaster against Islamic radicalism. The war on terror is not simply a battle against al Qaeda; it is a war against a global ideology in which disparate terrorist networks — from Chechnya to the Philippines, from the Middle East to cities like London, Paris and Hamburg — are united in their hatred of Western civilization. These violent ideologues especially despise the West’s greatest champion: the United States. This global enemy requires a new, global response. For this reason, President Bush has sought to “transform” the Middle East. He understands that a prosperous and democratic Iraq will serve as a model for other peoples in the region who are suffering under autocratic misrule. Islamic despotism and corruption have given terrorists fertile breeding grounds for their ideology of hate. By bringing pluralist democracy to the Middle East, President Bush will drain the terrorist swamp at its source. Revolutionary times require a revolutionary leader. The President has shown that he can rise to the challenges before us. Under his tenure, two regimes have been overthrown, 50 million citizens have been liberated from brutal dictatorships, the al Qaeda network has been decimated, Libya has relinquished its nuclear weapons program, Pakistan’s illicit proliferation network has been exposed, and two WMD-seeking states (Saudi Arabia and Syria) have been effectively neutralized. This is an impressive score card. President Bush has certainly earned another four years in office. Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, is yesterday’s man — the candidate of Old Europe. He is cautious and antiquated in both his approach to foreign affairs and domestic issues such as the economy, taxes, trade, Social Security and Medicare. He is characterized by a penchant for Gucci suits and expensive haircuts, elitist arrogance disguised in populist rhetoric, and an admiration for European welfare states and U.Nstyle multilateralism. These attributes render him a perfect candidate for president … of France. But in this campaign, he is the wrong man, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. — Jeffrey T. Kuhner is the editor of The Ripon Forum and communications director at The Ripon Society

BUSH vs. KERRY AMERICA VOTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Medical Election Forum Forum

Kerry’s Dovish Diplomacy Democrat offers wrong approach to foreign policy n his windsurfing pronouncements on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry has been an unsurpassed model of inconsistency; within a few weeks, he has adopted almost every possible stance towards that country. At the same time, by ending with a call for the United States to start winding down its Iraqi commitment next year, he has shown a strong underlying consistency: Mr. Kerry has been opposed to almost any exercise of U.S. military power since Vietnam. His twists and turns are explained by the fact that the U.S. electorate does not share his basic instincts. Once aroused, as it was by 9/11, the American public wants to see its enemies crushed. Mr. Kerry therefore agrees to crush them Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. But then he feels a strong inward impulse to negotiate with them Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. If the Massachusetts senator were alone in feeling this dovish impulse, he might exercise enough self-control to stick with the hawks. But ever since he emerged from Vietnam as a unique blend of war hero and anti-war hero, there is a monstrous regiment of peaceniks who share Mr. Kerry’s distrust of U.S. power and American arrogance. He fears to lose their good opinion (and votes) by straying too far into a calculated militarism. Thus, after reporting for duty and saluting wildly, he eventually goes home to the anti-war camp. If Mr. Kerry’s ambivalence were confined to Iraq and Vietnam, it might be survivable. All bad things come to an end. We will eventually forget why Iraq is so vital - as we have largely forgotten Vietnam. But these conflicts will be replaced not by

AP Photo/Stephan Savoia

By John O’Sullivan

Presidential nominee John Kerry salutes during the Democratic National Convention at the FleetCenter in Boston, July 29, 2004.

universal peace and harmony, but by other international crises and military challenges. And when this happens, Mr. Kerry’s general outlook is not well-suited to protecting America and Americans. Examine the foreign policy outlined on his official Web site. It states that we face three great challenges: winning the global

war on terror; halting the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; and promoting democracy, freedom and opportunity around the world — “starting by winning the peace in Iraq.” Mr. Kerry proposes to respond to these threats with “four imperatives.” These are to launch and lead a new era of alliances; to modernize the

“In his windsurfing pronouncements on Iraq, Sen. John Kerry has been an unsurpassed model of inconsistency; within a few weeks, he has adopted almost every possible stance towards that country. At the same time, by ending with a call for the United States to start winding down its Iraqi commitment next year, he has shown a strong underlying consistency: Mr. Kerry has been opposed to almost any exercise of U.S. military power since Vietnam.” 12

www.riponsoc.org

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

“Ever since he emerged from Vietnam as a unique blend of war hero and anti-war hero, there is a monstrous regiment of peaceniks who share Mr. Kerry’s distrust of U.S. power and American arrogance. He fears to lose their good opinion (and votes) by straying too far into a calculated militarism. Thus, after reporting for duty and saluting wildly, he eventually goes home to the anti-war camp.” U.S. military in order to meet new threats; to deploy diplomacy, intelligence, economics and “our values and ideas” as well as military power against terrorism; and to free America from dependence on foreign oil. Well and good. As we shall see, there are other threats — or “challenges” in Kerry-speak — to the United States, but these three are a fair selection. The main problem lies with the “imperatives.” Most of the realistic policies on the list are already being carried out by the Bush administration. It is modernizing the military, deploying intelligence and economics in the war on terror and seeking to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These are not easy tasks; the president cannot guarantee success in them; and Iran and North Korea remain to be disarmed. But the Bush administration can reasonably claim that the Libyan decision to surrender its nuclear program is one such success. Whatever else the liberation of Iraq achieved, it was at least a case of “pour encourager les autres” (“persuading others to comply”). Would Mr. Kerry have accomplished as much? After all, having announced that he wanted to start the promotion of democracy around the world “by winning the war in Iraq,” he seems to have decided that it is already lost. Insofar as he retains a desire to win the war, he proposes to do so by reducing the U.S. commitment and bringing in more troops from America’s allies (whom the Bush administration has allegedly neglected). And he intends to do this by seeking troops from those allies, namely France and Germany, that have clearly signified unyielding opposition to Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

the war. Simultaneously, he insults those nations that actually have troops in Iraq by referring to them as “bribed” and “coerced.” As the French general famously remarked on the charge of the Light Brigade: “C’est magnifique mais ce n’est pas la guerre” (“It is magnificent, but it isn’t warfare”). His other “imperatives” are equally appealing — and equally hard to deliver. How, for instance, would he end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil? By “tapping American ingenuity,” he says. No offense to American ingenuity but this answer resembles the sketch in which John Cleese tells various distressed people that their problems can be readily solved with one million dollars. When asked how they can get the million, Cleese replies that that is a technicality outside his competence. Also, consider Mr. Kerry’s notion that we can fight terrorism with our “values and ideas”? The Bush administration is indeed pursuing this very strategy by promoting democracy. But the European allies with whom Mr. Kerry thinks we should harmonize our policies regard this as naïve and counter-productive. They prefer such policies to be in the hands of international organizations — which dilute our values and abandon our ideas when despotic regimes object to our convictions. The European allies Mr. Kerry seeks to court value “stability” over freedom, democracy and opportunity. And one suspects, once off the podium, Mr. Kerry agrees with them. For there is a second underlying consistency in Mr. Kerry’s postVietnam political career: namely, his strong support for post-Cold War multilateralism. www.riponsoc.org

When he promises to “launch and lead a new era of alliances,” he is not proposing a revival of NATO or ANZUS. They represent an old era of alliances that magnified U.S. power. The new world of the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Treaty, customary international law, NGOs and international civil society is one that would restrain American power and national sovereignty by a network of international rules — while harnessing that power toward global humanitarian intervention. It is a world honed in Paris, Brussels and Berlin where national sovereignty and military solutions to problems such as WMD proliferation are regarded as distinctly vieux jeu (old hat). (There must be some reason why I keep coming up with these French phrases.) Mr. Kerry resembles his diplomat father who distrusted American ethno-centrism and valued restraining a headstrong nation by hedging it into powerful alliances. If elected, Mr. Kerry would cajole the United States into subordinating its pursuit of the national interest to these trans-national “imperatives.” However, once the voters sensed the direction of his policy — and in particular, once they witnessed the sacrifice of some important American interest — they would complain loudly. Mr. Kerry’s inconsistency would then come to our rescue. It is, of course, a thin straw on which to rely for safety in a dangerous world. — John O’Sullivan is editor-at-large of National Review and editor-in-chief of The National Interest

BUSH vs. KERRY AMERICA VOTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Medical Election Forum Forum

Costs of Kerry-Care Candidate’s health plan is expensive and ineffective By John C. Goodman en. John Kerry is seeking to completely transform the U.S. health care system. The ostensible purpose is to insure twothirds of the estimated 44 million people who lack health insurance at any one time. Yet his proposed changes are far more radical than even he has indicated. And most people will be unable to remain in the private health plan they have today. If Mr. Kerry is successful, millions of middle-income families will be forced to rely on Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. Millions more will get their insurance through a system of “managed competition” — a program similar to the one Hillary Clinton proposed more than a decade ago. The price tag for these changes will likely reach in excess of $1 trillion over ten years. A key difference from the Clinton plan of years ago is that there are no mandates. Instead, Mr. Kerry will offer economic incentives to try to induce people to voluntarily get insured. However, very little of the spending will actually go to individuals. About 90 percent of the funds will go to state governments, employers and insurance companies. Thus, people are supposed to get derivative benefits from checks written to others. For example, if the states expand eligibility and increase enrollment, the federal government will assume the state’s cost of insuring Medicaid children. The federal government will also pay the bulk of the cost of catastrophic health expenses for employers who offer insurance to all employees and cover at least one-half of the cost. For those who are covered by the system of “managed competition,” additional subsidies will be given for small businesses that insure low-income employees, for workers between jobs, and for people age 55 to 64. There will also be a limit on how much insurance can cost (as a percent of family income) for everyone else who individually enrolls. How well will all of this work? More than half the money in the Kerry plan will be spent expanding Medicaid and the S-CHIP program (for low-income children). However, as the public sector expands, the

private sector will surely contract. Even Mr. Kerry assumes that for every ten people who sign up, three people will lose private insurance; and it could be much worse. Studies in the 1990s found that every additional dollar spent on Medicaid led to a reduction in private insurance of 50 to 75 cents. More recent evidence suggests that private sector crowd out is approaching oneto-one: each new Medicaid enrollee is offset by one less person with private insurance.

Moreover, most of the private sector subsidies will go to people who are already insured; and employers get their subsidies even if they fail to insure a single additional employee. In the final analysis, it is entirely possible to spend $1 trillion and achieve no reduction in the uninsured! Quality of care will also suffer under the Kerry proposal. People who go from employer plans to Medicaid will have fewer choices of doctors, longer waits for care and inevitable health care rationing. Those who join the system of “managed competition” will experience a different problem: health plans will contain perverse incentives that will result in providing in www.riponsoc.org

excess to the healthy and insufficiently to the sick. But the community-rated premiums charged will bear no relation to actual health care costs. Healthy enrollees will overpay; high cost enrollees will underpay. Health plans will contain strong incentives to provide more services to profitable, healthy enrollees (in order to attract more of them) and fewer services to unprofitable, sick enrollees (in order to attract fewer of them). Then there are the most important political questions: How much will the plan really cost? And who will really pay for it? Counting the first full year in operation, and estimating only the savings Mr. Kerry claims that appear to be possible, the actual cost of the plan will be in excess of $1 trillion. This is almost $1,000 per year for every household in America and more than three times the new revenue Mr. Kerry hopes to get from raising the taxes of the “rich.” However, even this estimate may be low. People will face perverse incentives to overinsure and over-consume. For example, faced with virtually no out-of-pocket costs, the 26 million new enrollees in Medicaid will have no reason to show restraint. The bills all go to someone else. Whatever the cost, the plan will almost certainly lead to a new round of health care inflation. Federal spending alone will increase by more than $100 billion a year. But since there will be no increase in supply, the bulk of this new spending will lead to higher prices rather than more health care. A major problem with the current system is that tax subsidies for health insurance are arbitrary and unfair. But rather than creating a fairer system that treats equals equally, Mr. Kerry seeks to institute new subsidies that will make the system even more arbitrary. People at the same income level will receive vastly different subsidies depending on their age, where they work and how they obtain insurance. Thus, rather than rectifying the current deficiencies in the health care system, Mr. Kerry’s plan will augment existing ills. — John C. Goodman is president of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

BUSH vs. KERRY AMERICA VOTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Medical Election Forum Forum

