I have been reading a history of part of the Cold War. Dwight Eisenhower was president, he is meeting his Cabinet sometimes in this room where we are sitting. The Soviet Union has emerged as a major nuclear threat. The country is very worried at this point in the 1950s. But Eisenhower is convinced that they are not that strong, that the United States is stronger, that the U.S. will win if we just avoid a huge war. And he decides to try to reassure the public, gives a series of speeches, saying keep your chin up, everything's fine, our strategy is working. The public does not believe him. He is accused of a failure of leadership, and his approval rating goes down. Are you going through the same experience now with regard to ISIS? Well, I tell you, first of all, I was not the Supreme Allied Commander helping to defeat Hitler, so he had a little credibility that he was working with. ISIS is a virulent, nasty organization that has gained a foothold in ungoverned spaces effectively in Syria and parts of western Iraq. We have to take it seriously. They have shown in Paris what they can do in an organized fashion, and in San Bernardino what we have seen is their ability to proselytize for their perverted brand of Islam and spur small-scale terrorist attacks. We are pounding ISIL's core structure in Syria and Iraq. We have put together a coalition that is increasingly effective. We have seen ISIL lose about 40 percent of its populated territory in the region, and both in terms of homeland security and in terms of our efforts over there, I am confident that we are going to prevail. But it is also important for us to keep things in perspective, and this is not an organization that can destroy the United States. This is not a huge industrial power that can pose great risks to us institutionally or in a systematic way. But they can hurt us, and they can hurt our people and our families. The most damage they can do, though, is if they start changing how we live and what our values are, and part of my message over the next 14 months or 13 months that I remain in office is to just make sure that we remember who we are and make sure that our resilience, our values, our unity are maintained. If we do that, then ISIL will be defeated. What is the public missing about your strategy?

Interview with Steve Inskeep of National Public Radio


And I say that simply because, according to polls, you do not have very much approval for it. Well, I think what is fair is that post-Paris you had a saturation of news about the horrible attack there. And ISIL combines viciousness with very savvy media operations. And as a consequence, if you have been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you. And so I understand why people are concerned about it, and this is a serious situation, but what is important is for people to recognize that the power, the strength of the United States and its allies are not threatened by an organization like this; in the same way that al-Qaida was able to carry out one spectacular attack we ended up making some significant changes to harden homeland defenses. It then took awhile for us to ultimately snuff out core al-Qaida in the FATA, and there are still lingering remnants, but at no point was there ever a sense that in fact it could do catastrophic damage to us. You referred to ISIL's sophisticated media operation and also referred to what Americans are seeing in the American media. Are you suggesting that the media are being played in a sense here? Look, the media is pursuing ratings. I think that, you know, it is up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things. There is no doubt that the actions of ISIL are designed to amplify their power and the threat that they pose. That helps them recruit, that adds in the twisted thoughts of some young person that they might want to have carry out an action, that somehow they are part of a larger movement. And so I think that the American people absorb that, understandably are of concern. Now on our side, I think that there is a legitimate criticism of what I have been doing and our administration has been doing in the sense that we have not , you know, on a regular basis I think described all the work that we have been doing for more than a year now to defeat ISIL.


And so if people have not seen the fact that in fact 9,000 strikes have been carried out against ISIL, if they do not know that towns like Sinjar that were controlled by ISIL have been taken back, or that a town like Tikrit, that was controlled by ISIL, now has been repopulated by previous residents, then they might feel as if there is not enough of a response. And so part of our goal here is to make sure that people are informed about all the actions that we are taking. But one of the interesting things that you have seen evolve over the last several weeks, including in the debates that are taking place between the Republican candidates, is that those who are critics of our administration response, or the military, the intelligence response that we are currently mounting, when you ask them, well, what would you do instead, they do not have an answer. And the reason they do not have an answer is because the truth is that the approach that we are taking is one that is based on the best counsel and best advice of our top military, top intelligence, top diplomatic teams. And we are going after ISIL effectively. We are going after them hard. Your critics have said they want to use more force. You have sometimes responded by suggesting that people who want to use more force want another Iraq War and that that is not practical. Well, when you listen to them, though, and you ask, well, what exactly are you talking about? Well, we are going to bomb more. Where is it that you are going to bomb? When you talk about something like carpet-bombing, what do you mean? We carry out precision strikes based on intelligence of where ISIL is, where their infrastructure is, where their oil tankers are. And if the suggestion is is that we kill tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent Syrians and Iraqis, that is not who we are and that would be a strategy that would have enormous backlash against the United States. It would be terrible for our national security. And, you know, unfortunately many of these critics can get away with just suggesting that bombing more, or being less discriminant in how we approach that, would make a difference. Let me put it this way. I trust my commanders, folks who have fought long and hard in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, when they describe to me, here is how we are going to gather intelligence, here is how we are going to approach targeting.


We have been at this for a long time in Afghanistan, Iraq, and places like Somalia and Yemen, where we have gone after terrorist targets. And the key is to make sure that we have got sound intelligence. And I make no apologies for us wanting to do this appropriately and in a way that is consistent with American values. Are you avoiding more force because you are concerned that even a little more force might call for the demand for even more force, and you would end up with a large war? What is interesting is that most of the critics have not called for ground forces. To his credit, I think Lindsey Graham is one of the few who has been at least honest about suggesting here is something I would do that ENTITY is not doing. He does not just talk about being louder or sounding tougher in the process. But as I explained, and I have tested this repeatedly with our military intelligence folks, when you start looking at an Iraq-type deployment of large numbers of troops - 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 troops - we are now in a situation in which we are committing ourselves not only to going door to door in places like Mosul and Raqqa, which I am confident that we could do, but we have essentially said to the Iraqis and the Syrians that we are going to govern for you. And that ends up being of an indefinite period. So part of what we have to do for a sustained defeat of ISIL is to help local forces develop capacity, do it the right way, do it for themselves with our assistance and our help, so that we can actually create a stable government structure in this region. Now that sometimes requires more patience than simply deploying a bunch of Marines. Our fighting forces are the best in the world, but in order to defeat an enemy like this, what we have to do is have a situation in which people can govern. You have acknowledged this requires patience. In October, before San Bernardino, a Justice Department official stated that he believed that domestic terrorists were a greater threat to the United States than international groups like al-Qaida or ISIS. Do you believe that still now, after San Bernardino and Paris? I do not know the exact citation that you are referring to. If you just look at the numbers, then non-Islamic, non-foreign-motivated terrorist actions have killed at least as many Americans on American soil as those who were promoted by jihadists.


But what we have also seen is ISIL evolve, because of the sophistication of their social media, to a point where they may be inspiring more attacks, even if they are self-initiated, even if they do not involve complex planning, than we would have seen two years ago, three years ago, five years ago. The Fort Hood attack was inspired by Anwar Awlaki, who was with AQAP, al-Qaida in the Peninsula or in Yemen, and we have seen periodically self-radicalization through the Internet or jihadist propaganda. But ISIL is more systematic and more effective in their media, in their online presence, and that raises additional concerns. So part of what we have to do in response is to ramp up countering that narrative online, working with local communities to make sure that we are inoculating ourselves and our young people from this kind of recruitment. It is a more complicated problem because of the fact that a couple like the San Bernardino couple, you do not see in a way that you would see an organization that is planning a complex plot like 9/11. So in that sense we have some new dangers, some new concerns that we have to deal with. It is something that we have known could happen for quite some time, and it is something that, as I said over at the National Counterterrorism Center today when I visited, it is something that we have got some incredibly effective intelligence folks working on every single day. Leading candidates in both parties have suggested in one way or another that they want to be more active against this threat. You have argued for the approach that you are taking and that too much action would be unwise. What advice would you give whoever you are going to turn this room over to in a year or so? Again, I would just repeat, ENTITY, that when you really sort through all the rhetoric, the notion more active or a stronger response ... Hillary Clinton spoke about no-fly zones. There are basically two things that I have heard people say. You bomb ISIL. You are not trying to bomb innocent people. And that requires intelligence and confidence in our military to be able to develop the kinds of targets that we need. We are already doing special forces who are going to help us gather that intelligence and help advise and assist and train local forces so that they can go after ISIL in areas like Raqqa and Mosul.


The other new thing that people have suggested would be some variation of the no-fly zone or a safe zone. This is something we have been talking about for three or four years. The challenge there is that ISIL does not have an air force, so the damage done there is not against ISIL, it is against the Syrian regime. And what is absolutely true is that we need to make sure that we bring about an end to the civil war in Syria, and John Kerry, through the work he is been doing in Vienna negotiations and this week in New York, is seeing some progress in bringing Russians and Iranians together but creating a safe zone for Syrian refugees. We have tested, we have looked at repeatedly, the problem is that, again, without a large number of troops on the ground, it is hard to create a safe zone like that. And that does not solve the ISIL problem. My point is, ENTITY, that I think my main advice to my successor - now hopefully by the time I turn over the keys, we have made the kind of progress that I am expecting and will have pushed for over the course of the next 13 months ... Do you think there will be a united front against ISIS by then? I think we will have made significant progress in degrading ISIL by then. The diplomacy I think is critically important because to the extent that we can get the Syrian regime, Iran, Russia to recognize what we believe is the core threat, which is ISIL, and the disintegration of social order in Sunni-controlled areas in Iraq and Syria, the more effective and faster we can go. But what I would say to my successor is that it is important not just to shoot but to aim, and it is important in this seat to make sure that you are making your best judgments based on data, intelligence, the information that is coming from your commanders and folks on the ground, and you are not being swayed by politics. Whoever takes over this office after you might be a Democrat, might be a Republican, there may be a Republican Congress again. There likely will be a majority of Republican governors across the country, Republican state legislatures, because Democrats have lost so very many elections in the last several years. How much risk is there that they will undo large parts of your legacy, as many Republicans actually have promised to do?


Well, first of all I am confident that a Democrat will win the White House, and I think when you look at the quality of our Democratic candidates and what the Republican Party seems to be offering up, I think we will do well. Second of all, I think we have got a good chance of winning back the Senate, and the truth of the matter is is that where Democrats have had problems is we had the misfortune of doing poorly in 2010 when there was redistricting, and in many of the successive elections Democrats have actually voted at higher rates. This was true in 2012, for example. There were more Democratic ballots cast for Democratic candidates than there were Republicans, but because of where Democrats live and where Republicans live, and because of the nature of the Senate, we ended up having problems. So one of the things that I will be arguing over the course of the next year is to make sure that Democrats run an issue-based campaign on the things that we believe in and care about, and I think we have got a great track record of real progress on a whole range of fronts. If we make those arguments clearly and forthrightly and are not defensive, then I am actually confident we will do just fine. Have you insulated the climate deal, for example, which is so important to your legacy, from being undone by future presidents, given that many of the commitments you made in Paris are not legally binding? Well, keep in mind that the Republican Party in the United States is perhaps literally the only major party in the developed world that is still engaging in climate denial. Even far-right parties in other places acknowledge that the science shows that temperatures are going up and that that is a really dangerous thing we have got to do something about. And the deal that we struck in Paris was an example of American leadership at its best. We were able to mobilize 200 countries to make serious commitments that are transparent, where every country is going to be held accountable, where everybody chips in, and it does not solve the entire problem, but it puts the world on track to deal with a problem that could be monumental in its effect if we do not do something about it. Now, the Republican Party right now is still resistant to it, but I am confident that given the progress we can make with the clean power plant rule that reduces carbon emissions through our power plants ... Which dozens of Republican governors are suing.


Well, they oppose, but it is under the Clean Air Act and we are confident that it is within our power. I think that the signal that we are sending to the private sector, that will in turn invest heavily in solar and wind and battery technologies, the doubling of fuel efficiency standards on cars, all these things start taking on a momentum of their own. And we have seen this since I came into office. Since my inauguration, the amount of wind power has tripled, the amount of solar power has gone up by 20 times. We have seen the costs of clean energy go down much faster than any of us anticipated. So they cannot stop you? And when we decide - what it means is that by the time that even a Republican president came into office, what you would have seen would be a growing realization that not only should we do something about climate change, but it is not only a challenge, it is also an opportunity, that it is creating jobs, that it is making a difference in people's lives, that consumers are saving money. When I doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars, that puts money in people's pockets. When you retrofit a building so that it is got better temperature control and you cut your light bill by 20 percent, 30 percent, you know what? In fact, when it comes to solar power, you have got this weird coalition between environmentalists and Tea Party-ers in some Western states because the traditional dirty fuel industry is trying to prevent greater utilization of solar power. So a lot of these things get institutionalized not just through government policy but through the impact that it has on the marketplace and the private sector. ENTITY, we are nearing the end of a year where the question of national identity, who we are, has been a part of one large event after another. I made a list here, in fact. All of them in some sense touch on that question of who we are. What is the reason, the cause, what has caused that issue of who we are to come forward again and again and again at this moment in history? That is at the center of the American experience. You pick any year or any decade in American history, and this question has been wrestled with. Sometimes it pops up a little more prominently, sometimes it gets tamped down a little bit, but this has been true since the founding and the central question of slavery and who is a citizen and who is not.


It was a debate that took place when, you know, there were signs on the doors saying no Irish need apply. It was a debate that happened during Japanese internment in World War II. It was obviously a debate in the South for most of our history and during the civil rights movement. And it is been a debate that we have been having around issues of the LGBT community for at least most of my adult life. So I do not think there is anything new about it. I do think that the country is inexorably changing, I believe in all kinds of positive ways. I think we are - when I talk to my daughters and their friends, I think they are more tolerant, more welcoming of people who are different than them, more sophisticated about different cultures and what is happening around the world. But I do think that when you combine that demographic change with all the economic stresses that people have been going through because of the financial crisis, because of technology, because of globalization, the fact that wages and incomes have been flatlining for some time, and that particularly blue-collar men have had a lot of trouble in this new economy, where they are no longer getting the same bargain that they got when they were going to a factory and able to support their families on a single paycheck you combine those things and it means that there is going to be potential anger, frustration, fear. Some of it justified but just misdirected. I think somebody like Mr. Trump is taking advantage of that. That is what he is exploiting during the course of his campaign. But in other cases, an issue like Black Lives Matter and the question of whether, you know, the criminal justice system applies equally to everybody, that is been an issue in the African-American community, and to some degree in the Latino community, for decades. There is no black family that has not had a conversation around the kitchen table about driving while black and being profiled or being stopped. I think really what is changed over the last several years is the pervasiveness of smartphones and the visuals that suddenly have sparked a conversation about how we can deal with it. And although it is uncomfortable sometimes, I actually think that over the long term it is how, in Dr. King's word, you get a disinfectant by applying sunlight to it, and people see, you know what?


This is a true problem, and as a consequence we have been able to have conversations that might not have happened 20, 30, 40 years ago, with police chiefs who genuinely want to do the right thing, law enforcement who recognize that they are going to be able to deal with crime more effectively if they have got the trust of the communities. You know, during that process there is going to be some noise and some discomfort, but I am absolutely confident that over the long term, it leads to a fair, more just, healthier America. Let me follow up on a couple of things you mentioned. You mentioned slavery. Among the many protests this year are two small but symbolically interesting ones at Ivy League universities. At your alma mater, Harvard Law, there is a seal for the school that is based on the family crest of a slave owner. At Yale there is a school named after John C. Calhoun, who was a great defender of slavery. The call is to get rid of those symbols. You know, as ENTITY of the United States I probably do not need to wade into every specific controversy at a ... But you can do it. But here is what I will say generally. I think it is a healthy thing for young people to be engaged and to question authority and to ask why this instead of that, to ask tough questions about social justice. So I do not want to discourage kids from doing that. As I have said before, I do think that there have been times on college campuses where I get concerned that the unwillingness to hear other points of view can be as unhealthy on the left as on the right, and that, you know ... Meaning listen to people that you might initially think are bigoted or ... Yes, there have been times where you start seeing on college campuses students protesting somebody like the director of the IMF or Condi Rice speaking on a campus because they do not like what they stand for. If somebody does not believe in affirmative action, they may disagree - you may disagree with them. I disagree with them, but have an argument with them. It is possible for somebody not to be racist and want a just society but believe that that is something that is inconsistent with the Constitution. But let kids ask questions and let universities respond. What I do not want is a situation in which particular points of view that are presented respectfully and reasonably are shut down, and we have seen that sometimes happen.


And you mentioned Donald Trump taking advantage of real anxieties in the country but that the anxieties are real. Some of that anxiety, as you know, focuses on you, ENTITY. And I want to set aside the politicians for a moment and just talk about ordinary voters. Do you feel over seven years that you have come to understand why it is that some ordinary people in America believe or fear that you are trying to change the country in some way that they cannot accept? Well, look, if what you are asking me, ENTITY, is are there certain circumstances around being the first African-American ENTITY that might not have confronted a previous president, absolutely. I do not know if that is all of it. I am sure that is not all of it ... You could answer it anyway you want. Well, you are asking a pretty broad question. I do not know where to take it, so if you want to narrow it down, I can. If what you are suggesting is is that, you know, somebody questioning whether I was born in the United States or not, how do I think about that, I would say that that is something that is actively promoted and may gain traction because of my unique demographic. But maybe you have got something else in mind. Years ago you made that remark, you were much criticized for saying something about people clinging to guns and religion. And although you were criticized for the phrasing of that, it seemed to me that you were attempting to figure out, what is it that people are thinking, what is it that is bothering people? Now you have had several more years to think about that. Well, keep in mind, ENTITY, I was elected twice by decent majorities. So the fact of the matter is that in a big country like this there is always going to be folks who are frustrated, do not like the direction of the country, are concerned about ENTITY. Some of them may not like my policies, some of them may just not like how I walk, or my big ears or, you know. So, I mean, no politician I think aspires to 100 percent approval ratings.