Defeating Daschle Thune has an opportunity for upset By Stephen F. Manfredi emocratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle’s defense of his own seat in the Senate should have been a cakewalk. The South Dakota Democrat’s record of obstructing legislation in the Senate, however, has succeeded in transforming a coronation into a foot race. Recent polls among likely South Dakota voters indicate that there is a statistical dead heat between Mr. Daschle and his Republican challenger, former U.S. Rep. John Thune. It appears that the Bush administration’s chief nemesis may soon be out of a job. From the moment President George W. Bush took the oath of office, Mr. Daschle positioned himself as the primary architect of Democratic opposition in the Senate. In doing so, he inadvertently became the poster child for Democratic political defeat. In the wake of 9/11 and the subsequent economic recession, Mr. Daschle repeatedly frustrated Republican attempts to pass significant legislation. Seeking to expand the Democrats’ razorthin majority in the Senate, Mr. Daschle attempted to depict the Republicans as presiding over a “Do-Nothing Congress” while — at the same time — leading a campaign to block nearly all of their initiatives. But his legislative war of attrition failed. The 2002 election repudiated Mr. Daschle’s agenda as Republicans regained control of the Senate. Stubborn in defeat, Mr. Daschle only intensified his efforts to block the Republican agenda following the midterm elections. Several key pieces of legislation died as a result of these stalling techniques. In fact, Mr. Thune — among others — has taken to referring to the Senate chamber as “Daschle’s Dead Zone,” a political graveyard where great ideas go to die. In a strange way, Mr. Daschle has become the Senate’s Grim Reaper, using his scythe (filibuster power) to mow down a Republican agenda that received a firm mandate from the American people and majorities in both the House and Senate. The widely condemned filibustering of Bush judicial nominees has also been the

handiwork of Mr. Daschle. Despite stating in 1999 that he finds it “simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination,” Mr. Daschle has led the charge to deny the Senate’s right to an up-or-down vote. This has not only created several vacancies in our judicial system, but has set a dangerous precedent that promises to politicize the federal bench for years to come. Mr. Daschle also uses his filibuster power to thwart the will of the majority of senators by preventing votes on bills that have enough support to become law. At his most creative, Mr. Daschle adds extraneous amendments to popular bills in order to prohibit their passage. These tactics have prevented much-needed bankruptcy reform, Head Start reform, the repeal of the marriage penalty and death tax, and even a bill banning the burning and desecration of the American flag. Pillars of President Bush’s “ownership society,” such as Social Security reform and extending tax cuts, have also died in the Senate due to Mr. Daschle’s opposition. Unfortunately for Mr. Daschle, his ultra-liberal voting record and obstructionist tactics, which are hard to reconcile with his self-styled populist rhetoric, are becoming known to South Dakota voters. As a result, Mr. Daschle’s polling numbers are plummeting. In an interview with The Ripon Forum, Mr. Thune said, “Daschle has become the face of obstruction in the United States Senate.” He rightly maintains that the senator appears to be more at home with liberal Democrats than Red State South Dakotans. Mr. Thune claims that on almost every issue, “whether it is judicial nominations, energy policy, medical malpractice, litigation reform, or tax relief … legislation is stalled in the United States Senate because of Mr. Daschle’s strategy of playing the block and blame game.” Mr. Daschle’s obstruction of a comprehensive energy bill has been an especially bitter pill for South Dakotans to swallow. The bill’s ethanol provision, which Mr. Thune supports as a “holy grail for the www.riponsoc.org

ethanol industry,” would double production of the fuel additive and reduce toxic fuel emissions. The provision would also allow America to lessen its dependence on foreign oil. South Dakota is a heavily agricultural state and the nation’s 5th largest producer of the corn-based ethanol fuel additive. South Dakotan farmers were banking on a surge in corn prices and a guaranteed market for their product. By killing the energy bill, Mr. Daschle dealt a blow to the backbone of the South Dakotan economy that will unlikely be forgotten in November. By repeatedly exposing the Democrat’s obstructionist record and presenting a positive vision of responsible government for South Dakota, Mr. Thune has succeeded in significantly eroding Mr. Daschle’s popularity. Despite a deluge of out-of-state money from Mr. Daschle’s Washington backers, the GOP challenger has closed the gap. A recent poll shows Mr. Thune leading his opponent by 3 percentage points — despite the fact that Mr. Daschle will spend approximately $18 million by campaign’s end. Mr. Daschle’s tenacious political obstruction has come at a lofty price. If he loses his job to Mr. Thune, it will be a loss hard fought for and well-earned. — Stephen F. Manfredi is the policy research director at The Ripon Society

On the forefront of Republican politics and ideas Visit our Web site for information and the latest news about the Ripon Society. www.riponsoc.org

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

BUSH vs. KERRY AMERICA VOTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Medical Election Forum Forum

Key Races to Watch Democrats are unlikely to retake Congress By Donald Lambro here is little likelihood that on November 2nd Democrats will erode the Republican majority in the House or that they will retake the Senate. There are just not enough competitive House races this year that could put the Democrats anywhere near the 218 seats they need to oust the GOP from power. In the Senate, the odds are against the Democrats who may lose two, three or possibly four seats in the more conservative South. The Democrats’ congressional chances looked more promising this summer when the economic recovery seemed tenuous, terrorist insurgents re-ignited the Iraq war, President George W. Bush’s poll numbers were falling and John Kerry‘s campaign had momentum. Very skillful spinmeisters foresaw improved prospects in the House and Senate for the Democrats; newspaper and magazine articles predicted a Democratic comeback on Capitol Hill. In August, however, the political environment began to turn in the Republicans’ favor. Mr. Kerry was assaulted for his contradictory positions on the Iraq war and the veracity of his Vietnam exploits. The public became increasingly suspicious of his char-

acter and of his judgment on national security and terrorism. In contrast, Mr. Bush’s job approval ratings rose once news broke that the unemployment rate had shrunk and jobs were becoming more plentiful. This is therefore not an environment in which the party out of power has much of a chance to make a comeback. Of course, House Democrats did not have many advantages to begin with. But during the summer they incurred a series of setbacks. For example, Louisiana Rep. Rodney Alexander fled his party and joined the Republicans. In Florida’s 22nd District, Democrat Jim Stork, who sought to oust Republican Rep. Clay Shaw, bowed out early, citing ill-health. Democrats thought they had a chance of defeating Florida Rep. Katherine Harris, only to see their chances diminished with the defeat in the party primary of their star recruit, Christine Jennings. “To have any chance of retaking the House, Democrats still need a wave to develop,” election analyst Stuart Rothenberg wrote in September in Roll Call. “But a wave seems less likely today than it did four weeks ago, and honest Democrats are no longer able to talk seriously about 218 seats.” In the Republicancontrolled Senate, though, Democrats did seem to have an opportunity to erode the GOP majority. The Democrats were certain that they could gain an open Republican seat in Illinois; they had a good chance of winning GOP seats in Alaska, Colorado and Oklahoma; and it appeared that they could hold on to an open Democratic seat in North Carolina. U.S. Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) (Right) debates with his But a closer examinachallenger, Republican U.S. senatorial candidate and former tion of the Senate races sugRepresentative John Thune (R-SD) (Left) on NBC’s ‘Meet the gests that the Republicans Press’ September 19, 2004. Their race is believed to be one of the tightest races in the upcoming general elections. have the advantage.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

www.riponsoc.org

“Our current assessment of the fight for the Senate puts the Republicans back in the driver’s seat,” states the Rothenberg Political Report. “The Democratic boomlet of July has faded a bit (including Sen. John Kerry’s advantage in the presidential contest), making it harder to envision the Democrats taking Senate control.” The story lies in the numbers: On November 2nd, 34 Senate seats are at stake; 15 seats are Republican, but 19 seats are held by the Democrats. The Democrats’ big problem this year is that out of the eight open seats due for retirements, five are Democratic seats in the South. These are in Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and North Carolina. The South, however, is a region where Republicans have a habit of winning. Two out of three Republican open Senate seats — Colorado and Oklahoma — are in the West where Republicans are dominant. In other words, Democrats face an uphill battle: there are many open and vulnerable Democratic seats. Also, the Democrats have a weak presidential nominee who is running behind Mr. Bush in all the Southern and Western plains states. No one doubts that the Republicans will win Democratic Sen. Zell Miller’s seat in Georgia now that he is retiring. Also, it is clear that the Democrats will gain Sen. Peter Fitzgerald’s open Republican seat in Illinois. But in these cases there will be no net gain for either party. So that leaves six open seats and a few other close contests which will decide this election. Here is my assessment of these pivotal Senate races: SOUTH CAROLINA: From the beginning, the pundits have vastly overrated the Democrats’ chances. The Democratic candidate, State Superintendent of Education Inez Tennenbaum, has run an inept campaign: she recently fired her ad consultants in the hope of alleviating her woes. However, since winning the Republican nomination, Former Rep. Jim DeMint has surged past her in the polls. This is certain to be a GOP gain. FLORIDA: Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez’s victory over former Rep. Bill McCollum in the Republican primary gives the GOP its best opportunity to win retiring Democratic Sen. Bob Graham’s seat. Mr. Martinez’s Democratic opponent, forRipon Forum • Winter 2004

Illustration by John Boone

CO NC SC

OK LA South Carolina North Carolina Florida Louisiana Colorado Oklahoma Alaska South Dakota

Jim DeMint (R) vs. Inez Tennenbaum (D) Richard Burr (R) vs. Erskine Bowles (D) Mel Martinez (R) vs. Betty Castor (D) David Vitter (R) vs. Chris John (D), John Kennedy (D), Arthur Morrell (D) Peter Coors (R) vs. Ken Salazar (D) Tom Coburn (R) vs. Brad Carson (D) Lisa Murkowski (R) vs. Tony Knowles (D) John Thune (R) vs. Tom Daschle (D)

mer state Education Commissioner Betty Castor, is not a pushover; she demolished her rivals in the Democratic primary. But Mr. Martinez, a Cuban immigrant with star qualities, will draw considerable support from Florida’s large Hispanic community. He has the momentum in this race. NORTH CAROLINA: Democrats have been hopeful for months that former Clinton Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles, will win this seat. In fact, he has been leading in the early polls. But the GOP nominee, Richard Burr, has a $6.6 million war chest. President Bush is expected to carry North Carolina easily. Yet, the race for this particular seat remains difficult to predict. LOUISIANA: Republican Congressman David Vitter has been running ahead consistently in all of the open primary polls. However, this race will be decided in the Dec. 4 runoff. Louisiana’s unique election law stipulates that Election Day is an “open” primary. Should no candidate receive 50 percent of the vote on Nov. 2, the top two vote-getters (regardless of party affiliation) participate in a runoff on Saturday, Dec. 4. No Republican Senate candidate in this state has yet been able to surmount such an election hurdle. But Mr. Vitter is running a strong campaign: he polls 42 percent or more against three weaker Democratic opponents whose combined strength do not exceed his total numRipon Forum • Winter 2004

bers. Still, this one too is difficult to predict. COLORADO: Republican businessman Peter Coors, a political novice, is running against state Attorney General Ken Salazar, a talented Democratic politician who has won statewide before. But Mr. Coors is a quick learner. As heir to the Coors beer fortune, he does not lack funding. Post-primary polls indicate that Mr. Coors is leading. However, recent surveys present the contest as a virtual dead heat. President Bush’s coattails should help. This one is a tossup; but Mr. Coors is likely to succeed. OKLAHOMA: This is a knock down, drag out battle between Democratic Rep. Brad Carson, an economic populist and social liberal, and former Republican Congressman Tom Coburn, a traditional conservative. The Oklahoman reported that Mr. Coburn was leading: 46 percent to 37 percent. Most analysts consider this race to be a tossup; however, in a state that President Bush will win easily, Mr. Coburn has the advantage. ALASKA: This contest is tighter than the skin on a kayak. Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski is still fighting charges of nepotism after her father, Gov. Frank Murkowski, named her to complete the remainder of his term in the U.S. Senate. She is opposed by former Democratic Gov. www.riponsoc.org

Tony Knowles who has won statewide twice, though narrowly. Polls show that the race is dead even. However, Alaska is a Republican stronghold and President Bush should sweep the state. Surprisingly, Ms. Murkowski is proving to be a far more appealing campaigner. This race is a tossup, but Ms. Murkowski has the advantage. SOUTH DAKOTA: Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who spent the last four years bashing President Bush on Iraq, now sings a different tune. His ads praise President Bush for his leadership. Mr. Daschle emphasizes his opposition to gun liability laws and his role in voting to bring the partial-birth abortion ban for approval. In a state where Republicans heavily outnumber Democrats, Mr. Daschle is running just a few points ahead of former Republican Rep. John Thune. A strong Bush tide could end Mr. Daschle’s Senate career. This contest is also difficult to predict. Hence, if current trends continue, it will be very difficult for the Democrats to capture control of Congress, as they had hoped. This is increasingly looking like a good Republican year. — Donald Lambro is a nationally syndicated columnist and chief political correspondent for The Washington Times

BUSH vs. KERRY AMERICA VOTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Medical Election Forum Forum