If you are referring to specific strains in the Republican Party that suggest that somehow I am different, I am Muslim, I am disloyal to the country, etc., which unfortunately is pretty far out there and gets some traction in certain pockets of the Republican Party, and that have been articulated by some of their elected officials, what I'd say there is that that is probably pretty specific to me and who I am and my background, and that in some ways I may represent change that worries them. But that is not to suggest that everybody who objects to my policies may not have perfectly good reasons for it. If you are living in a town that historically has relied on coal and you see coal jobs diminishing, you probably are going to be more susceptible to the argument that I have been wiping out the economy in your area. It does not matter if I tell them actually it is probably because natural gas is a lot cheaper now so it does not pay to build coal plants. If somebody tells you that this is because of ENTITY's war on coal, well, you know, that is an argument you may be sympathetic to. So as I said, you asked a pretty open-ended question. I think you were being a little coy in how you asked it. I am trying to give you room to answer. No, I understand, but what I am saying is that I think that there is always going to be, every president, a certain cohort that just does not like your policies, does not like your party, what have you. I think if you are talking about the specific virulence of some of the opposition directed towards me, then, you know, that may be explained by the particulars of who I am. On the other hand, I am not unique to that. I always try to remind people that, goodness, if you look at what they said about Jefferson or Lincoln or FDR - finding reasons not to like ENTITY, that is , you know, a well-traveled path here in this country.


Would you assess the budget and deficit talks for us right now? Are you close to a deal? Well, I think we are moving in the right direction. As I have said consistently, we have to raise the debt ceiling so that we preserve the full faith and credit of the United States of America. But we also have to solve the underlying problem which is we have been spending more money than we have been taking in and that is creating debt deficits and debt that date back to 2000. The last time we had a balanced budget was when Bill Clinton was president. And so what I have said is we need a balanced approach, we have got to cut spending that is unnecessary, we have got to eliminate waste and fraud and abuse, but we also have to make sure we have got revenues to pay for things like student loan programs, make sure that our seniors are taken care of, and yesterday what we saw was Republican senators along with Democratic senators in a bipartisan way both saying that we need to cut spending, including on some entitlement programs, but we also have to add more revenues. And that kind of balanced approach I think offers a way out of this dilemma and hopefully stabilizing the economy in a way that will help us create jobs here in America. Let us move to the economy for a moment here, Ohio's economy in particular. Manufacturing helped build our state. What do you do to revive that part of our economy in Ohio when those jobs continue to fade away? Well, I have to say the recovery has been obviously slower than we would like and we are doing everything we can to accelerate hiring. Manufacturing has actually been a bright spot in this recovery. We have actually seen more growth faster in manufacturing than in the rest of the economy. Now part of that is the work that we did in the auto industry, which is obviously very important to Ohio. We were about to see the liquidation of Chrysler and GM, they have come roaring back, they are now making a profit; they are actually increasing market share. Part of it is restructuring and better management but part of it is also starting to look at what are the products of the future? How can we build cars that are fuel efficient, how can we win the race for electric cars? Advanced battery manufacturing, the batteries that are used in electric cars, we have gone from a two-percent share of the worldwide market now to 30, 40 percent potentially over the next five years of the worldwide market.

Interview With Jerry Revish of WBNS 10TV News in Columbus, Ohio


And those are all good paying jobs in Ohio, in Michigan in areas that have traditionally had a outstanding manufacturing track-record. You know how important Ohio was to your election, what is your strategy to win the state over in 2012? You know, I am not thinking about elections I am thinking about all the families that I hear back from in Ohio and across the country who are, you know, struggling, maybe a spouse has lost a job, they used to have two paychecks, now they got one, trying to make ends meet. Their housing situation has not stabilized so they still have mortgages that may be worth or higher than what the house is worth. You know, young people who are trying to figure out how to afford college, so that is what motivates me on a day to day basis and my attitude is that if we are taking the right steps to improve our education system, if we are rebuilding our infrastructure, our roads and our bridges and putting people back to work, especially construction workers who've been laid off, if we are getting our fiscal house in order, if we are investing in research and development for the kind of advanced manufacturing we just talked about, and the economy's growing, then politics will take care of itself. And that is going to be true in Ohio, that is going to be true across the country. You nominated Richard Cordray earlier this week. Senate Republicans say they will fight that nomination unless you can make the bureau more transparent and accountable, is there room for compromise to win his nomination? Well, first of all, let us dispel this notion that somehow this agency is not accountable or transparent, it is completely transparent and completely accountable. It is working for consumers. The idea here is that we are going for the first time have a consolidated agency who is only job is to make sure that consumers are not getting ripped off when it comes to applying for mortgages, applying for credit cards, any financial transaction, they are not having to wade through a bunch of fine print finding that their interest rates are getting jacked up after they have already signed an agreement, and Rich Cordray is a perfect candidate for this job.


Do you feel like Daniel in the mouth of the lion's den? You and talk radio these days seem to have this running battle. We were talking before we went on the air; I really have always enjoyed talk radio and I have done a lot of it, particularly when I was Governor, and in my campaign I did a lot. I find that there is a certain immediacy to it that I like. I like the interviews and I like people being able to call in a question. George Stephanopoulos was here earlier, and he says in his view-and I assume he mirrors your own-your accomplishments in your first almost 2 years as President have not gotten through the screen of the media to the American people. Do you feel any sense of isolation here in terms of what you like, you have told us, that sort of one-on-one relationship with constituents? Part of it is the demanding nature of the job and the fact that Washington, DC, and its inner workings are a long way from the average life of most Americans. And part of it is the way news is reported today. News basically tends to be-a lot of studies have shown that the way news is reported tends to be more negative and more editorial, more commentary rather than what is going on. A lot of the research shows that the American people are surprised to find out that in 1993, for example, I had more success in getting a very big program through Congress, with the economic program and NAFTA and family leave, the Brady bill, than any President since the end of World War II except President Eisenhower's first year and President Johnson's second year. So we are doing well here, I think, in moving forward in an extremely contentious environment. And I just have to find ways to communicate better with the American people not only what we are doing wrong-the press will tell them that-but also what we are doing right and where we are going. From your side of the table, what is the nature of that contentious environment? I know that you, yourself, have pointed to a deep cynicism on the part of the American people. You feel in some respects the media drives that cynicism. I mean, Jefferson said, Americans have the power; from time to time they give it to folks like yourself to exercise for them. And the first amendment ends with, and they will always have a direct route for the redress of grievances.

Interview With Gene Burns of WOR Radio, New York City


A lot of Americans do not think they have that direct route. I agree with that. I was reading this morning, interestingly enough, James Madison's Federalist Papers. And he was arguing why a republican form of government, meaning representative form of government, was better for big countries, that you had to elect representatives and then they'd do what they thought was right. Then they'd report back, be held accountable, and be elected or defeated by the voters. I think today there is so much-there is a lot of information about what we are doing up here, but I do not think there is a lot of basic understanding that we impart. And I think that voters know that too many decisions get made here on the basis of organized interest which may or may not be the same as the public interest. And I think that at a time of real change, when people are uncertain about where we are going, it is just easy for negative impulses, for fears, for cynicism to overcome hopes in looking toward the future. I also believe, and many astute people in the press have pointed this out lately, that voters themselves feel a certain ambivalence. That is, they want us to do things up here. I got elected to take action, to deal with the economy, to deal with crime, to deal with the breakdown of family, to promote welfare reform, to deal with the health care crisis. But people still basically are very skeptical about the Government's ability to do it. So we want, in a way, a Government that is more active but basically that is active in empowering the private sector to do things, rather than active in doing things directly. And a lot of times that explains the apparently contradictory feelings people have about what we are doing here, that they want us to be active and address the problems but they do not necessarily trust the Government to do it. Or as we say at home, a lot of people think Government would mess up a one-car parade. You are a student of history. Do you think that is because Camelot was illusory in the last analysis, that it is a mythical thing and that people are disappointed with both the Congress and various holders of your office? I think, first of all, the American people have always, always had a deep-seated skepticism about government generally and especially their National Government. I think that we have also been told for years that government was bad.


And I think that we need a clearer definition; this is partly my job. I have got to do a better job of telling the American people in very clear terms, often through a fog of people, you know, disagreeing with me or with my characterization of it-I have got to do a better job of saying, okay, look, here is what we can do, here are our problems, here are our opportunities, here is what the National Government should do and here is what we cannot do, here is the partnership we have to have. That is what I called my new Democratic philosophy when I ran in 1992. I share what I think is the feeling of a majority of our fellow citizens, that the government should be limited in many ways and that government should do those things which it is required to do but no more than it is required to do. The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that Al From of the Democratic leadership conference just sent you a big memo, five or six pages long. I am not trying to invade your private correspondence, but one of the things they say he said to you was, rightly or wrongly, you have become too identified with liberal causes on Capitol Hill and therefore do not appear to some of the people who supported you initially as this centrist Democrat, which you said you were. And I think some of that may be my fault in terms of characterization. But if you look at what we have actually done, if you look at the economic program that I have put in place, it is bringing the deficit down for 3 years in a row, it is reducing the Federal Government by 272,000-certainly not a traditional liberal thing to do-to the smallest Federal Government we have had since Kennedy was President We are taking all the savings and putting it into the fight against crime, which is basically money to people at the grassroots local level. We are addressing the issues like welfare reform partly with tax cuts for working families with lower incomes and tougher child support enforcement-not traditional liberal programs. I think what happened was, more than anything else, the health care program has been characterized as a big Government program, even though it took what, at the time I proposed it, was the moderate course, which is not having a Government-financed health care program but simply having a program in which the Government requires everybody to buy private insurance and then gives tax breaks or discounts to people who cannot afford it on their own.


And every time we have sought to compromise, the other guys have always moved kind of further and further to the right. But I think that the health care debate more than anything else-we have had $140 million now spent in lobbying and advertising on health care by organized interests, the largest amount in American history, far more than was spent by the candidates in the Presidential campaign last time. When that happened, I think that that-I have been portrayed as sort of the apostle of big Government. I am about reinventing Government. I am trying to bring the Federal Government down. My Republican predecessors never attempted to do anything as ambitious as reducing the Federal Government to its smallest size in 30 years. I have fought for things that Democrats often do not fight for, including all these trade agreements to expand trade. I have fought to put the Government in partnership with our business interests overseas. Yesterday, just to give you a little example, we announced that for the first time in over 20 years, farmers in the Pacific Northwest will be able to sell their apples in Japan. For the first time ever, farmers in California are selling rice in Japan. These are the things that I have worked on. But there are some things that I believe- and this is worth debating-that the Government has to do. And when we have to do something, it should be as limited and efficient as possible. But there are some things that if we do not do it, it will not get done. Well, Mr. President, on the lobbying money, John Connally spent $10 million because he wanted to be President of the United States, and it was all wasted money, as we both know.  from my home State. I know her. I know her well. So all of this money being spent by the special interests on health care, which has to be conceded has been spent, is not going to get a warm reception unless there is a general fear of the growth of Government in the first place. I agree with that. I think-one of the things that Al From said to me with the Democratic Leadership Council-not in this memo, but I think it captures in one sentence the dilemma I face as President in trying to move into a post-coldwar world and take this country into the 21st century with a strategy for growth and opportunity, where the Government is not either just sitting on the sidelines or trying to solve problems but is being a partner with the American people


Can you answer a quick about the $20 billion? When are we going to get it, and why does there seem a reluctance- The $20 billion needs to come to New York. And that is $20 billion, by the way, not including the Victims' Compensation Fund. And I look forward to working with the New York delegation, the Governor, and the mayor to make sure that the Liberty Zone and the Liberty Bonds become reality. Now, that is one way for us to help New York rebuild herself, and a vital part of our economy and economic growth is to have a vibrant New York City. A lot of it has already come; there is more to come. And I look forward to working in a way to get it done. Have you had any chance to talk to Mitch Daniels and say, Be a little nicer to New York ? No, Mitch understands my pledge. He understands what I said- when I said $20 billion, I meant $20 billion. And I am the kind of fellow who does what I say I am going to do. And I think it is important for the country to know that a vibrant New York City is vital for our economy. We have got to have a strong New York City. It is not only a part of our economic scene at home, it is important for New York to be strong for international reasons, as well. And so I look forward to working with the mayor and the Governor to make sure we get this done. One answer on that is, at the minimum they need to take care of the workers, at the very minimum. And therefore, I believe we still need to provide stimulus for economic growth so that there is jobs. People need work. And everything Congress ought to do is to take care of those who've lost their jobs but also recognize that people want more than an unemployment check; they want a steady paycheck. How do we create jobs so people can find work? You are asking the wrong man. I am in the executive branch of Government.

Exchange With Reporters in New York City


You have had a rather strong attack from Speaker O'Neill where the budget is concerned. How do you respond to that? Well, I think that possibly Tip is speaking from the always present leaks and from maybe some of the things that he is been reading. But he only yesterday received the budget itself. And I know yesterday morning in a conversation we had, he raised some points about the need for job training and some things of that kind, and we were able to point out to him that we would be very happy to talk with him about that after he is read what was already in our budget proposal. Does that indicate you could compromise on the jobs issue? I think you always sit down and see where you can come together on something that will be beneficial to the people. We think that he will be pleasantly surprised when he sees the direction we have taken on the budget. How far would you be willing to go for jobs programs? Well, we think that it is far more important to stress the idea of training, because we think there are a lot of people unemployed today at a time when there are jobs available. The increase in the advertising of employers seeking workers in all of the metropolitan papers in the country indicates that. The Democrats seem to want more. Well, I think some of them are thinking more in terms of the public work types of jobs, and that is not going to restore the economy and get the wheels turning again, which has to be the longtime answer to the problem. Evidence of that was our own passage or request for the 5-cent tax to rebuild the deteriorating highway and bridge system in this country. Is there anything else along those lines that you are considering? This is something to look at and, many instances, see where it could fit in with job creation. You have had people in your own party such as Baker and Michel raising a possibility that you will have to cut defense a little bit more than you have been willing to do. Can you go along with that? No, and I think if they will if everyone will hold their fire until they understand the situation, they will see that we voluntarily have been making some reductions based on management improvements, the reduction of inflation, so that the original plan that we submitted in 1981, the 5-year buildup, has been reduced already by some $58 billion. And the bulk of that was voluntary reduction by the Defense Department.

Interview With Jerry Boyd of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Domestic and Foreign Policy Issues


I one day told Cap, I was joking, but I told Cap I said, Cap, you have got all those savings; you should play politics. You should leave them in the budget and then reluctantly give them up when they start telling you to cut the budget. Well, if people like Baker and Michel do not hold their fire, what are you going to do? Well, I am going to have to fight back, because, first of all, the bulk of the defense budget is for personnel and readiness. We have men and women in uniform in our volunteer military that a couple of years ago, it was a disgrace. We were acting as if we were still in a war and they were draftees. Those with families found themselves eligible for welfare. Now we have increased the pay for those people to something comparable with what they are doing. And yet even here, in this budget, we are asking them to make a sacrifice and not take a cost-of-living pay raise, as we are asking the civilian employees. And I regret that very much, that we have to do that, because we are just getting them up to something that is fair, at least. Now, that leaves, if they are going to cut, they are going to have to cut in weapons systems, and these are the least of the spending. You will get very little savings in proportion to the deficit we are trying to hold down if you wiped out all the vehicles and all the airplanes and even the reserve ammunition that we are seeking to buy, to say nothing of ships and planes. There are some people who say, on the deficit issue, that you have intentionally been rather overly cautious and that you expect a much rosier picture down the road, and therefore you will not have as high deficits. Well, what we are trying to do because we do not want to get engaged in a debate up on the Hill that we are as is sometimes in the past they have tried to do-their saying that we were coming up with rosy estimates. And to get in that argument, what we have to look at is that among all the experts, all those who project economic estimates, there is a wide range of difference. Now, you cannot say some are more expert than others; so you have to say there is real leeway in there. So, we have looked at what the most pessimistic say about the recovery, what the most optimistic say.