GOP Poised for Victory Why Republicans will retain House majority s chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, I am increasingly more bullish about what 2004 holds for congressional Republicans. My goal is to return our current majority of 228 in the U.S. House of Representatives. What we are about to see is the fruits of two years’ labor consisting of hard work, planning, fund-raising and campaigning. It seems that only yesterday my Democrat counterparts were talking about taking back the House. They claimed a national wind was at their back that would carry them back into leadership. What a difference a few weeks makes — along with a perfectly executed convention and a President who has proved his mettle. The situation in which we now find ourselves is one where the Democrats are at a profound disadvantage: all political watchers give the Democrats no chance of taking back the House. There are simply not enough seats for them to realistically win. Non-partisan political analyst, Charlie Cook, rates seats in the following categories: tossups, lean-Republican or lean-Democrat. If Democrats were to win every single lean-Democrat seat, all the Republican and Democrat held tossup seats, and then proceed to win the two seats in Texas where due to redistricting incumbent House members are pitted against each other, they would still be seven seats short of the majority. Or as Mr. Cook puts it, “There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell” that the Democrats will take back the House. When one looks at this election year’s landscape and all that has happened since the last election, it is obvious why Republicans hold the high ground. I often refer to the “three c’s” as the keys to our success. We recruited strong candidates, made sure those candidates had enough cash to get their message out and that they had a convincing case to present to voters. In this cycle, there are 36 open seats. Several are held by retiring Republicans and will be battlegrounds. Popular King County Sheriff Dave Reichert (WA-08) won his primary and will help us hold this seat. And Erie County Comptroller, Nancy

Naples (NY-27), is notorious for her ability to attract crossover Democrat votes. Simultaneously, we will be on the offensive in districts held by Democrats. Geoff Davis (KY-04) almost defeated incumbent Democrat Ken Lucas in 2002; he has returned to finish where he left off as Mr. Lucas decided to retire. In the Republican-leaning 7th District of Louisiana, Dr. Charles Boustany is running a strong campaign as well. In addition to open seats, there are quite a few Democrats representing Bush districts that seem ripe for the picking. Vice President Dick Cheney has campaigned for Stan Thompson (IA-03), Mike Sodrel (IN-09) and Kris Kobach (KS-03). Larry Diedrich (SD-al) lost by one point in the June special election after closing an initial 30-point gap. Now, he is in a dead heat with Democrat Stephanie Herseth. Bev Kilmer (FL-02) has drawn the support of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and first lady Laura Bush. And 2002 nominee John Swallow (UT-02) is in better shape to take on Democrat Jim Matheson after holding him to only 49 percent the last time around. Many of these races are promising, but my first priority is to my incumbents. Fortunately, our incumbents in tough seats have worked hard to make sure that they are prepared for their races. Five of the seven most vulnerable incumbents ended the second quarter of 2004 with over $1 million in their war chests. Thus, they maintain an average of two-andone-half to one cash advantage over their challengers. The cash situation this cycle is different than anything we have ever had to deal with because it is the first cycle in which we have operated under the new constraints of the campaign finance law. The new law makes it extremely difficult to raise money. Large “soft money” donations are illegal: it is therefore twice as hard to raise half the money we once did. We have made the necessary changes to function under this law. We are operating a smaller staff than in 2002; we have streamlined operations; and we have lowered our overwww.riponsoc.org

Courtesy of Rep. Reynolds’ office

By U.S. Representative Tom Reynolds

U.S. Rep. Tom Reynolds

head. In addition, we redirected our efforts to find small money donors. Using these techniques, the NRCC was able to set an all-time fund-raising record in 2003; the NRCC has been able to raise $58.8 million within the first eight months of 2004. Finally, if we have the best candidates and the most cash, but not the right message, voters will not respond. The Republican-led Congress has given our incumbents and challengers a strong case on which to run. We added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and we passed the Bush tax cuts that ensure economic success for the near and distant future. We are winning the war on terror and we increased education funding to record levels. On the whole, our opportunities abound. In the last year-and-a-half, Reps. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana and Ralph Hall of Texas, both conservative Democrats, have switched parties. The Texas redistricting map provides several more openings. My goal is to return a Republican Congress to work with the President to finish the job we have begun. Our prospects are better than ever. It is a wonderful time to be Republican. — Rep. Tom Reynolds is a New York Republican and chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

BUSH vs. KERRY AMERICA VOTES

Election Forum

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Republican Accomplishments Victories of the GOP Congress By U.S. Representative Ralph Regula

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

reports and greater accountability foster better school performance. Health care is a critical part of a nation’s economic development. To assist in protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, the budget of the Department of Health and Human Services has more than doubled from $28.9 billion in FY 1996 to $62 billion in FY 2004. Federal outlays for the National Institutes of Health alone have risen from $11.9 billion in FY 1996 to $27.9 billion in FY 2004. As a result of our commitment to NIH, our citizens are living longer and better lives. Life expectancy at birth was only 47 years in 1900; by 2000, it was almost 77 years. NIH research has contributed to the decrease in deaths from cancer, heart disease, and AIDS. And there is more to come: the NIH completed the Human Genome Project two years ahead of schedule and for a cost substantially less than original estimates. The sequencing of the human genome set a new course for developing ways to diagnose and treat diseases like cancer, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, as well as rare diseases. One of the most historic pieces of legislation passed by the Republican Congress is the prescription-drug bill. For the first time since 1965, a massive new entitlement program has been created, providing senior citizens with comprehensive coverage for prescription drugs. This measure helps the elderly to combat the high cost of medication. The bill is also an attempt to revamp and modernize Medicare. The centerpiece of this reform effort is the creation of taxfree Health Savings Accounts. HSAs will enable Americans to have more control over their health care; these accounts empower citizens by giving them more choice and flexibility in deciding the right kind of insurance that they need. Another major policy innovation spearheaded by the Republicans has been President George W. Bush’s call to confront the major health crisis of our age: AIDS. President Bush has proposed $15 billion over 5 years — the largest effort in history to tackle this global pandemic. The www.riponsoc.org

President’s initiative dwarfs the funding level of any other Western country. Moreover, it is a bold assertion of policy that the United States will lead the fight against AIDS. Among the GOP’s most significant accomplishments is the passage of welfare reform. We reformed this outdated and ailing program; we overhauled the nation’s failed welfare system and placed work at its forefront. Our tenacity in enacting this legislation has been vindicated by the remarkable results: welfare rolls have been cut in half, millions are finding jobs through workfare and there is greater flexibility for state governments in addressing chronic poverty. As a majority, we have accomplished so much. But much remains to be done. I am confident that with a Republican majority in Congress, we will continue to exceed the public’s expectations and to expand opportunities for all Americans. — Rep. Ralph Regula is an Ohio Republican and vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Courtesy of Rep. Regula’s office

ecently, my Republican colleagues and I celebrated our ten-year anniversary as the majority in the United States House of Representatives. Having served in the minority for more than two decades, I much prefer being in the majority because we have been able to move forward our vision for a better and brighter America. The record shows that our policies work. Since we took control of the House, the homeownership rate has increased, the violent crime rate has decreased, median household income has increased, the poverty rate has decreased, charitable giving has increased, interest rates have decreased, the number of people earning college degrees has increased, and the bankruptcy rate has decreased. As you know, I serve as the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill is the largest domestic spending bill; it provides funds to over 500 discretionary programs. Every program in this bill affects the lives of the American people. I like to call it the bill of hope. It gives hope to every child seeking a good education, hope to everyone searching for a good job, and hope to the ill seeking a cure. Under Republican leadership, funding for the Department of Education has more than doubled from $23 billion in FY 1996 to $55.7 billion in FY 2004. Federal Pell Grant funding, which provides vital assistance to needy college students, has increased considerably from $4.9 billion in FY 1996 to $12 billion in FY 2004. In FY 1996, the maximum student award was $2,470; today, it is $4,050. This dramatic increase in funding has been coupled with an overhaul of the nation’s education system. The most important change brought about by the No Child Left Behind Act is the insistence that every student, from third to eighth grade, be tested in math and science. Education reform is based on simple, but effective concepts: published

U.S. Rep. Ralph Regula

BUSH vs. KERRY AMERICA VOTES TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2

Medical Election Forum Forum

Gubernatorial Races in November

GOP will affirm majority status By John Hood ducation, health care, infrastructure: these bread-and-butter issues are just too important to the 2004 electorate to be ignored by candidates for chief executive. The candidates have to explain how their proposals will help families obtain quality education, affordable health care, and adequate transportation and utility services at the lowest-possible price. So the candidates are putting a tremendous amount of energy and money into debating these issues. I am not hereby referring to the national contest between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Rather, my focus is on those other races for chief executive: in November, 11 elections for governor are being held in states stretching from Washington and Montana to North Carolina and New England. Republicans came into the 2004 cycle occupying 28 of the 50 top spots in state government — and with a reasonable chance of holding, if not expanding, their majority. Developments through mid-September appear only to improve the GOP’s opportunities in a number of key states. The 2001-03 period was not a good one for incumbent governors and their political parties. Governors found it difficult to win re-election or to leave their office to favored successors. They were haunted by economic recession, budget gaps and tax increases. Consequently, candidates of both parties suffered: Republicans relinquished governorships in such states as Illinois, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Virginia; Democrats lost the top jobs in Maryland, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Vermont, New Hampshire, Kentucky, and California. On balance, Republicans won more governorships than they lost. However, the outcome was somewhat less impressive once we consider the size and population of the states that the Republican Party could not retain: the GOP lost control of large swing states in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic; on the other hand, they defeated Democrats mostly in smaller states in the Northeast and in

the South (except for California whose Democratic governor lost his seat in a recall election). Among the 11 states with gubernatorial races that coincide with presidential ones (including New Hampshire and Vermont because they have two-year terms) six currently have Democratic governors and five have Republican ones. The three biggest prizes, in terms of population, are North Carolina, Missouri and Indiana. All are held by Democrats. Currently, Democrat prospects at obtaining a majority of governorships do not appear good. The worst-case scenario for Republicans is probably either to come out even or perhaps to suffer a net loss of one seat. However, it is more likely that the GOP will actually add one or two governorships. If this forecast materializes and one combines these results with the reelection of the President, the retention of a majority in the Republican Congress, and the current slight edge in state legislative seats, the electorate will have affirmed the GOP’s rise to majority status. Here are a few points to remember about each of the 2004 contests: DELAWARE: Gov. Ruth Ann Minner is perhaps the safest Democratic incumbent in the country. Former Judge Bill Lee clinched the Republican nomination in September (he also ran for governor in 2000). Ms. Minner doesn’t have the obvious vulnerabilities of some of her peers. Also, the underlying trends in Delaware do not offer advantages to the GOP. At least in this small state, Mr. Lee’s lack of comparable financial resources is not fatal. Nonetheless, he is unlikely to prevail. INDIANA: Mitch Daniels, President Bush’s former budget director, is leading Democratic Gov. Joe Kernan both in the polls and in momentum. Mr. Kernan, the elected lieutenant governor who assumed the top job in 2003 upon the death of Gov. Frank O’Bannon, has not generated much enthusiasm in his campaign. Indiana has long been a state where strong Republican performance at the top of the ticket has not routinely resulted in competitive races for governor. However, 2004 appears to be difwww.riponsoc.org

ferent. Mr. Daniels has found his voice on both fiscal and cultural issues. In contrast, Mr. Kernan is running ads featuring his barber. MISSOURI: Democratic Gov. Bob Holden had a disastrous first term. Unfortunately for Republicans, Missouri Democrats came to that very conclusion. In an August primary, they ousted Mr. Holden from power and favored State Auditor Claire McCaskill. Ms. McCaskill is a better candidate to run against Republican Matt Blunt, the secretary of state and son of House Majority Whip Roy Blunt. Ms. McCaskill is running as a centrist and a foe of wasteful spending. Mr. Blunt has challenged her ineffectiveness at enacting audit recommendations. He has also sought to separate her views on crime from the Missouri mainstream. The race appears to be extremely close — but Mr. Blunt will benefit if President Bush’s post-convention surge in this prototypically swing state proves to be lasting. MONTANA: Republican Gov. Judy Martz chose to retire rather than face a testy electorate. Yet, GOP nominee and secretary of state Bob Brown has not entirely succeeded in distinguishing himself from her. The Democratic nominee is Brian Schweitzer, a former Senate candidate. Early polls indicate that he leads Mr. Brown by double digits. Is this an opportunity for a Democratic pick-up? Perhaps this will occur — despite the likelihood that the Montana electorate will heavily favor President Bush. Mr. Schweitzer is trying to sound at least moderate on fiscal issues. Mr. Brown seeks to draw a clear distinction from his opponent by supporting spending caps and property-tax cuts. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Republican Gov. Craig Benson is in his first term and, to put it charitably, he is not popular among much of the political establishment. In September, voters chose John Lynch, a businessman and former trustee of the University of New Hampshire, as the Democratic candidate. He has favored a tobacco-tax increase to address schoolfunding concerns; Mr. Benson steadfastly opposes new taxes. Mr. Lynch hopes that Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