And then we have tried to come down at a point that is neither at the bottom or at the top, but that recognizes what might be, based on history, a fair assumption of where it will turn out. What do you believe, though? I actually think that we are being conservative and being modest with I happen to be an optimist, and I believe that some of the signs, the indications, the fact that there is a stored-up market out there with just one figure, has to do with where we are visiting today. A few years ago, the average length of time that people drove an automobile before they bought a new one was a little over 3 years. Today the average age of the automobiles on the road is 7 years. That indicates to me that there may be more of a backed-up market that has been delayed by the high interest rates and all that, when they can and do start buying. Do you think we are into a recovery already or is it beginning? I think the recovery has begun and I have to put it that way. We have had 9 months now in which, out of the 8 of those 9 months, all the economic indicators are up. But I think the key still lies in further reduction of the interest rates. What I see you saying is, if I understand you, that you expect a lower deficit than what is included in the budget. Just being an optimist, I will stick with our assumption. But I personally have a well, let us call it a hope that it may be a firmer recovery than is estimated. Your administration has tried to make some changes in the Legal Services Corporation. And you have people on the Board of Directors who have been charging the public for some fees that raise questions. How do you feel in general about the Legal Services Corporation? Well, I am glad you asked that, because, first of all, these totally false charges that would indicate that someone is doing wrong or taking the Government ignored the fact that the commission, under the law, is paid on a consultant basis on the hours they put in. And our commission just happened to put in more hours than the previous one, because we did want some reforms in that legal system. Also, the Congress had raised the hourly rate, and that was before we got on the scene. But I saw the legal commission from a different angle when I was Governor. I saw what they did.


They were created to make necessary legal services available to people who might have a grievance that required legal redress but could not afford a lawyer. We found that more they were not doing that, the Legal Services Corporation, as much as they were seeming to drum up class-action suits against the Government and, in other words, try to use their organization to legislate reforms. And this this at the expense of those individuals who had some legitimate legal claim and needed legal help in pursuing it. On the foreign policy front, were you trying to send a new signal to the Soviet Union through Vice President Bush in West Berlin? No; frankly, I was simply responding to their vast propaganda effort that would try to discount our legitimate proposal for arms reduction. Well, there are a lot of people who say that if you are really serious about it, the thing to do is just to call for a summit with Mr. Andropov without any kind of conditions, sit down and try to work it out. Is that out of the question? No, but a summit takes a lot of organization. You do not just say, Hey, let us sit down and talk about things. You look at the history of past summits, and you see that great time has been spent on arriving at what would be a practical agenda. And now we have three teams in Geneva negotiating arms reductions and this all at our instigation. And suddenly there is a propaganda campaign that seems to be aimed at posing them as the people who want peace, and that there is somehow something wrong in our proposals. What are you trying to do about it? What would you like to do about it? Well, I just called attention to what I had said a year ago November when I proposed that we start with the intermediate weapons now aimed at Europe, and to see whether we could not arrive at a zero base where they with their, well, more than a thousand warheads targeted on Western Europe. Western Europe with no deterrent to prevent their using them had asked for us to provide a deterrent missile system. And I said that it seemed more logical to me that, if they would destroy their missiles, we would not install ours. And Western Europe and Russia would be free of that nuclear threat. You seem to be discounting any chance of a summit any time in the near future. We have been in constant communication with them; you know, we are not silent with each other.


And, no, I have announced principle, I support a summit meeting I do not want, however, something to take away from this legitimate negotiation that is going on to reduce weapons. That is why I said there is going to be a fine place for me to have a meeting with Mr. Andropov, and that would be to sign a negotiated agreement on the reduction of arms. On the Middle East, is there any reason to believe that King Hussein might agree to come into the peace process by March lst? And I believe that although, I do not know what the date would be or anything I know that well, he has been most helpful and, I think, would be prepared to do this. But I think, and I am sure he thinks, that we have got to resolve this situation in Lebanon first and get all the foreign forces to withdraw. Did you give President Mubarak any reason to believe that the situation in Lebanon might be resolved at least progress was being made in resolving it? We discussed, very openly, this, and whatever information we had for each other on the situation, we exchanged it. And he, too, believes that the beginning step must be, as we have said, the removal of the foreign forces from Lebanon. It is taking longer than I'd hoped it would take. But we have got to help Lebanon reestablish itself as a sovereign nation. There are some people out in a community called Times Beach that is had a dioxin problem and have been wondering if you would drop by to visit. You are going to Fenton, which is near Times Beach. No, this schedule does not permit that today. Did you give that any consideration? Well, we are giving full consideration to their problem out there. And we have been working very closely with the Governor and others. And we have been putting together a kind of a community program, and I think that that will be finalized within the next several days. We have increased greatly the number of laboratories to we have completed the job of taking the samples, more than 300 samples from homes, from the area, from fields and so forth. And we have increased the number of laboratories working to see exactly what the problem is and how real is the threat. Well, would not a Presidential visit there have helped to encourage the residents? How do you visit when the real thing is you are telling the people to stay away until we know whether it is dangerous or not?


Well, first of all, I do have a unique opportunity to see them, in all kinds of formal settings in my tour of Korea last December; going to the launching of the U.S.S. Harry Truman. But I have been, just in the last couple of years, in the last 2 years, on 30 different occasions with our men and women in uniform, and I see them doing national security work overseas; I see them in training operations here and overseas; I see them dealing with disaster situations. I will see some of them in Central America in the next few weeks when I go down there, dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. And the overwhelming impression that you get is that they are not only superb at what they do but that they are really good people and good citizens. That kind of teamwork that is required to pull off a military mission is something that they bring to all their work in life. I remember, I talked to a command sergeant major in Korea who can still run under a 6minute mile; he is in his late forties. And he is been in the ENTITY 29 years, and he is retiring. I said, What are you going to do when you get out? He said, I am going home to Kentucky to teach school, because I think I can do some good for those young people. So I see this. And I always try, when I am with our men and women in uniform, not only to get briefed in a formal way on what their mission is on a particular day but also to find out a little bit about their lives, how their families are doing, how many times that they have been deployed, how are they dealing with that. And whenever possible, I always try to take a meal with them, so that enables me to connect with a lot of them individually and get a real feel for what is going on. How do you feel they connect with you? What impression are you getting when they talk to you and answer your questions? Are they open with you? I think they are, I guess as open as you could ever be with someone who is in my position. I ask direct questions, and I always feel I am getting direct answers. What do you think the American citizen should know and understand about the military? Because when you and I were coming up, there was always somebody in the family who was in the military, or somebody in the neighborhood. Nowadays, we do not see them on the street.

Interview With Janet Langhart Cohen of the Armed Forces Television Network


Well, I think most Americans do know and admire the fact that we have the best military in the world. They know that we have the most high-tech equipment. I do not think Americans who are not involved in the military have any idea how rigorous most of the training schedules are and what is involved. And the third thing, maybe the most important thing in terms of this budget we are trying to push on Capitol Hill, I do not think most Americans know how tough it can be today on the families. I do not think they are aware of how with a smaller military and fewer big engagements but a lot more small ones how much deployment is involved. I do not think they understand how quickly these people have to come in from being overseas or come in from being on a ship or being in a foreign land and then turn around and go back again. I do not think the family stress thing bothers me as much as anything right now, about where we are with the military. What are some of the things that you took into account, the factors, the decisions you made on pay raise, retirement Well, they were sending us a signal. We have got a lot of people retiring, and we are having trouble meeting some of our recruitment quotas. Now, part of that is a highclass problem; it is a result of the success of the American economy. And with the unemployment rate under 4.5 percent, wages rising at twice the rate of inflation now for the last couple of years, there are so many compelling opportunities for young people outside the military that it is harder to recruit and retain. We see it in Air Force pilots, but we also see it in enlistees in the Navy and the ENTITY. We see it across the board. So it is obvious to me that we need to raise pay, and we needed to fix that so-called retirement redux problem, you know, that I believe the Congress will go along with fixing this year. Sir, with all due respect, you offered the highest budget proposal in a long time ever. But is it enough when you talk about the things we are asking of them to do? They are at the tip of the sword. I do not know how much money anybody could pay me to get me, at a moment's notice, to go to Bosnia and stay there and leave my family.


Well, I think the real question is this what we are working out with the Congress now there is sentiment in the Congress to have an entire pay increase, and I think that, from the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs to the White House, we would all support that. But we have to operate within a given budget ceiling, so we have to measure what we need to do for our troops and their families off against the absolute imperative of being able to pay for training, which is more and more expensive the more sophisticated the equipment is, the more expensive it is to train on it, which is why we developed so many computer simulations and programs and the need to continue to modernize the equipment . You do not want a bunch of equipment out there that you cannot run because you do not have spare parts, you have not kept upgraded to high safety conditions. So in the best of all worlds, is it enough? I'd like to do more. But if we are going to do more, then we need to work it out with Congress so we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. I mean, most of our men and women in uniform would like it if we invested more in them, in their families, in their quality of life, but they would not like it if, in so doing, we made it impossible for them to fulfill the mission they joined the military to perform in the first place. Well, I have been in half my adult life; I have children; I may have to educate them in college. On their pay, they cannot afford to educate their children. One of the things we helped a little at. I should point that out, I have not mentioned it the Defense Department is also working on changing the pay scales, so that the rewards will ramp up more for people who stay in longer as they reach different levels of achievement and service. And keep in mind now, the children of military personnel are eligible for all the financial benefits that we put out there for middle class families generally. I mean, now, for example, in the first 2 years of college, virtually all American families can get a $1,500 tax credit, and if you are in the 28 percent tax bracket, that is like $6,000 worth of tuition plus a dramatic increase in the scholarships, and a lowering of the cost of the student loans, and tax credits for all other higher education.