assumed the top job when Mike Leavitt became President Bush’s EPA chief — lost the 2004 nomination to Jon Huntsman, who has an impressive lead in campaign cash over his Democratic opponent. The one asset the latter has is his name, Scott Matheson, Jr., because his father served as governor and his brother is a congressman. But Utah is much more solidly Republican than it was in the senior Matheson’s day. VERMONT: Incumbent Republican Gov. Jim Douglas has enjoyed good fortune. He replaced Howard Dean in 2002 and benefits from the comparison. He also won the election that year against Lt. Gov. Doug Racine after the contest was thrown to the legislature. Finally, his Democratic opponent this year is Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle, who recently exited the hard-left Progressive Party. Clips of Mr. Clavelle marching in support of the Sandinistas in the 1980s are being circulated. Thus, Mr. Douglas seems well-positioned even in Bernie Sanders’ back yard. WASHINGTON: Attorney Gen. Christine Gregoire won the Democratic primary in September and will face Republican state Sen. Dino Rossi. The Republicans have not won the Washington governor’s race since 1980, but many analysts regard the 2004 contest as difficult to predict. Mr. Rossi seeks to make the election a referendum on the performance

of Democratic Gov. Gary Locke. He states that a vote for Ms. Gregoire is a vote for “Locke’s third term.” WEST VIRGINIA: Republican Monty Warner is hoping that the President’s strength in this normally Democratic state will help him in a tough race against Democratic secretary of state Joe Manchin. Current Democratic Gov. Bob Wise is unpopular: he embarrassed himself due to an extramarital affair with a state employee. However, Mr. Manchin appears to have separated himself from the scandal. There is much economic uncertainty in West Virginia; however, it is the kind of insecurity that has led such states to change parties in recent years. The 2004 gubernatorial races have not attracted the attention they deserve. State governments make critical decisions about many of the concerns that voters are expressing this year. The fate of pro-growth tax policies, fundamental reforms in education, and other vital issues hang in the balance. — John Hood is a syndicated columnist, radio host, and president of the John Locke Foundation, a public policy think tank in North Carolina. His latest book is “Selling the Dream: Why Advertising is Good Business,” forthcoming from Praeger

VT WA MT

Illustration by John Boone

ethical transgressions by some of the governor’s appointees will prove to be a decisive issue. Yet, Mr. Benson retains a solid rapport with average voters. NORTH CAROLINA: Of the three most populous states with gubernatorial elections, the least worrisome for Democrats is in the Tar Heel State — but this does not mean they are not nervous. Gov. Mike Easley enjoys a fund-raising advantage over Republican nominee Patrick Ballantine, the former state Senate minority leader. However, Mr. Easley’s series of billion-dollar tax hikes and North Carolina’s lackluster economic performance have given Mr. Ballantine a real opening. In ads targeted to fiscally conservative listeners of talk radio, Mr. Easley’s latest tactic is to imply that Mr. Ballantine will raise taxes by $1.5 billion. Will such disinformation convince the public? Not if Mr. Ballantine responds effectively and growing GOP enthusiasm for Bush-Cheney translates into a large voter turnout — one that will rebound to Mr. Ballantine’s advantage. NORTH DAKOTA: Democrat Joe Satrom is challenging Republican Gov. John Hoeven. Here is a good political indicator: if the GOP starts to worry about this race, do not bet on much good news for Republicans anywhere else in the country. UTAH: Republican incumbent Olene Walker — who as lieutenant governor

DE WV

NC Delaware Indiana Missouri Montana New Hampshire North Carolina North Dakota Utah Vermont Washington West Virginia

Bill Lee (R) vs. Ruth Ann Minner (D) Mitch Daniels (R) vs. Joe Kernan (D) Matt Blunt (R) vs. Claire McCaskill (D) Bob Brown (R) vs. Brian Schweitzer (D) Craig Benson (R) vs. John Lynch (D) Patrick Ballantine (R) vs. Mike Easley (D) John Hoeven (R) vs. Joe Satrom (D) Jon Huntsman (R) vs. Scott Matheson, Jr. (D) Jim Douglas (R) vs. Peter Clavelle (D) Dino Rossi (R) vs. Christine Gregoire (D) Monty Warner (R) vs. Joe Manchin (D)

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

www.riponsoc.org

The

Ripon Forum Interview

The Republican Moment

An interview with RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie By Jeffrey T. Kuhner d Gillespie was elected chairman of the Republican National Committee in July 2003. Since taking over the reins of the party, Mr. Gillespie has developed a reputation as a tenacious defender of President George W. Bush. In less than a year on the job, Republicans have elected new governors in California, Kentucky and Mississippi. Mr. Gillespie has also set a fund-raising record at the RNC. He is frequently seen on cable and network television refuting the partisan attacks of the Democrats against President Bush and Republicans in Congress. Mr. Gillespie’s past accomplishments include being the strategist for Elizabeth Dole’s successful 2002 Senate campaign; serving as director of communications and congressional affairs at the RNC under then-Chairman Haley Barbour; and working over a decade as a top aide to former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a principal drafter of the 1994 “Contract with America.” Mr. Gillespie, 42, was born in New Jersey. He is a graduate of the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. Mr. Gillespie is married and has three children. The chairman kindly agreed to an interview. We also wish to thank his staff, especially Christine Iverson, for their cooperation and generosity in making the interview possible.

RF: What is the RNC’s overall strategy to get President Bush elected on Nov. 2nd? Gillespie: Our Republican strategy is focused pretty much on the ground game and voter turnout, making sure that we get our voters to the polls. … We are registering more than 3 million Republican voters in this election cycle, and now the challenge is to make sure we pull everyone out. My goal is to make sure that the most dangerous place to be on Election Day is between a voting booth and a Republican. We have more volunteers than we have ever had. We have our 72 hour program work-

ing to full capacity in all the battleground states. By the time Nov. 2nd comes around, whether you are living in Ohio, New Mexico, Michigan, Oregon, New Hampshire, or any of the battleground states, you will have heard all the 60-second radio spots you can stand and all the 30second TV spots you can stand and what’s really going to make the difference is direct contact. RF: What do you say to a lot of Republican activists in those battleground states? What do you think they need to do in the next several weeks before the election to help get out the vote? Gillespie: I make this clear in every speech I give. In 2000, there were 55 Electoral College votes from 5 states that were decided by less than 17,000 votes. That’s two votes per precinct that decided 55 Electoral College votes in an election that President Bush won by one Electoral College vote. You need to tell somebody that the President won the White House with 271 Electoral College votes. People need to understand that every vote matters and everything that is done between now and Nov. 2nd is critically important to us. We are preparing for a close contest again. As I say in various speeches, every dollar you donate, every door you knock, every e-mail you forward, every phone call you make, every neighborhood you walk, every sign you post, every hour you volunteer, every bumper sticker you stick – all of it makes a difference. And it makes a difference as to who will be the next president of the United States. RF: Do you think John Kerry has any major flaws as a candidate? If so, what are they? Gillespie: He has a couple. One, he has policy positions and voted — as a senator from Massachusetts would vote understandably — over the last 20 years until he has policy positions outside the mainstream. They are very far from the center www.riponsoc.org

and from the majority of Americans. I also think he has an inherent inability to clearly take a position on some of the critical issues of the day. For someone who voted for the No Child Left Behind Act and now campaigns against it; who voted for the Patriot Act and now says it has to be replaced; someone who voted for NAFTA and now says he would vote against it if he had to do it over again; someone who voted for the war in Iraq and now says it is the “wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time”; someone who said it would be irresponsible to vote against funding for our troops once committed and then turned around and did exactly that and then said he voted for it before he voted against it — I think that in times like these we require steady leadership in the White House. And I worry that Senator Kerry’s constant vacillations and flip-flopping will not provide that. RF: The Kerry campaign is charging that President Bush’s record has been a disaster on the economy and on Iraq. In particular, their two main arguments are that President Bush’s record on the economy has been a net loss of jobs. Their second argument is that Iraq has been a disaster, which threatens to become a quagmire for U.S. forces. How do you respond to those two criticisms? Gillespie: Senator Kerry and others in his party were touting in 1996 the strong economic conditions as the reason for re-electing President Clinton. If you look at where the economy is today relative to 1996, we are … up. Household wealth in the United States has reached an all-time high. Unemployment is just about exactly where it was in 1996. More people are working in America than they were in 1996. The average mortgage rate is lower today than in 1996. The GDP growth rate is higher than it was in 1996. More people, at a higher percentage of Americans, own their own homes than in 1996. The fact is that the very economic indicators that Democrats were touting about in 1996, President Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

The

Ripon Forum

Exclusive interviews with leading politicians in every issue.

“People need to understand that every vote matters and everything that is done between now and Nov. 2nd is critically important to us. We are

Courtesy of Chairman Gillespie’s office

preparing for a close contest again.”

RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie

Bush’s economic indicators are better in every single one of those categories today. So, the fact is that the President is someone who inherited a recession and turned it into a recovery. We have more to do and the President has put a positive agenda going forward to add momentum to the economy. Senator Kerry’s desire to raise taxes would only take us back to slow economic growth, maybe even a recession. In terms of Iraq, Sen. John McCain was right at our convention when he said the choice wasn’t between a happy, peaceful Iraq under a benevolent Saddam Hussein and war. The case was between war and something worse. And I think you are seeing … that although there were not weapons stockpiles, there certainly was the capacity and the desire to commence production as soon as the chance allowed itself. Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

RF: Let’s talk about the congressional races in November. What do you think the Republican chances are of keeping the House and the Senate?

Gillespie: Very good. I believe that we will expand our majorities in the House and the Senate. … If you look at what’s going on in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, things are firming up for the Republican candidates. Mel Martinez is a very strong candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida, and in Louisiana David Vitter is running a great Senate race against Democrat Chris John. So we have those five Democratic open seats where we have an opportunity to win all of them. We have some seats to defend ourselves. Oklahoma, Colorado and Illinois are three open seats, and I am not sure we can win all of those seats. But we will win the lion’s share of those seats. And we have very competitive candidates across the country, particularly in South Dakota where Republican John Thune, in the latest polls, leads Sen. Tom Daschle. … And I have to tell you, I was just in Wisconsin recently, and our nominee there, Tim Michaels, is one of the best candidates I have seen as a challenger in running against an incumbent who is eminently beatable. So I am very optimistic that we will expand our margins in the House and the Senate. RF: A lot of commentators say that this presidential race will boil down to the three battleground states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. Do you agree with that assessment? If you do, what do you think Republicans have to do in those three states to turn out their voters?

www.riponsoc.org

Gillespie: I think that it is broader than that. I would add to that list certainly Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico — all the states that went to Al Gore in 2000 and that I think are increasingly likely to go to President Bush in 2004. The fact is that the Democrats and John Kerry are increasingly taking Bush states off the map, which is making the electoral map much more focused on Gore states. This is a happy dynamic for us. Just over the past 3 weeks, they have pulled their advertising down in Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, North Carolina and Missouri. So, I think that the most important thing people can do in the battleground states is if you have a neighbor who is a Bush supporter and that neighbor is not registered, make sure they get registered before the deadline falls. If they are going to be out of town on Election Day, make sure they vote absentee. If they are in town, make sure they vote. This is all about people talking to people and that is what the President’s supporters need to be doing on the ground for the next several weeks. RF: On a personal note, assuming President Bush wins and the GOP keeps control of the House and the Senate, do you still plan to stay on as RNC chairman or can we see Ed Gillespie as a candidate for office sometime in the near future? Gillespie: Well, I serve at the pleasure of the President. I am dedicated to him and will stay as long as he needs me here. I have always been a behind-the-scenes guy. This is the first job where I have been up front myself. I enjoy it very much, but I have to tell you, my focus, starting Nov. 3, is to getting back to spending time with my children and I’m not sure seeking elected office would allow me to do that. — Jeffrey T. Kuhner is the editor of The Ripon Forum

The

Ripon Forum Interview

Strengthening U.S. Energy Security An interview with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham pencer Abraham became the nation’s 10th Secretary of Energy on Jan. 20, 2001. He leads a Cabinet department with a $21 billion budget and over 100,000 federal and contractor employees. Under Mr. Abraham’s leadership, the Department of Energy (DOE) has pursued an ambitious agenda that strengthens America’s energy and national security. In January 2002, Mr. Abraham launched an aggressive new technology research program to develop the future of energy. Under this new Freedom CAR program, the government and the private sector will fund research into advanced, efficient fuel cell technology which uses hydrogen to power automobiles without creating any pollution. The long-term results of this cooperative effort will be cars and trucks that are more efficient, cheaper to operate, pollution-free and competitive in the showroom. This plan is rooted in President George W. Bush’s call to reduce American reliance on foreign oil through a balance of new domestic energy production and new technology to promote greater energy efficiency. As the leader of one of the federal government’s largest agencies, Mr. Abraham is also its top manager. After becoming secretary, he instituted a series of key management reforms that have made DOE one of the most effective agencies in the federal government. Under his leadership, every DOE program has conducted top-to-bottom reviews of their spending priorities and established new blueprints for the

future. The reform plan is not just about controlling spending and bureaucracy, but about managing programs effectively. Prior to becoming secretary of energy, Mr. Abraham served as a U.S. senator from Michigan from 1995 to 2001. Before his election to the Senate, Mr. Abraham served as co-chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) from 1991 to 1993. He was also deputy chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle from 1990 to 1991. Mr. Abraham and his wife Jane, have three children. He is a native of Lansing, Michigan and a graduate of the Harvard University School of Law and Michigan State University. We wish to thank Mr. Abraham and his staff for their cooperation and generosity in making this interview happen. Here are excerpts:

Courtesy of Secretary Abraham’s office

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham

RF: The issue of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska has received considerable media coverage during the past several years. How do you respond to critics who charge that it will damage the environment? Also, can you explain for our readers why ANWR is so important to the administration’s overall strategy in boosting domestic energy production?

“The reason that ANWR is so important to our overall energy strategy is that we do need to be able to have more flexibility in dealing with the crises we face in the world. If ANWR is anywhere from 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil, that is a huge amount of oil that could help us to offset problems if there is a disruption in world energy supply.” 26

www.riponsoc.org

Abraham: First of all, when we are challenged in terms of growing world demand for oil, and when we see the United States’ dependence on foreign oil continuing to rise, it should send a signal that we need to get our own energy house in order. And one thing we need to do to accomplish that is to increase our own domestic production. The battle that relates to ANWR is really a somewhat frustrating one for us. It has been estimated that there is anywhere from 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. That is American oil on American soil that could help us deal with these periodic price spikes which we encounter. The area of ANWR in which the debate is taking place, is roughly the size of the state of South Carolina. The amount where we need to extract all of this oil is roughly the size of a major airport. So, for those who are arguing that this will be a major environmental challenge, they are simply wrong. There is no question in my Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

mind that we can, with modern drilling technology that exists, extract this oil in a fashion that is consistent with the health and safety of the environment and the species and wildlife refuge in the area. But the reason that ANWR is so important to our overall energy strategy is that we do need to be able to have more flexibility in dealing with the crises we face in the world. If ANWR is anywhere from 5 to 16 billion barrels of oil, that is a huge amount of oil that could help us to offset problems if there is a disruption in world energy supply. Right now, the energy markets are very nervous about the possibility that terrorists, in some fashion or another, undermine production in Iraq or in some other part of the world. Well, the amount of oil that we envision being able to be removed from ANWR on a daily basis could be as much as a million barrels of oil. That is almost as much as we are importing on a daily basis from countries like Saudi Arabia. RF: If the President gets re-elected, are you going to continue pushing for drilling in ANWR? Abraham: I am sure that we will continue to work to pass ANWR, along with the rest of our energy recommendations that came from the President’s energy plan. But I think it is also important for people to understand that ANWR is just one of 105 recommendations which the President’s energy policy included. About 95 of those 105 recommendations are actions that we are already implementing. ANWR is one of the 10 or so that requires Congress’ support. I would also stress that out of the 105 recommendations, the majority of them were in areas such as greater energy efficiency, more energy conservation, the use of alternative fuels and more renewable energy. ANWR was one of the few proposals in the energy plan that actually dealt with increasing domestic energy production. Sometimes I think that the administration’s energy policy and the President have been very unfairly criticized by people who say it is a production-only policy. Quite the contrary, it is a balanced policy that balances more production from things such as ANWR with more conservation, more efficiency, more renewable energy and of course, some of the transformational technology like hydrogen that had been stressed by the President. Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

RF: Why do you think the Left and liberal Democrats have made such an issue out of ANWR? Abraham: I am not going to try to read the minds of our critics. I find it stunning when you look at the numbers. The very critics who called on us, for example, to cease putting oil into our strategic petroleum reserve — the backbone of our security against a major supply disruption if terrorism happens — the very people who said we should stop doing that in order to put down the price of gasoline by a penny or two per gallon, are the same people who don’t want us to develop ANWR, which would provide us with tremendous security, both in terms of dependence, but also in terms of price spikes. If you look at the smallest projection of oil in ANWR, which is about 5 billion barrels of oil and you extract it at 100,000 barrels a day, which is the amount we put into the strategic reserve per day, you can fill the reserve for 100 years every single day. And yet the same critics who want us to stop filling the reserve also want us to not tap ANWR. So I find it very disconcerting, because I think at a time that we know that people are trying to undermine our energy security and through it, our national security, we need to have available to us as many opportunities, as many options, as possible. And ANWR is one of them. RF: An important pillar of the administration’s strategy to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil has been to promote alternative sources of energy. Is the push for hydrogen-powered cars the linchpin of that strategy? Abraham: It certainly is our most ambitious project, but we also are pursuing several other major new initiatives. Take clean coal, which ranks right up there with hydrogen. Granted, we have used the fossil fuel coal for a while, but clean coal will require similar kinds of real scientific breakthroughs to be achievable. We have also embarked, under the President’s direction, on an international collaborative research project, which will take 20 plus years to execute and to determine whether nuclear fusion is a viable energy source for the later part of the 21st century. And we are investing a substantial amount of money in the fusion program. So, it is not just hydrogen. But that www.riponsoc.org

one probably has the unique stamp of President Bush’s administration. RF: Has there been resistance from the automobile industry regarding a shift to hydrogen-powered cars? Abraham: No. Quite the contrary, all of the companies are engaged directly with us in both the planning, as well as the experimentation work that we are doing in terms of the hydrogen-fueled power vehicles. We have just announced a very ambitious set of grants that will total something in the vicinity of $300 million that will be matched by the private sector, for a total of $600 million in the first phase of hydrogen research grants. In the initial phase of programs each of the major U.S. auto companies as well as the major foreign auto companies, are partnering with us to develop these products. And I might add the energy companies are also partnering on these projects to develop both the vehicles and the fueling systems that will allow us to move the hydrogen project to reality. I think people thought there would be resistance because these two industries typically do not want to work on this, because there was always this chicken and egg problem. You had the auto industry say we will build the car when we have a fueling system, and the energy company saying that they will build a fueling system when they saw the cars. Now we have everybody at the same table working together. That is why I am optimistic that we will be successful. It is, in a certain sense, a bit ironic. You have a President from Texas, who has called for a dramatic change in the whole way we utilize energy to power motor vehicles; a President from Texas, oil country, and a former oil industry executive himself, who has talked about hydrogen fuel; and you have an energy secretary from Michigan, who’s own history and background and family connection has been to internal combustion engines, talking about revolutionizing the way engines and automobiles are produced. But I think it is the right course for America and the world, because ultimately, it will allow us to address both our energy dependence challenges at the same time we surmount a number of our environmental challenges. — Jeffrey T. Kuhner is editor of The Ripon Forum

The

Ripon Forum Interview

Fostering Strong Families An interview with Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade Horn Courtesy of Assistant Secretary Horn’s office

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner ade F. Horn was nominated given that I am a child by President George W. Bush psychologist — for families and to be the Assistant Secretary children in America. for Children and Families at the U.S. And to give you one very Department of Health and Human specific example of how the Services on Feb. 28, 2001. Democratic Party left me, and I With a $47 billion budget, the didn’t leave it, the Democratic Administration for Children and Party is completely resistant to the Families (ACF) is responsible for proidea of school choice. And I just grams that promote the social and can’t be part of a political party economic well-being of America’s that puts the interests of systems children, youth and families. Included and groups above the well being among ACF’s 65 programs are the of kids and families. … national welfare-to-work program, And to a very large extent, TANF (Temporary Assistance for what attracted me to the Needy Families); foster care; adoption Republican Party is that they assistance; Head Start, child care; became the party of optimism, child support enforcement; positive they became the party that we are youth development programs; refugee about results and not just about resettlement; and services for those intentions. Assistant Secretary for Children and Families Wade Horn with developmental disabilities. Since 2001, Mr. Horn has played a key national television and radio and has RF: The ACF has received a lot of attention role in implementing several of President authored numerous articles and books on regarding the Healthy Marriage Initiative. Bush’s initiatives to strengthen children and children and family issues. He received his Can you explain how it came about and families. These efforts include leading the Ph.D. in clinical child psychology from what are some of its basic objectives? President’s Healthy Marriage Initiative, Southern Illinois University in 1981. Mr. which seeks to incorporate marriage educa- Horn is married with two daughters. Horn: The mission statement of the tion and resources into the broad array of We wish to thank Mr. Horn and his President’s Healthy Marriage Initiative is social services ACF provides; launching a staff for their cooperation and generosity in this: To help couples, who choose marriage mentorship program for children of incar- making this interview possible. Here are for themselves, have greater access to serviccerated parents; providing community and excerpts: es where they can develop the skills and faith-based organizations with training and knowledge necessary to form and sustain technical assistance to help them expand or RF: How did someone who voted for healthy marriages. It is based on an observaimprove services to the poor and vulnera- George McGovern in the 1972 presidential tion, that all things being equal, and not ble; enhancing the ability of the Head Start election end up becoming a prominent everything is always equal, but all things program and child care providers to help Republican in the Bush administration? being equal, kids who grow up within the low-income children develop critical early context of a two-parent healthy, married literacy skills; and launching a major public Horn: Well, because the Democratic Party household, do better than kids who don’t. awareness campaign to help victims of left me. I am not sure I changed all that And just on a probability basis, if your child human trafficking in the United States. much. But I no longer felt welcomed as the is about to be born and you get to choose, Prior to his appointment at ACF, Mr. Democratic Party evolved into a party of spe- which of course, children don’t, but if you Horn was president of the National cial interests. I have always been attracted to could and you could pick a family at ranFatherhood Initiative, whose mission is to political leaders who have an optimistic, pos- dom out of category 1, category 1 being a improve child well-being by increasing the itive vision both of America and America’s two-parent healthy household, category 2 proportion of children growing up with future. And I am also a very results-oriented being everything else. And if you wanted to involved, committed and responsible person, who is willing to entertain maximize your chances of success, it’s not a fathers in their lives. new ideas if those new ideas hold coin flip which of those two categories you Mr. Horn is frequently featured on promise for improving things — particularly, would pick at random from. It doesn’t mean

www.riponsoc.org

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

“The mission statement of the President’s Healthy Marriage Initiative is this: To help couples, who choose marriage for themselves, have greater access to services where they can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain healthy marriages.” that you are assured of a positive future if you pick the two-parent family household. Nor does it mean that you are doomed to failure if you pick the other category. But on a probability basis, it is just irrefutable at this point that kids do best when they grow up in the context of a two-parent healthy, married household. … So, it is about helping couples who choose marriage for themselves. It is not about government interfering with the intimate decision-making of a couple of whether or not they ought to get married. We are a limited government — a conservative government. Government ought to be limited, even in the name of doing good. And one of the things it ought not to interfere with is the decision-making a couple goes through. But once a couple has made that decision — they have decided that they want to explore marriage, they have gotten engaged, or they are married already — we want to provide them with greater access to services where they can form and sustain a healthy marriage. RF: The issue of gay marriage has received a lot of media attention. Do you have any personal views on the issue? Horn: As a federal official, I don’t have the luxury of a personal opinion. I am a federal employee 24/7. As a Senate confirmed official and anything I say, I am saying on behalf of the federal government. If you ask me who I want to win the World Series, I have a personal view. That is okay. But on issues of public policy, it is my role to state the policy of the administration and on the issue of gay marriage, I, as a federal official, operate under something called the Defense of Marriage Act. Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. One of which, most people know, at least in theory — let’s see if this holds up constitutionally or not — is that one state cannot impose its definition of marriage on another state. But the second thing it does, which is not as well known, is that it defines for purposes for all federal programs and benefits, marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. As a federal official, I operate under federal law and federal law, by an overwhelming vote in the United States Congress, both in the House and the Senate (only 14 U.S. senators voted against DOMA, one of them happens to be John Kerry), came to a large consensus that I think is reflective … of most Americans: that marriage is defined as the legal union of one man and one woman. Certainly this President feels very strongly about that. And I have to operate under that law. RF: What about the issue of a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman? Horn: The President feels very strongly that this ought to be an issue — and I agree with him — that this ought to be an issue that is settled by the people, and not by a small number of unelected judges. Remember, the Massachusetts court decision was settled 4-3 [in favor of gay marriage]. One vote and you have a different opinion. So it seems that this is too important an issue that we are going to say we will leave this up to some judges to decide for us. But rather, this is something that we, as a people, in a representative democracy, ought to be debating and to be deciding by www.riponsoc.org

the people, not by the court system by fiat. And the President feels that the best vehicle for both generating that conversation and deciding that question is a constitutional amendment. And you know what? It has generated a conversation and that’s a good thing. … Debate is a healthy thing. You ought to have a debate and not simply be handed down decisions by judges because they personally feel this way or that way. RF: How do you think family issues will be played out in the November presidential campaign? Horn: Clearly, the whole idea of the definition of marriage is going to be an important piece of this campaign. I think one of the underreported aspects of John Kerry’s record is that, while he says he is opposed to gay marriage, there was one opportunity when he was a U.S. senator to do something, for the purpose of the federal government at least, to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. He voted against it, being one of only 14 senators to do so. This was DOMA. And this would protect one state from another state’s definition of marriage. He said he was against that. He says now that he thinks each state should decide for itself. But the one opportunity he had to vote for a piece of legislation where each state would be able to decide for itself, he voted against it. So there is a kind of inconsistency in Kerry’s record in this regard. I also hope that one of the things that we will be able to get out in this campaign is the President’s record on what he has done through his compassionate agenda. … President Bush has done a lot, I think, to reach out, in a compassionate way, through mentoring programs for kids, for example; through the Healthy Marriage Initiative; … through some of the reforms on Head Start to focus more on the accountability of the results, for example — to ensure we are doing the best job. Government can’t do everything. But what it can do, government should do well. And we have a story to tell in this regard. I hope during the campaign that that aspect of this administration will be highlighted. — Jeffrey T. Kuhner is editor of The Ripon Forum