So I think that we need to make sure our military families know about all these benefits and make sure they can take advantage of them, but I think on that score they will be all right. I am more worried about just whether the pay itself and the retirement are sufficient to allow good people to feel they can stay in, take care of their children, and know they will be all right when they get out. Do you think it is enough for recruitment? While it may be enough for retention because they are already invested, can we do more on recruitment? You and I were talking before we started the interview about this new innovative program the Navy is doing, and I hope that the higher pay, plus the better retirement benefits, will make a difference in recruitment this year. On the recruitment side, the biggest problem is the rest of the economy is doing so well, and the young people we have been getting in the military we have got fairly high standards for who can get in in the first place. If you were to do a pitch right now for those we already have, what would you say as to why they should stay? Because they are certainly not in it for the money. I would say, first of all, if you stay until you have got enough time in to retire, you will still be young; you will still have a whole other career you can work. We are going to do our best to get our budget on a plane where we will be paying you better. We are going to accelerate the maintenance of quality of life, improvement of those benefits. We are going to improve the retirement system for those for whom it was a problem. And the work you are doing is profoundly important to the country. We need good people to do it. And the skills you acquire in doing it will make you even more marketable when you leave. I see people all the time getting out of the service. Maybe it is just my perspective since I am not young anymore, but you can do a lot of these people doing 25, 26, 27 years, and they are still not 50 years old yet. So they have got another 20 years or more to do something else with their lives. So I would hope that if we can make the quality of their life situation better for them, that more will choose to stay.


What would you say, sir, to the men and women serving in our hotspots, from Bosnia to the Persian Gulf to Korea, even those who are down in Central America helping with relief what would you say to them, why their missions are important, why it is important to those of us here at home? Well, first I would say that they are really the first generation of American troops to serve a United States that is both the dominant military power in the world and without a dominant military opponent, like the Soviet Union; that for 10 years now, we have been trying to work out how we can fairly fulfill our responsibilities to promote peace and freedom and prosperity, consistent with our ability to afford it and the need for our allies to assume their fair share of responsibility. And our military people have been on the cutting edge of this sea change. We have either gone into isolationism as soon as a war was over, or we got thrown into the cold war for the last 50 years, before the end of the cold war. And I would hope that they would be very proud of that, the idea that other nations would trust the United States, for example, to come into Bosnia, to deal with this crisis in Kosovo, to stand guard on the border with the U.N. troops in Macedonia, to stay in Korea decades after the end of the Korean war, because they know we have no territorial ambitions, because they know we do not seek to impose our will on other countries. They really know we are there for peace and security. And it is sometimes dangerous, sometimes boring, sometimes disruptive because of the rapid number of deployments that we have. But all of them should understand that they are part of a profound historic transformation in the world. And if we do this right, when we get through, the United States will share responsibilities for security with other democracies in a balanced and fair way and will be doing it in a way that is quite effective. I mean, one of the things that our people ought to be proud of is how effective they are in Bosnia, for example; how effective they are in the aftermath of the hurricane in Central America. Oh, I got lots of letters from Bosnia, people who I got wonderful letters from service people in Bosnia, men and women who went over there having questions about why they were going, was it worth it, was it going to be dangerous. Then they got involved with people in the communities nearby, with children.


They understood they saw the incredible tragedy of the carnage that existed before we went there. And these soldiers who write me these letters, or when I go over there the second time I went over there, telling me how proud they were; it was the right thing to do. I never will forget one prominent officer who went to Haiti, who told me, You know, when you sent us down there, I just did not know about that, but I am glad we gave those people a chance to save their country. I think that of all ranks and all walks of life, our military people, they get caught up in actually seeing what they can do. The military is the most well-organized operation in our society, so you can only imagine the contrast between going into a war zone or a society that is totally dissolved over racial or ethnic or religious hatreds. To a little child who is used to living in chaos, seeing the United States as a symbol of both order and goodness, both things, is astonishing. And what I mostly hear back from the members of the Armed Services is when they see that and they see the human reaction it evokes and they see what it does for the image of the United States in those areas, most of them are very proud to have done what they have done. You talked about Kosovo. What are we going to do? Are we going in on the ground? Are we going to be just that 10 percent of NATO, or are we going to be the dominant force? Who is going to command people who go in on the ground? Well, first of all, unless there is an agreement between both parties, we will not go in on the ground, because we did not go in on the ground in Bosnia until we had an agreement everybody had to agree because we were a peacekeeping force, not a war force designed to win a victory and then enforce the peace. But we will defend ourselves. We will have vigorous rules of engagement if necessary to defend ourselves, just as we have had in Bosnia. And the more vigorous our right to defend ourselves, the less likely it is we will ever have to do it. But anyway, to go back to the first question, the difference in this and Bosnia is that this movement reflects the continued development within Europe of security capacity and the idea that the Europeans have that they should take the lead for their own security. So this time, all we have been asked to do within NATO is to put up 14 percent of the troops.


But it is a critical 14 percent because it bolsters the confidence in our NATO allies that there really is a European alliance, number one; and number two, the Kosovar Albanians want us there, which is interesting. Most Americans did not know a thing about Kosovo or Albania until this whole thing started. But those folks knew about America. They knew about the American military, and they trust them to keep their word and do what they say they are going to do. So we will go in there if, in fact, it happens and I hope it does with only 14 percent of the force in the NATO command, working with perhaps other countries as well, like we work alongside Russians in Bosnia. That is one of the reasons that the mission has been a success. But this one reflects the continuing maturity and strength of the European capacity for selfdefense. We think that they should do more for themselves, but we also want to maintain our tie to the Europeans. Everyone lately has been talking about The Greatest Generation, from Tom Brokaw on down to Saving Private Ryan. I think this is one of the greatest generations, the men and women serving now. What would you say to them? Because I remember the day that we went to Normandy in 1994, and that had to be time for you. What would you say to the people serving now, if we look back 50 years from now, as to their contribution? Well, I would say that obviously what they are doing may not be as dramatic as landing on Omaha Beach, and I certainly hope it will not be as dangerous, ever. But what we know about World War II, looking back, is that even though after World War II there was this long twilight struggle of the cold war, it may be that World War II was the last war of mass slaughter of nation-states, certainly in Europe, because we stood up against the totalitarian dictatorships of Nazi Germany and their allies. So it was of historic significance because, in the aftermath of World War I, we hope at least that it nailed the coffin, at least in the West and other more well-developed countries, on mass warfare by nations. And huge millions and millions and millions of people died. Then the cold war, we hope, brought an end to the world being divided between communism and freedom.


But what these people are doing, and what 50 years from now their children and their grandchildren will be able to look back and see, is that they are erecting a defense for the 21st century. They are dealing with a hundred little problems, each of which could become a big problem and could swallow the world up. They are making the world safe for genuine self-determination, for freedom, for free commerce, for free exchange of ideas, in a way that no generation has ever tried to do or had to do before, because the world is so interconnected and one of these little problems can become a forest fire and spread around. So they really I think 50 years from now, when they look back, they will see that they did not bring an end to an era of slaughter the way the World War II generation did, with heroism and great sacrifice, but they did put America's military might to work in building a new world, which is something that I think their children and grandchildren will be very, very proud of. And there is no doubt that the United States could not have done it by economic power alone. Without our military alliances, without the expansion of NATO, without the deployment in Bosnia, without our ability to continue to try to stop bad things from happening and weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, without our willingness to stay on the Korean Peninsula to try to stabilize situations there and work through the other tensions in Asia, we would not have been able to do this. And if people in my position, the decisionmakers, if we do not mess it up, then the military will know that they were part of literally building the world different from any in all previous history. The recent mission that we had was Desert Fox. And we were fortunate at Christmas to be on the Big E, on the U.S.S. Enterprise, and we met a lot of the Navy pilots, and some of them were women. Could you talk about that? You know, we have had now, for a few years, women in combat pilot roles, and they have performed very well. And I think, to me, the most important thing is that this was done in Desert Fox without a lot of fanfare. The military did it without a lot of fanfare, and the women pilots themselves did it without a lot of fanfare. They worked for a long time; they trained for a long time; they waited for a long time.