Public Policyy

Improving Treatment of Chronic Illnesses New law will lower health care costs By U.S. Representative Nancy L. Johnson he new Medicare law will make prescription drugs more affordable for America’s seniors. It will also keep seniors healthier and will reduce sky-rocketing health care costs. We have long known about the financial pressure that the high cost of health care puts on American families — especially seniors living on fixed incomes, pensions and Social Security checks. The Medicare law is already saving seniors money on the drugs they need. According to the nonpartisan Healthcare Leadership Council, the Medicare-approved discount cards will save the average American senior $1,200 over the next 18 months. When the card program ends and the Medicare prescription drug coverage begins in 2006, seniors will save even more. Seniors with very low incomes will pay less than $5 for each prescription they fill — with no premium, no deductible and no gap in coverage. This is a better deal for low-income seniors than many popular state assistance programs. A new study confirms that chronic illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease account for a majority of the $200 billion rise in health care costs in the last two decades. The study tracked 370 conditions and their costs from 1987 to 2000, and found that just 15 accounted for a whopping 56 percent of the increase in heath care costs during that time. And just five common conditions — heart disease, pulmonary conditions like asthma, mental illnesses, cancer, and hypertension —

Courtesy of Rep. Johnson’s office

U.S. Rep. Nancy L. Johnson

accounted for one-third of the increase. Indeed, one third of seniors have four or more chronic illnesses and account for 70 percent of Medicare’s spending. Evidently, chronic illnesses are primarily responsible for rising health care costs in this country and are the biggest obstacle to affordable health care. Experts agree that keeping people healthier, and managing chronic illnesses to prevent them from getting worse, is the best way to solve this problem. In short, we need to play offense with chronic illnesses, not defense. For example, 12 million Americans suffer from heart disease and it accounts for a greater share of health care cost increases

“Because of this landmark law, Medicare is no longer just a bill-payer. It is now a partner with seniors; it ensures that they are healthier and have access to affordable prescription drugs.”

www.riponsoc.org

than any other chronic illness. This is because until last year, Medicare covered the $20,000 average yearly cost of hospitalizations for congestive heart failure. Medicare did not cover inexpensive cholesterol screenings, nor did it cover the $70 monthly cost of cholesterol medications. This system defies common sense and good medicine. But now, because of the new law, Medicare will cover the less expensive medications that help keep seniors healthy and out of the hospital. This will reduce health care costs and drastically improve the quality of life for seniors. Moreover, the Medicare law also creates new benefits — such as a “Welcome to Medicare” physical and screenings for heart disease and diabetes — in order to diagnose chronic conditions earlier when they are most treatable. The old saying “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” has never had greater meaning. If you are diagnosed with a chronic illness, Medicare can help. Eight million American seniors suffer from diabetes. Now Medicare will work with them and their doctor to help control diet, monitor blood sugar and drug regimens, and improve overall health. This team effort to effectively manage chronic illness is now a part of Medicare, and it will work with up to 300,000 seniors across the country who suffer from chronic illnesses in the next few years before expanding it to all seniors. The comprehensive, proactive approach taken in the Medicare law is a suitable response to the fact that relatively few chronic illnesses account for so much of our rising health care costs. Because of this landmark law, Medicare is no longer just a bill-payer. It is now a partner with seniors; it ensures that they are healthier and have access to affordable prescription drugs. As a result, the new Medicare law will reduce health care costs for all Americans. — Rep. Nancy L. Johnson is a Connecticut Republican and chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

Public Policyy

A 21st Century Jobs Agenda Putting Americans back to work he American economy is in a widespread recovery. We are creating jobs in all sectors. GDP is growing at its fastest pace in 20 years. Factory orders are up 14 percent over last year. Housing starts are near 20-year highs. Despite all the positive news, there are still too many Americans who are not working. We can do better. As President George W. Bush has said repeatedly, we will not rest until every American who wants a job can find a job. Working with the Bush administration and the Republican Congress, I have developed a plan to ignite the American economy further and help put our employers on a more level playing field so that they can better compete internationally. Our “American Jobs Agenda” is aimed at passing legislation to make American companies more efficient at home so that they can compete better internationally. The end result will be more orders for U.S. goods and services and more jobs for Americans. We have learned that when we reduce taxes on our workers and our small employers, people buy more and employers put more people to work to meet the added demand. President Bush’s tax cuts dramatically lowered the tax burden on families and on our small business owners, who create 75 percent of all new jobs each year. As a result, 1.5 million new jobs so far have been created this year. The problem is that many of the President’s tax cuts will expire soon if we do not extend them permanently. The result will be massive tax hikes on Americans and on our small employers. This will devastate our recovery, bankrupt many small businesses in America, and put many more Americans on the unemployment lines. The United States Congress must make the President’s tax cuts permanent: this is essential to our economic recovery. We are also working to pass a business tax bill which lowers taxes for U.S. manufacturers. I am leading the charge in Washington to ensure that the bill rewards all manufacturers — both large and small — who keep jobs in America. The surging cost of health care in

Courtesy of Rep. Manzullo’s office

By U.S. Representative Don Manzullo

U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo

America is not only increasing the rolls of the uninsured in our country but is reducing the bottom line for many small employers. Small businesses in America regard skyrocketing health care costs as their number one concern. Congress must act to give them options. Earlier this year, the House passed two bills which would dramatically lower the cost of health care. One bill would allow small businesses to band together and purchase health insurance for their employees at group rates through national associations such as the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Restaurant Association. The second bill would reform our out-of-control medical liability system. The existing system has led directly to surging health care costs as a result of annual double-digit medical malpractice insurance hikes. The liability system has also contributed to rising costs indirectly due to added medical testing fees from frightened doctors who practice “defensive medicine.” The medical malpractice crisis in America has become so severe that it has actually forced many doctors out of their practices. Despite several House votes the past three years on Association Health Plan and medical liability bills, Senate Democrats have prevented action in the Senate. Costly and unnecessary regulations also contribute to the heavy burden which often makes U.S. companies non-competitive in the global marketplace. Our employers already pay up to $700 billion each year to comply with federal regulations. Due to the leadership of President Bush, our govwww.riponsoc.org

ernment is currently conducting a comprehensive review of all regulations affecting manufacturers in order to determine whether they are necessary. In addition, I have sponsored legislation — the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act — which would require federal agencies to justify their regulations and to make all possible efforts to reduce the burden on America’s small businesses. Other domestic necessities to make American businesses more efficient and competitive include: • Energy self-sufficiency: The House has twice passed a comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6) that encourages environmentally sound development and conservation to help reduce energy costs in America. The Senate must act now. • Education and worker retraining: Precarious job prospects discourage Americans from planning careers in manufacturing and information technology. Education must be transformed into a process of lifelong learning. The costs should be offset by tax deductions or credits, as appropriate. Trade Adjustment Assistance should be available to all affected workers. • Research and Development: Congress should make the R&D tax credit permanent and must prioritize funding for the most promising technologies of the future. Advanced manufacturing is a vital component of America’s national security and must be preserved. This “American Jobs Agenda” will reduce costs and help make our businesses more competitive. But competition with foreign companies must be on a level playing field. And right now, many of our foreign competitors — especially China — have an unfair edge. China is giving its manufacturers a huge competitive advantage simply by manipulating its currency to keep it artificially low against the U.S. dollar. This currency manipulation has given Chinese manufacturers as much as a 40 percent cost advantage over U.S. products. I praise the actions of President Bush, Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Treasury Secretary John Snow who have increasingly raised this issue with the Chinese government. We are fortunate to have a President who understands that, in order to create jobs in America, it is essential to knock down trade barriers overseas and to open new avenues for international commerce. — Rep. Don Manzullo is an Illinois Republican and chairman of the House Small Business Committee Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

Public Policyy

Patriot Act Preserves Security Liberal accusations are false By Patrick M. Garry he liberals are so hysterical about the Patriot Act that they are making comparisons with Nazi Germany in 1938. Democrats describe it as “Hitleresque.” Actress Janeane Garofalo has called the Patriot Act “a conspiracy of the 43rd Reich.” Sen. John Edwards is “horrified” by it. Al Gore condemns it as a repression of basic American freedoms. Hollywood liberals are the most vociferous critics of the Patriot Act. They are obsessed with a libertine lifestyle and as a result they attribute to the Act a “pervasive chilling of civil liberties.” They speak of an Orwellian America in which protest has been muffled by the fear of Big Brother. They make such claims even as they shamelessly indulge in their own insults of President George W. Bush: Chevy Chase calls him “a liar;” John Mellencamp refers to him as a “cheap thug;” and Michael Moore devotes an entire movie to ridiculing him. The critics imply that the Patriot Act was somehow foisted upon the country by a duplicitous administration. In fact, the Act passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. Just last year, Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden reaffirmed his support for the law: he declared that criticisms of it were “both misinformed and overblown.” Sen. Diane Feinstein even admitted that she did not know of a single instance in which the law had been abused. But that was before the 2004 presidential campaign heated up — and before the Democratic money-machine in Hollywood began its high-profile bout of panic and paranoia. Mirroring his party’s flip-flop on the Patriot Act, John Kerry has twice switched his position. In the wake of 9/11, Mr. Kerry praised the Act. Then, responding to pressure from the left during primary season, Mr. Kerry referred to the law as a “trampling on the Bill of Rights.” But once he secured the nomination, Mr. Kerry flipped again. He declared that he did not wish to repeal the law; he only wanted to strengthen it. The liberal hysteria regarding the Patriot Act is mystifying — especially when

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

it is so starkly apparent that liberal accusations are false. The Act focuses primarily on three areas: electronic surveillance of terrorism suspects; eliminating barriers to the sharing of information between intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials; and government access to financial and other records of suspected terrorists. The electronic surveillance provisions essentially allow terrorism investigators to obtain the kind of roving wiretaps used by law enforcement personnel against drug dealers. Roving wiretaps, which permit continuing surveillance even if the suspect changes his communication methods, are vital in an age of cell phones and e-mail. In this respect, the Patriot Act simply corrects a dangerous double standard: it gives to the war on terror the same legal tools that are used in the war on drugs.

“The liberal hysteria regarding the Patriot Act is mystifying — especially when it is so starkly apparent that liberal accusations are false.” The Patriot Act also allows courts to temporarily delay notifying a suspect that a search warrant has been executed: however, this delay is only permitted when there is a significant risk that the suspect might flee or destroy evidence. Contrary to liberal rantings, federal courts have consistently ruled that this practice is in accordance with the Constitution. In 1979, the Supreme Court even stated that it was “frivolous” to argue that delayed notification was unconstitutional. And in 2002, a federal appeals court unanimously approved the electronic surveillance provisions in the Patriot Act. Perhaps the Act’s most sweeping reform is the removal of legal barriers preventing law enforcement and national security personnel from sharing information about potential threats — barriers that even Mr. Kerry believes must be eliminated to prevent another 9/11. This “wall of separawww.riponsoc.org

tion” stems back to 1978 when, appeasing the post-Vietnam vindictiveness of anti-war protestors, the Democratic Congress passed a law prohibiting information gathered by counter-intelligence services to be shared with domestic law enforcement officials. In its report released this past summer, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded that these information-sharing barriers substantially aided the al Qaeda terrorists. The Patriot Act empowers the government to search vital records in a terrorism investigation. For example, terrorists have used libraries to communicate with each other and to conduct research. Also, their credit-card records and travel receipts can provide valuable information about their activities. As organized crime cases have shown, the easier it is to follow money trails, the easier it is to break up criminal cells. Law enforcement officials in embezzlement cases have long been able to search business records without any constitutional objection. And grand juries have had the power to subpoena bookstore and library records. Such records, for instance, were used to convict the murderer of designer Gianni Versace. The liberal hysteria against the Patriot Act is based on divisive lies. Democrats depict federal agents lurking around libraries and snooping into the books people read. Yet, recently declassified information reveals that the Act has never once been used to look at individuals’ library records. Even though some liberals insist that the Patriot Act has wiped out civil liberties, none of the powers authorized by the Act are available to the government without a specific court order — and none exceed the scope that is currently used against drug dealers and mob bosses. Rather than making exaggerated claims regarding a piece of legislation that is vital to the war on terror, liberals would do better to channel their energy toward devising solutions to the vexing national security issues that we face. — Patrick M. Garry is a professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law

Public Policyy

Large Strides in Trade Policy Bush team strives for open markets By Claude Barfield uring his first term, President George W. Bush reinvigorated American trade policy. Despite a few notable lapses, the trade policy of the Bush administration has indeed advanced the cause of free markets and open competition. After almost a decade of stalemate, the Bush administration made a breakthrough on trade promotion authority (TPA). This is the congressional mandate that allows the executive to negotiate trade agreements under special expedited procedures. During the president’s tenure, there also emerged two distinct new hallmarks of trade policy. There is now an explicit linkage of trade policy and other U.S. political, diplomatic and security goals. And the administration advanced the doctrine of “competitive liberalization”: America will negotiate free trade agreements (FTAs) with both individual countries and combinations of countries in order to trigger a competitive stampede of market liberalization that will ultimately coalesce into global free trade. In light of the last four years of incessant trade initiatives, one can easily forget the stagnant environment that preceded President Bush’s term. For example, after 1994, when trade promotion authority lapsed, the United States had to stand idly by and watch other nations conclude approximately 130 FTAs. These clearly discriminated against U.S. industrial and service firms. In contrast, at the end of 2002, the Bush administration broke this deadlock and secured TPA. In order to do so, the administration compromised on the divisive issue of the role of labor and environmental rules in trade treaties. The legislative process was extremely difficult: half of the Senate Democrats and three quarters of House Democrats opposed the President. The administration therefore had to make concessions to certain textile and agricultural protectionists. Nonetheless, this breakthrough allowed the United States to “reenter the game” and execute its goals. Furthermore, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick skillfully advanced the doctrine of “competitive liberalization.” He concluded agreements with Singapore, Chile,

Jordan, Australia, and five Central American countries. Also, the United States is actively negotiating with Morocco, Thailand, Bahrain, the whole of South America and the five South African Customs Union nations. Individually, most of these FTAs represent only a small fraction of total U.S. trade; but taken together (including FTAA), they will amount to a substantial portion of total trade. Thus, discrimination against U.S. firms and workers has been substantially reduced. One of the major criticisms leveled at “competitive liberalization” is that it signals a movement away from the WTO and the Doha Round as a top priority for U.S. trade policy. Once again, the facts show otherwise: the Bush administration has clearly taken the lead in a number of areas in the Doha Round. In fact, the Bush team has advanced bold proposals for zero industrial tariffs by 2015, large reductions in agricultural subsidies and border tariffs, and sweeping liberalization in major service sectors. There has also been bipartisan criticism of the President’s decision to link trade with other political, security and diplomatic goals. Such criticism merely demonstrates the parochialism of trade experts in both parties. Although the Bush administration has been more explicit, the pursuit of the national interest has always necessitated a meshing of economic with political and even national security objectives. This fusion is particularly cogent in the post-9/11 world. Thus, it makes perfect sense for strategic reasons to include Morocco, Bahrain, Jordan, Australia — and even potentially, Taiwan — in the administration’s list of priority FTAs. However, there are lapses in the BushZoellick trade policy. The most notable is that in the key electoral states of West Virginia and Ohio, the Bush administration succumbed to the demands of steel producers and accepted the imposition of steel tariffs or “safeguards.” Also reprehensible was the administration’s supine acquiescence to the passage of the 2002 agricultural authorization bill that locked into place huge subsidies and protecwww.riponsoc.org

tion for key agricultural crops. Indeed, there are mitigating circumstances in both cases: the administration largely abandoned the protection for steel after 18 months and also persuaded U.S. agricultural interests to accept sweeping reform proposals at the WTO. Nonetheless, his unfortunate concessions render the President vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy as a self-proclaimed “free trader.” If he wins a second term, President Bush faces three distinct trade policy challenges. The first is to demonstrate the imagination, flexibility and courage to fashion compromises on key issues such as agriculture, services and intellectual property and to successfully conclude the Doha Round of WTO negotiations. Second, while “competitive liberalization” is an eminently defensible policy, President Bush and his advisers must prove that it will work beyond economically insignificant bilateral agreements. That is, they must successfully conclude the more important regional Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). And finally, as an extension of this challenge, the administration must confront the urgent necessity to get ahead of momentous events and trends in Asia. The Asia Pacific Economic Forum (APEC), for all intents and purposes, is moribund as a negotiating vehicle. Conversely, nations such as Japan, South Korea and the ASEAN countries are for the first time contemplating bilateral and sub-regional agreements that will exclude the United States. Washington must confront the increasingly bold leadership of a revitalized Chinese foreign economic policy. Over the next four years, it will be important for the United States to revive APEC — possibly as a regular reciprocity-based FTA. Or at a minimum, the President should make it clear that the United States wants to be represented at any negotiation involving the big East Asian economies (China, Japan, and Korea). In trade policy, the Bush administration has scored several key victories — but much remains to be done. — Claude Barfield is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

Public Policyy

Reforming the Legal System Trial lawyers pose threat to U.S. economy By Thomas J. Donohue or decades, lawsuit abuse has stifled the nation’s economy. Excessive lawsuits destroy jobs, raise prices, and threaten access to health care for millions of Americans. A lawsuit is filed every two seconds in state courts. This amounts to more than 16 million cases per year. During the past decade alone, class action lawsuit filings rose more than 300 percent in federal courts and more than 1,000 percent in state courts. Due to our lawsuit-happy culture, the U.S. legal system is the world’s most expensive: $233 billion a year are drained from our economy. That amounts to more than $3,200 a year that every American family of four is paying in higher prices, higher insurance rates and skyrocketing health care costs. Lawsuit abuse has a severe effect on both large and small American employers. For example, rampant asbestos litigation has driven almost 70 companies into bankruptcy and is responsible for the loss of 60,000 American jobs. A recent NERA Economic Consulting study conducted for the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) shows that the system is costing small businesses an astounding $88 billion a year. Business owners and workers suffer while a small group of unscrupulous trial lawyers grows richer by the day. These lawyers profit from the frivolous litigation that is clogging our courts and raiding our wallets. The trial bar’s bravado was showcased recently by Fred Baron – former head of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and chief fund-raiser for the Kerry-Edwards campaign – who recently bragged that the “plaintiffs’ bar is all but running the Senate.” He later declared “jihad” on supporters of legal reform and vowed to “fight them with everything we’ve got.” Until recently, the salvos of the trial bar went unanswered because the business community lacked a cohesive counterattack. But times have changed. A few years ago, the business community came to recognize that, while their vital interests were many, the trial bar was

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

“The trial bar’s bravado was showcased recently by Fred Baron – former head of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and chief fund-raiser for the KerryEdwards campaign – who recently bragged that the ‘plaintiffs’ bar is all but running the Senate.’ He later declared ‘jihad’ on supporters of legal reform.” focused only on protecting their financial self-interest. The bar rebuffed every piece of legal reform legislation proposed in Congress and the states. Therefore, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) emerged. Never before has the business community had such a unifying entity that is designed to combat the trial lawyer industry. And never before has the business community made so much headway in the fight for legal reform. In Congress, a substantial majority of both the U.S. Senate and the House now support reforming the class action lawsuit system and finding a legislative solution to the asbestos litigation crisis. Led by ILR, at the state level the business community is doing things that have never been done before. We are shining a spotlight on the antics of trial lawyers, changing public opinion through aggressive advertising and grassroots campaigns, passing major reform legislation, and most significantly, altering the judicial philosophy of state Supreme Courts. Earlier this year, opponents of legal reform suffered a major blow when Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour enacted the most sweeping legal reform legislation in the country. The Mississippi victory was labeled by The Wall Street Journal as a “case study in how to break the power of the trial lawyer lobby.” This success proves to legal reform supporters and opponents alike that true reform is possible. Since 1999, 35 states (in addition to Mississippi) have passed some form of legal reform legislation — most notably, www.riponsoc.org

Alabama and Texas. The trial bar is also on the defensive in jurisdictions like Madison County, Illinois, where the business community has begun to shine a spotlight on the reprehensible conduct of the trial bar and its friends on the bench. Our voter education program has also sent shock waves throughout the legal community. This program has resulted in fundamentally altering the legal landscape in a number of states. Voters across the country are choosing Supreme Court justices, attorneys general and other elected officials that promise to put an end to lawsuit abuse. These are just a few examples of our recent triumphs. The fight for legal reform, however, is more than just an occasional legislative battle or a few Supreme Court rulings in our favor. The struggle for legal reform is an ongoing mission. It must be adopted in Washington, in the states, in the court houses, on the airwaves, and in the homes of American consumers. But without doubt, the decades-long grip of the trial bar on our legal system is finally being challenged. Battles are being won and legal reformers are steadfast in their cause. The trial lawyers cannot withstand the public scrutiny. They can plainly see that American employers are united as never before; the business community is achieving real results in the fight to curb lawsuit abuse. And America’s civil justice system is steadily moving toward one that is simpler, fairer and faster for everyone. — Thomas J. Donohue is president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

g Affairs Foreign

French Betrayal France is no longer U.S. ally By Kenneth R. Timmerman resident George W. Bush is right to exercise caution when it comes to dealing with France. Eighteen months after the debacle at the United Nations over Iraq, a perceptible chill still dominates relations between the two former allies. For President Bush and for Secretary of State Colin Powell, the betrayal by France’s leaders is hard to forget. In the fall, 2002, preceding the U.N. debate, President Jacques Chirac phoned President Bush in the Oval Office to personally assure him of French support at the United Nations. Mr. Chirac told the president that if Saddam Hussein refused to disarm voluntarily, France would vote with the United States to threaten the use of force. In fact, he even stated that France was ready to send troops as part of a U.S.-led coalition. To prove his goodwill, Mr. Chirac offered to dispatch the Chairman of the French Joint Chiefs to Tampa, Florida, in order to work on the details of French participation in the multinational force with U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commanders. The French general arrived in December. Mr. Chirac’s phone call was revealed for the first time in my book, “The French Betrayal of America.” The call was clearly intended to reassure the President that despite the hue and cry from the French media elite against going to war, Mr. Chirac would do his utmost to support an old ally across the Atlantic. “I am speaking President to President, man to man,” Mr. Chirac said. President Bush responded warmly to the personal appeal, and remained convinced that Mr. Chirac was telling him the truth. He would doubt this many months later, as events proved otherwise. On Jan. 19, 2003, on the eve of a United Nations debate on terrorism, Mr. Powell had a private dinner in New York with his French counterpart, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. They met to discuss the final wording of a new U.N. resolution — the 18th — condemning Iraqi intransigence and specifically authorizing the use of force in case of non-compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors. The two parted company that evening with an

agreement in hand — at least, Mr. Powell believed so. The next day, Mr. Powell was waiting for Mr. Villepin to arrive at the French ambassador’s residence in New York for a scheduled lunch with other foreign ministers. The American Secretary of State was dumbfounded when he saw Mr. Villepin on the cable news monitor telling the world that France would never support the use of force against Saddam.

“Given the choice between supporting freedom or backing tyrants, France has repeatedly chosen the oppressors. The French supported Saddam in order to preserve French exports. They are likewise buttressing the theocratic regime in Iran.” Mr. Powell never forgave his “friend Dominique” for lying to him; the two interacted in a frosty manner ever since that incident. The French betrayal was not just over “issues,” it was a personal treachery too. Yet, this personal mistrust reflected the fundamental conflicting national interests that were driving America and France apart. This is a new phenomenon which began at the end of the Cold War and accelerated after the first Gulf war against Saddam in 1991. Mr. Chirac has elevated this quarrel into a grand philosophical divide. In the final analysis, he may be right. Given the choice between supporting freedom or backing tyrants, France, led by Mr. Chirac, has repeatedly chosen the oppressors. The French supported Saddam in order to preserve French exports. They are likewise buttressing the theocratic regime in Iran, which is hell-bent on develwww.riponsoc.org

oping nuclear weapons before the eyes of international weapons inspectors. Does this sound familiar? For a nation that pretends to be guided by unbending principles and Cartesian logic, the French position is rife with contradiction. On the one hand, the French — whether led by Mr. Chirac or his opponents on the Left — believe in subjecting national sovereignty to the will of international institutions such as the United Nations. This is a matter of unwavering principle when the nation requiring restraint is the United States or Israel. On the other hand, the French assert with equal conviction the opposite principle of the sovereignty of governments: this forbids foreign interference in the internal affairs of member states. The French invoked this principle when they opposed intervention in Iraq. Today, they use it to oppose any attempt by the United States or its allies to overthrow the ruling clerics in Tehran. But when the French see that their national interest is best served by overthrowing some petty tyrant in Africa (especially, as in the case of the Congo, where the regime is trampling on the interests of French national oil companies), then coups and assassination plots are the order of the day. These differences with France would be comic if they did not have grave repercussions. The French are willing to undermine the effectiveness of institutions such as NATO, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council just to prove a point or to show that Paris still wields diplomatic clout. The real reason that the French pretend to defer to the United Nations is because they still have veto power. A second Bush administration must confront French intransigence or seek other international fora as a means of forging alliances to combat rogue states and terrorist regimes. No American president can entrust the security of our nation to a body that makes decisions by a show of hands: those who do not have our interests at heart cannot determine our diplomacy. As long as it goes unchecked and unpunished, the French willingness to “counter” U.S. interests internationally will only increase. — Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of “The French Betrayal of America,” and “Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America,” both from Crown Forum Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

g Affairs Foreign

Ukraine Confronts Communist Past Washington can provide moral support kraine’s reformist forces stand a good chance of winning the country’s upcoming presidential elections. The success of this nation of nearly 50 million (once considered the breadbasket of Europe) is pivotal to the continued political and economic development of many states in the former Soviet empire. As neo-communist authoritarianism resurges throughout the region — especially in neighboring Russia where President Vladimir Putin is reconstituting a police state — a democratic and prosperous Ukraine is more vital then ever. Ukraine can provide an alternative model for other fledgling post-Soviet states. Since Yalta, Ukrainian national aspirations have been shaped by two principles: the liquidation of the Soviet Union and an independent state for Ukrainians (and other captive nations). Ukrainians sought to achieve these goals through the exercise of self-reliant political action. For Ukrainians, the liquidation of the Soviet empire meant discarding not only the totalitarian ideology of Marxism-Leninism, but the communist system itself. The latter was characterized by bureaucratic sadism and fierce hostility toward both Christianity and the national aspirations of subject peoples. In particular, Soviet communism sought to crush Ukrainian democratic nationalism. This is why, for example, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin launched the greatest genocide of the 20th century against Ukraine. He sought to destroy Ukrainian nationhood by starving its peasants to death. The terror famine of 1932-33 resulted in the systematic murder of at least 10 million Ukrainians (other scholars assess the death toll at 15 million). In 1991, in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukrainians achieved their long-cherished goal: a state of their own. The nation has been independent for 13 years. Yet, Ukraine is still struggling to overcome the devastating legacy of communism. The death of the Soviet Union unfortunately did not result in the death of the Marxist mindset. Remnants of Marxism

Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

★ Kiev

remain in the hearts and minds of many Ukrainians. Ukraine’s President Leonid Kuchma is a neo-communist at heart; he continues to push Kiev toward Moscow’s sphere of influence. Also, there has been a growing assault on basic democratic freedoms. Last year, the headless body of anti-Kuchma journalist, Georgi Gongadze, was found in a forest outside of Kiev. This summer, Viktor Yushchenko, an arch-rival of Mr. Kuchma and the leading reformist presidential candidate, contracted a mysterious virus that nearly killed him. The doctors who treated him detected traces of poison in his stomach. Moreover, the current Ukrainian state is not founded on vibrant nationalism. Patriotism is not deeply rooted or widespread. Majority public opinion is undemocratic and russified. Nationalist political parties do not have widespread support nor do they have political power. This, despite the fact that for the past 80 years, Ukrainian nationalists spearheaded the opposition to the Soviet occupation. Instead of being ruled by principled nationalists, the country is governed by approximately eight non-Ukrainian oligarchic clans. Thus, today’s Ukraine has little Ukrainian national content. Compounding these ills is a sclerotic economy and rampant corruption. Ukraine, however, does not need a quick fix, cash or foreign aid. It needs longterm moral, political and strategic support from the West. It needs regime change. Only then can it become a natural U.S. ally and fulfill its geopolitical destiny as the Israel of the Slavic world. Ukraine can be a pivotal www.riponsoc.org

Illustration by John Boone

By Yarema Gregory Kelebay democratic and pro-American ally in an unstable region rich in resources. The United States can assist in the ongoing process of discrediting and discarding the remnants of the Marxist outlook that are still prevalent in Ukrainian society. Marxism must be finally and conclusively unmasked as an ersatz religion that sought to impose a utopian, anti-national, suicidal delusion. The communist creed was the major conveyor of what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death” in the 20th century. Ukrainian society needs patriotic, religious and moral renewal. Ukraine will never become a fully functioning, healthy nation-state until it confronts its communist past. The people must overcome the vast apparatus of lies that was peddled by Soviet historiography. The communists deliberately attempted to eradicate Ukraine’s distinct national identity. However, there has nonetheless been considerable progress in the years since independence. The next presidential election on October 31st should be fair and open. If the Nasha Ukraina (Our Ukraine) bloc led by the pro-American reformer, Mr. Yushchenko, wins, this should reassure the West and hasten Ukraine’s admission into the European Union. America needs a stable and secure Ukraine to act as a strategic bulwark against a revanchist Russia. The United States should do everything it can to assist the forces of reform in the current “culture war” for the hearts and minds of Ukrainians. The honest patriots must be given aid so they can recapture the culture: the state will then fall democratically into the palm of their hands like a ripe fruit. Only then will there be an end to heinous election strategies such as the murder of journalists and the poisoning of presidential candidates. — Dr. Yarema Gregory Kelebay is a professor of education, philosophy and history at McGill University in Montreal, Canada

Putin: The New Stalin

Illustr ation by J ohn Boon e

The Just Cause Russia reverts to authoritarian rule By Grace Vuoto resident Vladimir Putin is using the recent wave of terrorist acts in Russia as a pretext for abandoning the nation’s gradual march toward democracy. The government has pledged to centralize power as a means of tightening security. This comes as a response to two terrorist acts that shocked the world: Chechen female suicide bombers downed two airliners, resulting in the death of 100 people; and an assault on a school in Beslan led to the death of over 300 — most of whom were children. There is widespread international sympathy for the victims of the attacks and a general outcry against the terrorist networks that are responsible. Yet, the Russian president is only compounding the nation’s ills by unleashing what appears to be a naked power grab. Mr. Putin was once considered the West’s man in Moscow. President Bush even famously declared that he had looked into his Russian counterpart’s soul and had seen that he was good. However, despite America’s fondest hopes, corruption is rampant and authoritarian rule is once again beginning to rear its ugly head: Mr. Putin has promised to reform the electoral system in a manner that benefits his party. He proposes that henceforth Russia’s 89 regional governors will be elected by local legislative assemblies rather than by popular vote; the candidates will be nominated by the president. Furthermore, the lower house of parliament, the State Duma, will be elected from a party list rather than from local constituencies. And a new agency, the Public Chamber, will oversee government and law enforcement. Mr. Putin’s strategy is therefore to combat terror with counterterror: now, the Russian people will have to fear both Chechen rebels and the growing might of their own government. It is evident that the proposed reforms are not just the over-zealous reaction of a nation that seeks security. Mr. Putin’s government has been repeatedly linked with the violation of civil liberties. He has rendered the upper house of parliament increasingly neutral, has steadily suffocated Russia’s free press and he persecutes those

whom he deems threatening. The most prominent example has been Mr. Putin’s assault on the oil giant, Yukos: its billionaire tycoon, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, now sits in jail on trumped up charges reminiscent of Soviet days. Mr. Khodorkovsky’s “crime” was that he supported Russian liberals who oppose the president’s rule. Mr. Putin’s murderous ways have been starkly apparent for several years. Since the days of Joseph Stalin, no Russian president has been as steadfast as Mr. Putin in systematically crushing breakaway ethnic minorities. The Russian campaign in Chechnya has been prosecuted with more vigor than ever before: it is in fact a modern-day genocide. Even more ominous is the declaration by the foreign minister that the Russians too will now use the pre-emptive doctrine against any neighboring country that they deem dangerous. Is this setting the stage for another round of Russian expansion? The Bush administration has not been vociferous in its condemnation of Mr. Putin’s actions. The administration cannot alienate the Russian giant in an era in which allies are scarce, and the war on terror must take precedence. However, Mr. Putin’s actions in Chechnya augment the very terrorist networks that President Bush is trying to defeat. The failure of the international community to come to the assistance of the Chechens has resulted in radicalizing their movement: many Chechens now despise not only Russia but also the Western governments who coddle Mr. Putin. Thus, Chechen rebels are increasingly forging alliances with Muslim terrorists. Ironically, however, by supporting Mr. Putin despite his bloody acts, the Bush administration has acted contrary to its own interests in the war against terror. The situation is even more troublesome when one considers the widespread nuclear proliferation in that region. An alliance of desperate Chechens, al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction can have far more deadly consequences than the fumbling nuclear program of a half-crazed www.riponsoc.org

dictator in Iraq. Yet, if re-elected the Bush administration will be at a loss to solve this problem. On the one hand, if the administration continues to support Mr. Putin, the Russian president might be able to forge a security system that — while it stifles democracy — achieves a tenuous stability and keeps WMDs out of the hands of terrorists. On the other hand, American support for a man who cannot be trusted is reminiscent of the pact that Roosevelt and Churchill made with Stalin in World War II: “The Man of Steel” was useful in the Allied campaign against the Nazis but he then unleashed his own brand of terror upon Eastern Europe and became the West’s Public Enemy Number One. The Bush administration is already beginning to regret its unspoken bargain with Mr. Putin. And it is dubious that American leaders will be able to do anything to reverse Russia’s trajectory down the same totalitarian road it has traveled before. Hope for Russian democracy rests in Western journalists who continue to shine a spotlight on the government’s misdeeds. As a result, in an age of global communication, Russian propaganda will have limited effect on its citizens. Ultimately, however, the Russian people must resist these assaults on their freedom: they must act quickly to oust Mr. Putin from an office whose public trust he has violated. — Grace Vuoto is the foreign policy editor of The Ripon Forum and a professor of history at Howard University Ripon Forum • Winter 2004

Partners W for a Healthy America

e need to work together to make sure that Americans have the information they need to make healthy lifestyle choices. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s why the Grocery Manufacturers of America is a founding member of the American Council for Fitness & Nutrition. ACFN collaborates with health professionals, educators, governments, policy makers and consumers on lasting approaches to reducing obesity. ACFN supports:

Providing parents, teachers and children with information and resources to empower them to make the best lifestyle choices about physical activity and nutrition.

Increasing physical activity for every American, with an emphasis on giving students in every school the opportunity to engage in 30 minutes of physical activity every day.

Improving the communication of nutrition information and distribution of education materials for parents, teachers and community-based programs.

In addition to supporting ACFN, GMA members are offering more healthy, nutritious foods, providing better nutrition information to consumers and re-doubling our efforts to ensure that we are marketing responsibly. The food and beverage industry is doing its part in the fight against obesity, and we are committed to helping others do their part. You can do yours by learning more about ACFN at www.acfn.org.

Join the Republican Revolution The Ripon Society is one of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leading public policy and research organizations, dedicated to advancing the principles of responsible government, equality of opportunity for all citizens and winning the war on global terrorism. Join us as we promote many of the key ideas and political strategies that will be pivotal to the Republican agenda during this election year. For cutting-edge news commentaries and the latest information on upcoming Ripon events, visit our new Web site at www.riponsoc.org. At our Web site you can update your membership with The Ripon Society and read The Ripon Forum online.

The Ripon Society 1300 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 202-216-1008

The

Ripon Forum 1300 L Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005

www.riponsoc.org

PERIODICALS POSTAGE

PENDING AT WASHINGTON D.C.