And when their chance came to do their job, they did their job without making a big deal of it, and they did it very, very well. So I like the fact that it was done and the way it was done. I think since I have been ENTITY we have opened something like 250,000 duty positions to women that were not open previously. And it is making a big difference. And there all these disputed areas of training, deployment areas, but I think that the disputes should not be allowed to obscure the underlying reality that the military has dealt with the gender difference in the same way it dealt over time with racial differences, to open up a maximum number of roles and give people the maximum opportunity to live up to their own ability. We were talking before about the pardon I gave posthumously to Henry Flipper, who was the first African-American graduate of West Point, remarkable engineer, good soldier, unfairly discharged. He was cleared of his dishonorable discharge over 20 years ago but never given a pardon, I think because we had never given a posthumous pardon before. But the Defense Department and I very much wanted to do it. We gave the fourth star to Benjamin O. Davis not very long ago in tribute to the Tuskegee Airmen. I think that looking backward is really a way of in this context is a way of ensuring you will continue to go forward. It is a way of reminding us how far we have come and what we missed when we deny any group of people who wanted to contribute to our military the chance to do so. I mean, there will always be controversies around the edges, rules to be worked out, difficulties to be dealt with, but when you give patriotic Americans who want to serve and who can serve well, the chance to do it, you win. Sir, if I may ask you a personal question, you have been a champion of diversity, you have always defended and stood up for the underdog, whether it is gender, whether it is race, whether it is age, whether even it is orientation. Where does that come from? I think two things in my longago past. First of all, with regard to women, my mother was widowed when I was born, and she was off studying to be a nurse. My grandparents raised me until I was 4. So I had always been around women who had to work to make a contribution to their family's welfare.


And so I think from early childhood I always was particularly sensitive to any kind of discrimination against women or just denial of opportunity. And I was always sort of rooting for them because of my mother and my grandmother. And on the race thing, I think it was because of my grandfather and the fact that when I was a child he had a little grocery store in a predominantly black area of this little town we lived in. Most of the customers were black. And most of what I learned about people and human nature and treating everybody the same and also discrimination, I learned as a little boy just listening and watching and observing and being taught. So, in a funny way, most southerners were at a most white southerners were at a disadvantage in dealing with the civil rights revolution because they were raised with more explicit racial prejudice. But some of us were actually at an advantage because we had more human contact with African-Americans before others did, and if we were lucky enough to have parents or grandparents that taught us differently, I think it made a difference. So I think those two things, you know, and just in my family we always had sympathy for the underdog, too. We never believed it was right to keep anybody down. And we were all raised, all of us, never to build ourselves up because there was somebody else we could look down on. And I think that is if you think about it, if you generalize that, really that psychological problem is at the bottom of a lot of this racial and ethnic hatred around the world. A lot of these groups themselves are deprived of opportunity. They have had economic adversity, had all kinds of diversity, and a lot of them, frankly, are taught as groups that what gives meaning to their lives is that they are not a member of this other group; at least they have got somebody to look down on. And I just thank the Lord nearly every day that I was-it did not have anything to do with me I was lucky enough to have grandparents and a mother, a family situation where I was taught differently. Well, we are lucky that we have a who feels that way.


How do you put this group together to play a game of golf? Because I called ENTITY and asked him, and he finally said, Yes, I'd like to do that. Then I got ENTITY, ENTITY, and we got-and me. ENTITY, your ambitions as a golfer-have you set any goals? I am just trying to get my handicap in single digits. It seems unlikely in my present position. But I love to play, and I was gratified when ENTITY called me the other day. He said that he liked my State of the Union Address, but I could speak a lot better if I come out here and played in his tournament. It would put me in a better frame of mind. You are without your 35-year-old putter. I hope the rumors are not true that ENTITY confiscated that. Well, ENTITY, I have played here 17 years with ENTITY, and it is always a great, great thrill. We are going to try to stay out of-we are going to avoid out of bounds, he and I are. We are going to play political golf today. Have you been in this close an association in recent terms, or have you played before? We have never played golf together before, but ENTITY has been good enough to support a lot of things we have done together on trade and issues, for example, things he started that I tried to finish. So we have been together on several occasions. We have not gotten to that. We are on the same side. We want somebody to bet with us and these other foursomes. Well, ENTITY and I will take the young fellows on. It is a great testimony to your love for-- Well, I will tell you, we have drawn a crowd here today. I do not remember seeing anything like this. It is a beautiful thing to have happen for golf, you know, because you cannot do any better. Is not it interesting that in these complicated times, this sport brings this unusual group together? One of the nicest things about golf is that it is really becoming a sport for every man and woman in America. All kinds of people, all these new courses coming up, public courses, people able to play who never could have played 10, 20 years ago. And that is very rewarding, because it is a sport that you can play throughout your life and at all different skill levels. It is really a perfect sport for our people. Well, you gentlemen are used to high pressure.

Interview With Dick Enberg of NBC Sports in Palm Springs, California


I have talked to Marty , I talked to Mama Kaye , I talked to Eric Holder, so I have been making the rounds. I have got all the goods. You have got all the goods. I have got all the goods. I am ready to just fill in the gaps. I thought we'd talk about policy today. I wanted to start by getting a sense of your mind-set coming into the job, and as I have understood you - and you can reject this - your perspective is that a mixture of universalist policies, in combination with an increased level of personal responsibility and communal responsibility among African Americans, when we talk about these gaps that we see between black and white America, that that really is the way forward. I think it is a three-legged stool and you left out one, which is vigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. So the way we thought about it when we came in is that - and obviously we came in during crisis, so how we might have structured our policy sequencing if, when we came in, the economy was okay, and we were not potentially going into a great recession, and folks were not all losing their homes, might have been different. But as a general matter, my view would be that if you want to get at African American poverty, the income gap, wealth gap, achievement gap, that the most important thing is to make sure that the society as a whole does right by people who are poor, are working class, are aspiring to a better life for their kids. Those kinds of programs are, by design, universal, but by definition, because they are helping folks who are in the worst economic situations, are most likely to disproportionately impact and benefit African Americans. They also have the benefit of being sellable to a majority of the body politic. So you have got something like the FHA , which was on its face a universal program that involved a huge mechanism for wealth accumulation and people entering into the middle class. But if, in its application, black folks were excluded from it, then you have to override that by going after those discriminatory practices. The same would be true for something like Social Security, where historically, if you just read the law and the fact that it excluded domestic workers or agricultural workers, you might not see race in it, unless you knew that that covered a huge chunk of African Americans, particularly in the South.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


So reinvigorating the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, making sure that in our Department of Education, where we see evidence of black boys being suspended at substantially higher rates than white boys for the same behavior, in the absence of that kind of rigorous enforcement of the nondiscrimination principle, then the long-standing biases that I believe have weakened, but are still clearly present in our society, assert themselves in ways that usually disadvantage African Americans. If you have got those two things right - if those two things are happening - then a third leg of the stool is, how do we in the African American community build a culture in which we are saying to our kids, Here is what it takes to succeed. Here is how we support each other. Here is how we look out for each other. And it is my view that if society was doing the right thing with respect to you, programs targeted at helping people rise into the middle class and have a good income and be able to save and send their kids to school, and you have got a vigorous enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, then I have confidence in the black community's capabilities to then move forward. Now, does that mean that all vestiges of past discrimination would be eliminated, that the income gap or the wealth gap or the education gap would be erased in five years or 10 years? Probably not, and so this is obviously a discussion we have had before when you talk about something like reparations. Theoretically, you can make, obviously, a powerful argument that centuries of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination are the primary cause for all those gaps. That those were wrongs done to the black community as a whole, and black families specifically, and that in order to close that gap, a society has a moral obligation to make a large, aggressive investment, even if it is not in the form of individual reparations checks, but in the form of a Marshall Plan, in order to close those gaps. It is easy to make that theoretical argument. But as a practical matter, it is hard to think of any society in human history in which a majority population has said that as a consequence of historic wrongs, we are now going to take a big chunk of the nation's resources over a long period of time to make that right. They lost the war. They lost the war. Small population, finite amount of money that it was going to cost.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


Not multiple generations but people, in some cases, who are still alive, who can point to, That was my house. If you look at countries like South Africa, where you had a black majority, there have been efforts to tax and help that black majority, but it has not come in the form of a formal reparations program. You have countries like India that have tried to help untouchables, with essentially affirmative-action programs, but it has not fundamentally changed the structure of their societies. So the bottom line is that it is hard to find a model in which you can practically administer and sustain political support for those kinds of efforts. And what makes America complicated as well is the degree to which this is not just a black/white society, and it is becoming less so every year. So how do Latinos feel if there is a big investment just in the African American community, and they are looking around and saying, We are poor as well. What kind of help are we getting? Or Asian Americans who say, Look, I am a first-generation immigrant, and clearly I did not have anything to do with what was taking place. Is not there just - not to cut you off - is not there, and this is out of the role of U.S. ENTITY, I am almost speaking to you as a law professor now, an intellectual, in fact - Well, that is how I was answering the question, because if you want me to talk about politics, I will be much more blunt about it. I figured that. I thought that was what I was getting. I was giving the benefit of playing out, theoretically, how you could think about that. And I appreciate that. And the question I would ask is in that situation, to the immigrant who comes here, first generation, and says, I did not do any of this, but the country is largely here because of that. In other words, many of the benefits that you will actually enjoy are, in fact, in part - I will not say largely - in part here because of the past. So when you want the benefits, when you invoke the past, that thus you inherit the debt, too - I mean, I guess, here is the way - probably the best way of saying it is that you can make a theoretical, abstract argument in favor of something like reparations.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


Well, I thought I was, but I am not so optimistic as to think that you would ever be able to garner a majority of an American Congress that would make those kinds of investments above and beyond the kinds of investments that could be made in a progressive program for lifting up all people. I have much more confidence in my ability, or any president or any leader's ability, to mobilize the American people around a multiyear, multibillion-dollar investment to help every child in poverty in this country than I am in being able to mobilize the country around providing a benefit specific to African Americans as a consequence of slavery and Jim Crow. Now, we can debate the justness of that. But I feel pretty confident in that assessment politically. And, you know, I think that part of my optimism comes from the belief that we as a people could actually, regardless of all the disadvantage of the past, regardless of the fact that a lot of other folks got a head start in the race, if we were able to make the race fair right now, and - We were able to make sure that it stayed fair for a long time and that children going forward were not encumbered by some of that same bias of the past, I think it would not take long at all, because we are a talented, resourceful people. Imagine if you had genuine, high-quality early-childhood education for every child, and suddenly every black child in America - but also every poor white child or Latino , but just stick with every black child in America - is getting a really good education. And they are graduating from high school at the same rates that whites are, and they are going to college at the same rates that whites are, and they are able to afford college at the same rates because the government has universal programs that say that you are not going to be barred from school just because of how much money your parents have. And let us also say that the Justice Department and the courts are making sure, as I have said in a speech before, that when Jamal sends his rsum in, he is getting treated the same as when Johnny sends his rsum in. Now, are we going to have suddenly the same number of CEOs, billionaires, etc., as the white community? But I guarantee you that we would be thriving, we would be succeeding. We would not have huge numbers of young African American men in jail.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


We'd have more family formation as college-graduated girls are meeting boys who are their peers, which then in turn means the next generation of kids are growing up that much better. And suddenly you have got a whole generation that is in a position to start using the incredible creativity that we see in music, and sports, and frankly even on the streets, channeled into starting all kinds of businesses. I feel pretty good about our odds in that situation. We are so far from that. Why are we even having the abstract conversation when we have got a big fight on our hands just to get strong, universal antipoverty programs and social programs in place, and we are still fighting to make sure that basic antidiscrimination laws are enforced, not just at the federal level, by the way, but throughout government and throughout the private sector? And those are fights that we can win because - and this is where I do believe America has changed - the majority, not by any means 100 percent, but the majority of Americans believe in the idea of nondiscrimination. They believe in the idea that Jamal and Johnny should be treated equally. They believe in the idea that a child should not be consigned to poverty just because of circumstances of their birth. Now, in practice, in daily social interactions, etc., there may be all kinds of biases and prejudices that are unspoken, that people are not aware of, that affect who is hired, and who gets loans, and how kids are treated in school. But it is a powerful thing if you have on your side an idea that the overwhelming majority of people believe in because that is how you can build a consensus that is lasting. And that is how you avoid an argument that I am being treated unfairly because you are treating somebody differently than me. Everybody potentially can make the claim that we should all be treated fairly. As opposed to getting into arguments about, well, these folks have been treated fairly so now we are going to be doing things that, very easily in the minds of a lot Americans feel like, Now I am being treated unfairly. One of the things I would say - the first thing I want to say is - I do not want to draw this into an either-or argument, that if you make the reparations argument, you therefore do not support everything else that you said. I am well aware of that.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


And I wonder, is it the work, perhaps maybe not of presidents but certainly of people outside of government, to change that mind-set? And if one can come to see, for instance, that, yeah, it is true that nondiscrimination should be a basic value that we share, that, as I would put it, responsibility for our history is one, too? I want my children - I want Malia and Sasha - to understand that they have got responsibilities beyond just what they themselves have done. That they have a responsibility to the larger community and the larger nation, that they should be sensitive to and extra thoughtful about the plight of people who have been oppressed in the past, are oppressed currently. So that is a wisdom that I want to transmit to my kids. And it may be that we found an area where you are more optimistic than me. But I would say that is a high level of enlightenment that you are looking to have from a majority of the society. And it may be something that future generations are more open to, but I am pretty confident that for the foreseeable future, using the argument of nondiscrimination, and Let us get it right for the kids who are here right now, and giving them the best chance possible, is going to be a more persuasive argument. One of the things you learn as ENTITY is, as powerful as this office is, you have limited bandwidth. And the time goes by really quickly and you are constantly making choices, and there are pressures on you from all different directions - pressures on your attention, not just pressures from different constituencies. And so you have to be pretty focused about where can you have the biggest, quickest impact. And I always tell my staff, Better is good. Better may not be as good as the best, but better is surprisingly hard to obtain. And better is actually harder than worse. It requires enormous energy for us to cut the African American uninsured rate by a third. Bernie Sanders would say, You still have millions of African Americans who are not insured, and if we had a single-payer system, that would not be the case. But it is my judgment that had I spent the first two years trying to get a single-payer system, all those folks who now have health insurance that did not have it would still be uninsured. And those are millions of people whose lives are impacted right now. I get letters from them right now.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


You saved my child's life. I did not have to sell my home when my wife got sick. And that is what, as a policy maker, I am trying to achieve during the short period of time that I am here. Now, you as a thinker, you as a writer, you as a philosopher, you want to stretch the boundaries of thinking, because you are not constrained by trying to move the levers of power right now. And so I think that these are all worthy topics of conversation. Sometimes I wonder how much of these debates have to do with the desire, the legitimate desire, for that history to be recognized. Because there is a psychic power to the recognition that is not satisfied with a universal program, it is not satisfied by the Affordable Care Act, or an expansion of Pell grants, or an expansion of the earned-income tax credit. It does not speak to the hurt, and the sense of injustice, and the self-doubt that arises out of the fact that we are behind now, and it makes us sometimes feel as if there must be something wrong with us, unless you are able to see the history and say, It is amazing we got this far given what we went through. So part of, I think, the argument sometimes that I have had with folks who are much more interested in sort of race-specific programs is less an argument about what is practically achievable and sometimes maybe more an argument of We want society to see what is happened, and internalize it, and answer it in demonstrable ways. And those impulses I very much understand, but my hope would be that, as we are moving through the world right now, we are able to get that psychological or emotional peace by seeing very concretely our kids doing better and being more hopeful and having greater opportunities. And your son thriving at some United Nations model conference, and me seeing Malia and Sasha doing amazing things And some of the mentees that I was talking to at A and T overcome incredible disadvantages and starting to gain confidence in what they can do in the world. You know, ENTITY, I think largely what a lot of us fear, everything you described - Pell grants, health care, all the programs - that is the world - let me speak for myself, not for anybody - that is a world I'd want to live in whether black or not. That just speaks to society's commitment to its citizens.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates


What we fear is that the gap will never close. The gap will close, but it will never actually be equal. That without some sort of specific acknowledgment - you know, when I was working on this piece about race, the theory - fine. Going to a 90-year-old's house in Lawndale in Chicago, and I am not supposing you do not have more experience with this, because you read letters and travel and you see, but as a journalist to sit there and see somebody who fought in World War II, and to hear him talk about how they had done everything right - basically obeyed their side of the social contract - and to hear them basically say, And what I got was ripped off. And then to have in my city in Baltimore, right now about 10 years ago during the housing crisis, to see Wells Fargo going to these black folks who just want to buy homes, who just want to be part of the basic American dream, social contract, and to see them being ripped off, not in the same fashion but the same idea - taking from them. We fear without any sort of direct engagement of that question, it will not stop. Because it will not stop if some of the underlying biases are not challenged and surfaced. And that in and of itself creates backlash and denial. This is what I mean when I say better is hard. I remember when I was in Chicago and data started coming out that when black folks walk into an auto dealership, and women, too, to some degree, they are automatically given higher quotes, worse deals. And this was just documented extensively across auto dealerships around the country. By collecting that data, you can construct policies to combat that. And that is potentially thousands of dollars in people's pockets that are being taken away right now. It requires an effective government agency, and data collection, and pushing, and shoving, and litigation until finally you start getting new norms and new practices. And if in fact we have finite political capital, energy, resources, we need to win those fights.

Interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates