Transcript: Well of course the big milestone was my first election to Congress. That’s a kind of an earth shattering event for me at the time, and I thought what a thrill it was. You know there’s a lot more luck in politics than most politicians will acknowledge. And I was a very lucky man. I’m a Democrat, and I happened to run in 1964, which was one of the strongest democratic years in that century. I’ve often said that any fool could get elected on the democratic ticket that year, and several did. But I was very, very fortunate because I . . . And lucky I ran in a year that was very beneficial to my party. I got elected. And because of really the advantages of the incumbency – and there are many – I was able to stay there. I went to Congress with no idea that I would be focusing on foreign affairs. I had an interest in getting on the agriculture committee and the public works committee – committees that I thought directly helped me in my constituency. I couldn’t get on, and one of the leaders came to me and said, “Well how would you like foreign affairs?” And I said, “Well I’ll try it for a year or two.” I tried it, I liked it, and I stayed there.

I didn’t seek these positions as the Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission and Co-Chair on the Iraq Study Group. They came to me in a sense. And I don’t give myself any credit for it. I think any American approached to deal with those kinds of questions could not say no, and I accepted. And I didn’t have any grand idea of how it would turn out, but I felt that I was given an opportunity to try to help the country. I’ve always been interested in the direction and success of my country. In a strange sort of a way – this may sound odd – but I’m not really all that interested in politics. By that I mean I’m not interested in the nitty-gritty of getting elected. Precinct meetings, voter registration lists, public relations campaigns, spin and all of that. I put up with all that. I did it because you have to as an American politician; but my real interest has always been policy. And since I was in the Congress, I was able to engage in that. When I got out of the Congress, fortunately I was able to continue that interest.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: I’m impressed with how big and how complicated this country is. When I graduated from high school, we had 130 million people in the country. Today I don’t know what the figure is, but I think I saw a few months ago that we now exceed 300 million. In other words in my working lifetime, the country has more than doubled in size; but much, much more than that, it has become extremely diverse as a country. And how you keep this country together – whether this nation as so conceived and so dedicated can long endure as Lincoln said at Gettysburg – that question was the operative question at Gettysburg. It’s still the operative question. Whether we can keep this country together, prosperous, peaceful, free is the challenge. And my passion, I guess, has always been to see how I can contribute to making the country work better.

I see a lot of things in American life and American society that disturb me. We have a marvelous country, and we’ve been given a marvelous heritage, terrific resources, great opportunities. And I don’t know of anyone who lives here who wants to live in another country. And I know millions of people who live elsewhere who would like to come here. So you begin with gratitude, I think, for what you have. But you also have to recognize our shortcomings. We have a political system today that’s not working very well. Just defeated an immigration bill. We cannot figure out how to give healthcare to everybody in this country. We have an education system that is deficient in so many ways that constantly come to our attention. The infrastructure of the country is crumbling in many, many respects. The institutions are not working as well as we would like them to work. So I think the challenges are immense. Now I don’t look at all of this and conclude it’s hopeless, or I’m a pessimist or anything of the sort; but I do have a real sense of the challenge. And neither am I a starry-eyed optimist. You see a lot of people who portray a kind of false optimism that is not based on fact, really, and the problems that we confront. So I just like the traditional, hardheaded, pragmatic, old-fashioned approach of Americans who see their country and their community as it is, and they want to make it better.

I don’t see how any American can be comfortable with our health care system today given the fact that so many of our citizens are not covered. Here we have the most marvelous medicine in the world if you can pay for it; but so many Americans do not. There’s a janitor who comes to my office and cleans it. And he’s a nice man. His teeth are falling out. I go to the dentist. I get a bill – $500, $1,000 for a routine checkup. I can pay that, fortunately, and I can pay it for my family. Here we are in the United States of America, the richest country in the world, and we can’t get good dental care for the janitor. I’m disturbed by those things.

Or take education today. I used to go to high schools and give speeches all the time. Politicians do. I’d look out over that high school group and we’d have interactions. My fractions might not be right here, but 50% of those kids I don’t need to worry about. They come from good homes. They go to their churches. They have good healthcare. They’re involved in their community. They may not all be A-students, but they’re doing well. Many of them are A-students, and we’re not going to screw those kids up. They’re going to make it, and they’re going to do well in life. What bothers me is that other half. Now there was a time when we were so good, and so strong, and so powerful as a country that we didn’t really need to worry too much about that other half. But that’s changing now, and we’ve gotta begin to bring them up. And that means the educational system has to be sharply improved. So I worry about these things and many, many others.

Who can possibly be comfortable or satisfied with the performance of the United States Congress today? I don’t care whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican. We cannot solve the immigration bill. They took up a bill – and it wasn’t a perfect bill for sure – rejected it. But we have a huge problem. We can’t solve it. And these other things we haven’t been able to solve. So I think we have a failure of political leadership in the country. And I don’t put that in the context of the George Bush presidency. I put it in the context of the last several decades. This system is not working as well as it should. And when I began this program, I said that my interest was in making the country work, and it still is. And I think the challenges ahead of us are immense.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: Well the question I would repeatedly get when I was conducting public meetings in Indiana was, “Where are the leaders?” It’s the question you just asked, and I think it’s on the minds of an awful lot of Americans. Where are the Lincolns, the Jeffersons, the Washingtons? I don’t know whether I know the answer to that, but I think part of the answer may be that the country is just a lot more complicated, a lot more difficult to govern today because of its size; because of its diversity; because of the acceleration, if you would, of life. And the political skill that is most needed in this presidential election or any political election, from my point of view, is the ability to build a consensus behind a solution. It’s not very hard, really, to walk into a room of people where you’re discussing a difficult issue and blow it apart. I know it’s not very hard because I’ve done it on a few occasions. What is really hard is to walk into that room and to build a consensus behind a solution to the problem that you’re talking about. That is political skill, and that is the skill most needed in this great, big, diverse, complicated country with all of these conflicting interests that we have. Consensus building – that’s what I look for in a politician.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: The overwhelming challenge in the world today for the United States is how we use this power – unrivaled power, unprecedented power, unmatched power – economically, militarily, technologically, culturally? How we use that power to protect American interests and to make a better world – safer, more prosperous. That is the great challenge for the country now, and I think will be for many, many years to come.

I think we’ve got a lot of work to do. I think we’ve had quite a setback, and we have not used that power as wisely, and prudently and effectively as we should have used it – particularly with regard to the war in Iraq. But this is behind us now, and we are where we are. We can’t change recent events and recent history. So I think we have to apply American power pragmatically, realistically. We have to make sure that we do not set goals for ourselves that we cannot achieve. When President Bush said we’re going to end tyranny in the world, that is idealism beyond reach. When President Kennedy said we must bear any burden, that is beyond reach. It’s an ideal, but the problem is matching resources to achieve your goal. And Americans, I think, have tended to overreach in the world, and to think that our power is so great that we can achieve all kinds of things. I have become impressed with the limitations of American power, and with the necessity of matching our goals with the means to achieve those goals; and to apply for ourselves pragmatic objectives around the world – achievable objectives. And to think that we can suddenly make democracy bloom in Saudi Arabia, and in Egypt, and in Pakistan is a stretch. We can’t do it. But I am also impressed that American ideals are good and solid. But we cannot accomplish them without a lot of help. If you sit down and try to name the most difficult problems that bother you – I don’t know what they might be . . . climate change, drugs, conflicts of all kinds, rising tensions in the world, HIV/AIDS, whatever . . . nuclear proliferation – you have to be impressed, I think, with the fact that you cannot achieve those goals by yourself. We have to have help. As big as we are, as smart as we are, as rich as we are, we need help. And we have to learn to work together. The great genius of American diplomacy came about, at least in my lifetime, after World War II when the idealism of the American people was captured pragmatically, and we rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan – Europeans leading the way, of course, but with our help. And we had this flowering of diplomacy. The World Bank, the IMF, what eventually became the WTO – the World Trade Organization – the United Nations. In other words, we advanced American interests, but we did it by cooperating with other countries around the world. We did not say, “This is the way it’s going to be. It’s going to be the American model. We’re going to do it our way. We’re going to impose it upon you.” We rejected that, and we took the generosity of the American public. Just think for a moment. We defeated Japan and Germany. They were the great evil – Adolf Hitler, Tojo – some people will remember that – the Emperor of Japan. After the war, we immediately turned around – immediately – and gave aid to those countries. What a remarkable thing. Think of that. We gave aid to the people we had been fighting for years. Well how do you capture that spirit again? That generosity? That pragmatism? That ability to advance your interests, but also include the interests of others? That’s the great challenge for us.

I think the United States wants to use its power in a way that will understand the cry for dignity in the world today; the cry for progress, for a better life. And the United States ought to try to say to the world, “We’re on your side. We can’t solve all of your problems. We would like to help.” Let me give you a very specific example. We think the madras schools in Pakistan are very bad. They teach hostility of Americans. They don’t teach the basics of education. So we have a program in effect now to help develop alternative educational systems in Pakistan. It’s a small program. It’s not gonna solve all the problems in Pakistan for sure; but the signal is right. “We’re on your side. We want to try to help you.” You see I think people around the world basically want the same things. They want a decent life for themselves. They want to be able to have healthcare and education. They want to be able to marry the person of their choice, and they want to have a decent retirement. All the things that we talk about all the time in America, I think it’s wanted by everybody in the world. So America has to be on the side of decency and on willingness to help; but it also has to recognize that we can’t do it all; that we can only say, “We can be on your side.” I’ll tell you an analogy. Every American politician is approached regularly by somebody who asks him or her to do something that is utterly impossible to do. I don’t know any successful American politician who says to that person, “I can’t help you.” What do you say? You say, “I understand your problem. I’d like to try to be helpful. I’m on your side.” It may be simplistic, but I don’t think it is. That’s what America has to do in the world. “We can’t solve all your problems, but we want for you the same thing we want for ourselves – a decent life – and we want to help.”

Recorded on: 7/5/2007 at The Aspen Ideas Festival

Transcript: The American people can’t dodge responsibility here – not in a government that’s informed by the people. I think that being a citizen in America is a very tough job. It requires you to make discriminating judgments. You’re sitting there, you’re trying to raise your family. You’re trying to earn a living. A lot of competitive pressures. And being a citizen is not easy because there are so many other things that press upon you – making discriminating judgments. Keep in mind that politicians reflect the views of the people they represent. So the American people have a responsibility here obviously to participate; but not just a matter of voting. It’s a matter of participating in improving their communities, and their neighborhoods, their states and their nation. And they have to take that citizenship seriously. It isn’t written in the stars somewhere that America will always endure, will always prosper. It takes each generation to make that come true, and we have to accept our responsibilities in order for it . . . It’s not carved in granite somewhere that America is always going to be strong, and free, and prosperous, and number one in the world. It has to be achieved in every generation.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Trasncript: We have to be hardheaded, and we have to not be driven by ideology in making the judgment as to whether or not to intervene. That’s the toughest decision that the American government makes. Do you intervene? Do you put young lives at risk? Do you go to war? By all odds, the toughest question that a government deals with. We went into that war on intelligence that was driven by ideology. It was not hardheaded, pragmatic, practical intelligence. We went into that war greatly overestimating the threat, and greatly underestimating how tough it would be to handle the problem. So we have to get a much more firmer grip, if you would, on reality and the difficulties. And then we have to answer this question: How much are we willing to spend in lives and resources to achieve certain goals? One of the things that has really impressed me about Iraq is that we have never, ever been willing to put the resources into it that our very extraordinary goals that we have articulated would require. We just haven’t been willing to match the resources with the rhetoric.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: I don’t like the way we run campaigns in this country particularly. I don’t think we’re tough enough on the candidates. And I mean by that I don’t think we press them hard enough. George Bush came into office as President of the United States, and very few Americans had any idea at all of what his foreign policy would be. I’m not sure he did. Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1992. “It’s the economy, stupid” was the theme of the campaign. And I remember talking to him when he was President Elect, and he said, “Nobody asked me in the campaign much about foreign policy.” In this area, which I focused on to some degree, we just don’t press them hard enough.

When Tony Blair was running for re-election as Prime Minister, he would go into every little town and village of the United Kingdom . . . go in in the morning, and the first thing he would do is he would have a news conference with the local press, and he would have to answer every question imaginable on how to solve the Middle East, and how to get water delivered . . . ______ water delivered in that community. We don’t have that kind of mechanism yet. And we’ve got to try to develop a better mechanism for our candidates so we learn more about them. And then once they are elected, I’m not at all satisfied with the accountability for those officials. Let’s take the president. It’s very difficult to hold the President of the United States accountable. The news conference has become a farce – much controlled by the White House. He knows exactly who he’s going to call on before he goes into that press conference. Very, very rarely gets a question that is not anticipated. There is no way you can drill, if you would, a president like the U.K. does a Prime Minister. I’m not for the parliamentary system, but I see some advantages in the way they do that. So I think we have to strengthen the mechanisms for accountability in our system. And I think it’s a major challenge for us in the years ahead.

There are plenty of things wrong with this system; but the very worst thing you can do is throw up your hands and walk away from it. That almost assures that the system gets worse. So I think all you can do in this circumstance as a person, as an individual, is to try. Now look. Most of us are not gonna have the chance to sit down and make peace in the world, and very few of us are gonna be able to solve the Social Security system in the United States. What you can do is make your own neighborhood and your own community better.

So I had a mother come to me who had a 15-year old daughter killed at a railroad crossing because there was no flashing light there – signal. She went to work on that in my state, and it became a crusade for her to get a flashing railroad signal at every crossing – or dangerous crossing at least – in the state. That’s the kind of thing that has to be done. You do not find cynicism among people who are involved in their communities. I don’t care what it is. You may think the school board’s not functioning well. You may think there ought to be a traffic light at a given intersection. You may think that the industries in the community are polluted. On and on and on with all of the problems we have in the community. The important thing is not to rant and rave against the politicians in Washington who can’t get the job done, although that may be the fact. The important thing is to try to solve problems where you can, to do it constructively in your community, in your neighborhood. And of course the most important obligation of all, in your family.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: But I don’t see how any American can be comfortable with our healthcare system today given the fact that so many of our citizens are not covered. Here we have the most marvelous medicine in the world if you can pay for it; but so many Americans do not. There’s a janitor who comes to my office and cleans it. And he’s a nice man. His teeth are falling out. I go to the dentist. I get a bill – $500, $1,000 for a routine checkup. I can pay that, fortunately, and I can pay it for my family. Here we are in the United States of America, the richest country in the world, and we can’t get good dental care for the janitor. I’m disturbed by those things.

Recorded on: 7/5/2007 at The Aspen Ideas Festival

Transcript: Or take education today. I used to go to high schools and give speeches all the time. Politicians do. I’d look out over that high school group and we’d have interactions. My fractions might not be right here, but 50% of those kids I don’t need to worry about. They come from good homes. They go to their churches. They have good healthcare. They’re involved in their community. They may not all be A-students, but they’re doing well. Many of them are A-students, and we’re not going to screw those kids up. They’re going to make it, and they’re going to do well in life. What bothers me is that other half. Now there was a time when we were so good, and so strong, and so powerful as a country that we didn’t really need to worry too much about that other half. But that’s changing now, and we’ve gotta begin to bring them up. And that means the educational system has to be sharply improved. So I worry about these things and many, many others.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: I think we need a more open system. I’m perfectly willing to accept a system that encourages third parties to come into the race. Don’t underestimate the third parties, however. George Bush would not be elected President of the United States if it had not been for Ralph Nader. Bill Clinton would not have been elected President of the United States if it were not for Ross Perot. So they may not win the presidency, but they can certainly have an impact – third parties. Now your question is a little different, and that is should we be more open to them. And I think the answer is yes we should. I’m a party member, but I understand that people can be terribly disappointed by the performance of the political parties. I’m disappointed by the performance of my own party. My choice has been . . . and it’s not the choice that everyone would make, but my choice has been to try to work within the party to strengthen it. A lot of people make that choice. A lot of people say that’s not the way to go. The parties are too unacceptable as they are. I don’t quarrel with that decision. I think it’s a reasonable position. It was not the position I adopted, but that doesn’t make it wrong. It could be the right way to go. We do have to emphasize the fundamental values of our system – tolerance, rule of law, compassion – and that leaves a lot of room for change. And we must always have in our mind a receptivity to changing our structures and not think that because we’ve had a two-party system for lo these many years, that’s the only way that the country works.

The record . . . The historical record obviously is not very encouraging for the third parties; but who knows what the breakthrough might come and how it might come? I don’t know. I can’t foresee that, but I wouldn’t exclude it happening either.

Question: What impact would a credible third party have?

Transcript: Well I think you have a lot. Look what Ross Perot did. He talked about the budget deficit. Neither party candidate of the major parties was talking about the budget deficit. He came into the campaign – not only did he affect the outcome of the election, but he put on the national agenda the budget deficit. Third parties make contributions even when they don’t win elections. It may come that they’ll be an issue at some point that will propel a third party into victory. Who knows? I can’t foresee that. I don’t think I’d predict it in the next one or two presidential elections; but I’ve been fooled a lot of times in the process and it could happen.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: I think my question comes from what I’ve been talking about. I would ask the American citizen whether or not they personally are doing enough to make the country work.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Question: What should America be doing?

Transcript: I think the United States wants to use its power in a way that will understand the cry for dignity in the world today; the cry for progress, for a better life. And the United States ought to try to say to the world, “We’re on your side. We can’t solve all of your problems. We would like to help.” Let me give you a very specific example. We think the madras schools in Pakistan are very bad. They teach hostility of Americans. They don’t teach the basics of education. So we have a program in effect now to help develop alternative educational systems in Pakistan. It’s a small program. It’s not gonna solve all the problems in Pakistan for sure; but the signal is right. “We’re on your side. We want to try to help you.” You see I think people around the world basically want the same things. They want a decent life for themselves. They want to be able to have healthcare and education. They want to be able to marry the person of their choice, and they want to have a decent retirement. All the things that we talk about all the time in America, I think it’s wanted by everybody in the world. So America has to be on the side of decency and on willingness to help; but it also has to recognize that we can’t do it all; that we can only say, “We can be on your side.” I’ll tell you an analogy. Every American politician is approached regularly by somebody who asks him or her to do something that is utterly impossible to do. I don’t know any successful American politician who says to that person, “I can’t help you.” What do you say? You say, “I understand your problem. I’d like to try to be helpful. I’m on your side.” It may be simplistic, but I don’t think it is. That’s what America has to do in the world. “We can’t solve all your problems, but we want for you the same thing we want for ourselves – a decent life – and we want to help.”

Question: Collectively, what should we be doing?

Transcript: There are plenty of things wrong with this system; but the very worst thing you can do is throw up your hands and walk away from it. That almost assures that the system gets worse. So I think all you can do in this circumstance as a person, as an individual, is to try. Now look. Most of us are not gonna have the chance to sit down and make peace in the world, and very few of us are gonna be able to solve the Social Security system in the United States. What you can do is make your own neighborhood and your own community better.

So I had a mother come to me who had a 15-year old daughter killed at a railroad crossing because there was no flashing light there – signal. She went to work on that in my state, and it became a crusade for her to get a flashing railroad signal at every crossing – or dangerous crossing at least – in the state. That’s the kind of thing that has to be done. You do not find cynicism among people who are involved in their communities. I don’t care what it is. You may think the school board’s not functioning well. You may think there ought to be a traffic light at a given intersection. You may think that the industries in the community are polluted. On and on and on with all of the problems we have in the community. The important thing is not to rant and rave against the politicians in Washington who can’t get the job done, although that may be the fact. The important thing is to try to solve problems where you can, to do it constructively in your community, in your neighborhood. And of course the most important obligation of all, in your family.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript:  I see a lot of things in American life and American society that disturb me.  We have a marvelous country, and we’ve been given a marvelous heritage, terrific resources, great opportunities.  And I don’t know of anyone who lives here who wants to live in another country.  And I know millions of people who live elsewhere who would like to come here.  So you begin with gratitude, I think, for what you have.  But you also have to recognize our shortcomings.  We have a political system today that’s not working very well.  Just defeated an immigration bill.  We cannot figure out how to give healthcare to everybody in this country.  We have an education system that is deficient in so many ways that constantly come to our attention.  The infrastructure of the country is crumbling in many, many respects.  The institutions are not working as well as we would like them to work.  So I think the challenges are immense.  Now I don’t look at all of this and conclude it’s hopeless, or I’m a pessimist or anything of the sort; but I do have a real sense of the challenge.  And neither am I a starry-eyed optimist.  You see a lot of people who portray a kind of false optimism that is not based on fact, really, and the problems that we confront.  So I just like the traditional, hardheaded, pragmatic, old-fashioned approach of Americans who see their country and their community as it is, and they want to make it better.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Question: When you read the newspaper or watch the news, what issues stand out for you?

Transcript: But I don’t see how any American can be comfortable with our healthcare system today given the fact that so many of our citizens are not covered. Here we have the most marvelous medicine in the world if you can pay for it; but so many Americans do not. There’s a janitor who comes to my office and cleans it. And he’s a nice man. His teeth are falling out. I go to the dentist. I get a bill – $500, $1,000 for a routine checkup. I can pay that, fortunately, and I can pay it for my family. Here we are in the United States of America, the richest country in the world, and we can’t get good dental care for the janitor. I’m disturbed by those things.

Or take education today. I used to go to high schools and give speeches all the time. Politicians do. I’d look out over that high school group and we’d have interactions. My fractions might not be right here, but 50% of those kids I don’t need to worry about. They come from good homes. They go to their churches. They have good healthcare. They’re involved in their community. They may not all be A-students, but they’re doing well. Many of them are A-students, and we’re not going to screw those kids up. They’re going to make it, and they’re going to do well in life. What bothers me is that other half. Now there was a time when we were so good, and so strong, and so powerful as a country that we didn’t really need to worry too much about that other half. But that’s changing now, and we’ve gotta begin to bring them up. And that means the educational system has to be sharply improved. So I worry about these things and many, many others.

Question: Is Washington up to these challenges?

Transcript: It is not up to these challenges. Who can possibly be comfortable or satisfied with the performance of the United States Congress today? I don’t care whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican. We cannot solve the immigration bill. They took up a bill – and it wasn’t a perfect bill for sure – rejected it. But we have a huge problem. We can’t solve it. And these other things we haven’t been able to solve. So I think we have a failure of political leadership in the country. And I don’t put that in the context of the George Bush presidency. I put it in the context of the last several decades. This system is not working as well as it should. And when I began this program, I said that my interest was in making the country work, and it still is. And I think the challenges ahead of us are immense.

Question: What responsibility do the American people bear for the state of the country?

Transcript: The American people can’t dodge responsibility here – not in a government that’s informed by the people. I think that being a citizen in America is a very tough job. It requires you to make discriminating judgments. You’re sitting there, you’re trying to raise your family. You’re trying to earn a living. A lot of competitive pressures. And being a citizen is not easy because there are so many other things that press upon you – making discriminating judgments. Keep in mind that politicians reflect the views of the people they represent. So the American people have a responsibility here obviously to participate; but not just a matter of voting. It’s a matter of participating in improving their communities, and their neighborhoods, their states and their nation. And they have to take that citizenship seriously. It isn’t written in the stars somewhere that America will always endure, will always prosper. It takes each generation to make that come true, and we have to accept our responsibilities in order for it . . . It’s not carved in granite somewhere that America is always going to be strong, and free, and prosperous, and number one in the world. It has to be achieved in every generation.

Question: Is the American political system broken?

Transcript: I don’t like the way we run campaigns in this country particularly. I don’t think we’re tough enough on the candidates. And I mean by that I don’t think we press them hard enough. George Bush came into office as President of the United States, and very few Americans had any idea at all of what his foreign policy would be. I’m not sure he did. Bill Clinton did the same thing in 1992. “It’s the economy, stupid” was the theme of the campaign. And I remember talking to him when he was President Elect, and he said, “Nobody asked me in the campaign much about foreign policy.” In this area, which I focused on to some degree, we just don’t press them hard enough.

When Tony Blair was running for re-election as Prime Minister, he would go into every little town and village of the United Kingdom . . . go in in the morning, and the first thing he would do is he would have a news conference with the local press, and he would have to answer every question imaginable on how to solve the Middle East, and how to get water delivered . . . ______ water delivered in that community. We don’t have that kind of mechanism yet. And we’ve got to try to develop a better mechanism for our candidates so we learn more about them. And then once they are elected, I’m not at all satisfied with the accountability for those officials. Let’s take the president. It’s very difficult to hold the President of the United States accountable. The news conference has become a farce – much controlled by the White House. He knows exactly who he’s going to call on before he goes into that press conference. Very, very rarely gets a question that is not anticipated. There is no way you can drill, if you would, a president like the U.K. does a Prime Minister. I’m not for the parliamentary system, but I see some advantages in the way they do that. So I think we have to strengthen the mechanisms for accountability in our system. And I think it’s a major challenge for us in the years ahead.

Question: Are two parties enough?

transcript: I think we need a more open system. I’m perfectly willing to accept a system that encourages third parties to come into the race. Don’t underestimate the third parties, however. George Bush would not be elected President of the United States if it had not been for Ralph Nader. Bill Clinton would not have been elected President of the United States if it were not for Ross Perot. So they may not win the presidency, but they can certainly have an impact – third parties. Now your question is a little different, and that is should we be more open to them. And I think the answer is yes we should. I’m a party member, but I understand that people can be terribly disappointed by the performance of the political parties. I’m disappointed by the performance of my own party. My choice has been . . . and it’s not the choice that everyone would make, but my choice has been to try to work within the party to strengthen it. A lot of people make that choice. A lot of people say that’s not the way to go. The parties are too unacceptable as they are. I don’t quarrel with that decision. I think it’s a reasonable position. It was not the position I adopted, but that doesn’t make it wrong. It could be the right way to go. We do have to emphasize the fundamental values of our system – tolerance, rule of law, compassion – and that leaves a lot of room for change. And we must always have in our mind a receptivity to changing our structures and not think that because we’ve had a two-party system for lo these many years, that’s the only way that the country works.

Question: What impact would a third party have?

Transcript: Well I think you have a lot. Look what Ross Perot did. He talked about the budget deficit. Neither party candidate of the major parties was talking about the budget deficit. He came into the campaign – not only did he affect the outcome of the election, but he put on the national agenda the budget deficit. Third parties make contributions even when they don’t win elections. It may come that they’ll be an issue at some point that will propel a third party into victory. Who knows? I can’t foresee that. I don’t think I’d predict it in the next one or two presidential elections; but I’ve been fooled a lot of times in the process and it could happen.

Question: What would it take for a third party to win the presidency?

Transcript: The record . . . The historical record obviously is not very encouraging for the third parties; but who knows what the breakthrough might come and how it might come? I don’t know. I can’t foresee that, but I wouldn’t exclude it happening either.

Question: What is the lesson of Iraq?

Transcript: We have to be hardheaded, and we have to not be driven by ideology in making the judgment as to whether or not to intervene. That’s the toughest decision that the American government makes. Do you intervene? Do you put young lives at risk? Do you go to war? By all odds, the toughest question that a government deals with. We went into that war on intelligence that was driven by ideology. It was not hardheaded, pragmatic, practical intelligence. We went into that war greatly overestimating the threat, and greatly underestimating how tough it would be to handle the problem. So we have to get a much more firmer grip, if you would, on reality and the difficulties. And then we have to answer this question: How much are we willing to spend in lives and resources to achieve certain goals? One of the things that has really impressed me about Iraq is that we have never, ever been willing to put the resources into it that our very extraordinary goals that we have articulated would require. We just haven’t been willing to match the resources with the rhetoric.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Question: What is your favorite period in American history?

Transcript: I guess all Americans have a favorite period of American history. Mine is the period of the founding fathers. I’ve really been quite enchanted by that. We were a very small country – four or five million people – but we produced in the period of a few years a flowering of political genius. Just remarkable, I think unprecedented really in the history of the world. And I like all of them I guess. I’ve read a good bit about them. They’re giants. But my particular favorite is James Madison. Madison, of course, did not have all that successful a tenure as president, but he was the father of the Constitution. And I’ve been kind of attracted to him because I’ve always felt that he could never have gotten elected to Congress. He was a small man, about 5-foot tall. He had a pock-marked face. He was a lousy speaker. On television he would have been disaster; but he was a political genius because he was able to put together, if you will, large portions of the Constitution. So my interest has really been with the founding fathers. I have others I admire. Lincoln, of course like all Americans, I admire; but the founding fathers I feel a deep, deep sense of appreciation for because of what they did.

Question: Is there a gap in leadership today?

Transcript: Well the question I would repeatedly get when I was conducting public meetings in Indiana was, “Where are the leaders?” It’s the question you just asked, and I think it’s on the minds of an awful lot of Americans. Where are the Lincolns, the Jeffersons, the Washingtons? I don’t know whether I know the answer to that, but I think part of the answer may be that the country is just a lot more complicated, a lot more difficult to govern today because of its size; because of its diversity; because of the acceleration, if you would, of life. And the political skill that is most needed in this presidential election or any political election, from my point of view, is the ability to build a consensus behind a solution. It’s not very hard, really, to walk into a room of people where you’re discussing a difficult issue and blow it apart. I know it’s not very hard because I’ve done it on a few occasions. What is really hard is to walk into that room and to build a consensus behind a solution to the problem that you’re talking about. That is political skill, and that is the skill most needed in this great, big, diverse, complicated country with all of these conflicting interests that we have. Consensus building – that’s what I look for in a politician.

Question: How has the U.S. used its power?

Transcript: I think we’ve got a lot of work to do. I think we’ve had quite a setback, and we have not used that power as wisely, and prudently and effectively as we should have used it – particularly with regard to the war in Iraq. But this is behind us now, and we are where we are. We can’t change recent events and recent history. So I think we have to apply American power pragmatically, realistically. We have to make sure that we do not set goals for ourselves that we cannot achieve. When President Bush said we’re going to end tyranny in the world, that is idealism beyond reach. When President Kennedy said we must bear any burden, that is beyond reach. It’s an ideal, but the problem is matching resources to achieve your goal. And Americans, I think, have tended to overreach in the world, and to think that our power is so great that we can achieve all kinds of things. I have become impressed with the limitations of American power, and with the necessity of matching our goals with the means to achieve those goals; and to apply for ourselves pragmatic objectives around the world – achievable objectives. And to think that we can suddenly make democracy bloom in Saudi Arabia, and in Egypt, and in Pakistan is a stretch. We can’t do it. But I am also impressed that American ideals are good and solid. But we cannot accomplish them without a lot of help. If you sit down and try to name the most difficult problems that bother you – I don’t know what they might be . . . climate change, drugs, conflicts of all kinds, rising tensions in the world, HIV/AIDS, whatever . . . nuclear proliferation – you have to be impressed, I think, with the fact that you cannot achieve those goals by yourself. We have to have help. As big as we are, as smart as we are, as rich as we are, we need help. And we have to learn to work together. The great genius of American diplomacy came about, at least in my lifetime, after World War II when the idealism of the American people was captured pragmatically, and we rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan – Europeans leading the way, of course, but with our help. And we had this flowering of diplomacy. The World Bank, the IMF, what eventually became the WTO – the World Trade Organization – the United Nations. In other words, we advanced American interests, but we did it by cooperating with other countries around the world. We did not say, “This is the way it’s going to be. It’s going to be the American model. We’re going to do it our way. We’re going to impose it upon you.” We rejected that, and we took the generosity of the American public. Just think for a moment. We defeated Japan and Germany. They were the great evil – Adolf Hitler, Tojo – some people will remember that – the Emperor of Japan. After the war, we immediately turned around – immediately – and gave aid to those countries. What a remarkable thing. Think of that. We gave aid to the people we had been fighting for years. Well how do you capture that spirit again? That generosity? That pragmatism? That ability to advance your interests, but also include the interests of others? That’s the great challenge for us.

Question: How is this generation different than the Greatest Generation?

Transcript: You’d have to say leadership, I believe. You’d have to say that we’ve lost a little bit of that imagination that our predecessors had after World War II. We lack their generosity of spirit, their magnanimity. We’ve got to try to recapture that. If we’re really going to be the leader of the world, we can’t sit down at the international conference table and say, “Okay this is the agenda. We’re going to dictate the agenda.” We’ve got to sit down at that table and promote our agenda, whatever it may be – fighting terrorism or whatever – but we’ve also got to sit there and listen to what the other side has to say. We don’t necessarily have to agree with it. We don’t have to make a lot of concessions. But you do have to try to learn to understand it; to accommodate it, if possible; and if not, to find areas where you can agree and work on those where you cannot agree.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: Well I think how things work, it takes an awful lot of effort by a lot of people. And building a community of interests, building consensus, I think, is really the great challenge. The overwhelming challenge in the world today for the United States is how we use this power – unrivaled power, unprecedented power, unmatched power – economically, militarily, technologically, culturally? How we use that power to protect American interests and to make a better world – safer, more prosperous. That is the great challenge for the country now, and I think will be for many, many years to come.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Question: What were the milestones of your political career?

Transcript: Well of course the big milestone was my first election to Congress.  That’s a kind of an earth shattering event for me at the time, and I thought what a thrill it was.  You know there’s a lot more luck in politics than most politicians will acknowledge.  And I was a very lucky man.  I’m a Democrat, and I happened to run in 1964, which was one of the strongest democratic years in that century.  I’ve often said that any fool could get elected on the democratic ticket that year, and several did.  But I was very, very fortunate because I . . .  And lucky I ran in a year that was very beneficial to my party.  I got elected.  And because of really the advantages of the incumbency – and there are many – I was able to stay there.  I went to Congress with no idea that I would be focusing on foreign affairs.  I had an interest in getting on the agriculture committee and the public works committee – committees that I thought directly helped me in my constituency.  I couldn’t get on, and one of the leaders came to me and said, “Well how would you like foreign affairs?”  And I said, “Well I’ll try it for a year or two.”  I tried it, I liked it, and I stayed there.

Question:  Why have you remained involved in government as a private citizen?

Transcript:  Well I didn’t seek these positions as the Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission and Co-Chair on the Iraq Study Group.  They came to me in a sense.  And I don’t give myself any credit for it.  I think any American approached to deal with those kinds of questions could not say no, and I accepted.  And I didn’t have any grand idea of how it would turn out, but I felt that I was given an opportunity to try to help the country.  I’ve always been interested in the direction and success of my country.  In a strange sort of a way – this may sound odd – but I’m not really all that interested in politics.  By that I mean I’m not interested in the nitty-gritty of getting elected.  Precinct meetings, voter registration lists, public relations campaigns, spin and all of that.  I put up with all that.  I did it because you have to as an American politician; but my real interest has always been policy.  And since I was in the Congress, I was able to engage in that.  When I got out of the Congress, fortunately I was able to continue that interest.

Recorded on: 7/5/07

Transcript: My name is Lee Hamilton. My title is the President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. I’m also the Director for the Center on Congress at Indiana University. And I prefer to be called Lee.

Question: Where are you from and how has that shaped you?

Transcript: I was a very young boy when World War II started. I’m not sure quite what impact it had on me. I remember very clearly my father coming into the room and saying, “The Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor.” I really had no concept of the seriousness of that, but I could tell from my father’s demeanor that he was very worried about it. And so I guess I was worried, too. So I grew up at a time when the country was going through an economic depression in the ‘30s, then shifted to a war footing with very rapid changes in American society. I’m sure I didn’t understand all of that, but that was the ______ in which I grew up.

I then moved to Evansville, Indiana, and I think I was in the seventh or eighth grade when that occurred. And from that point on, my recollection grew a little clearer, and it’s very simple: basketball. I grew up in an environment very similar to the movie Hoosiers. My sole focus in the very early days of my life was basketball.

Question: How did sports influence you when you were young?

Transcript: Well I’m a great believer in athletics, and I’m a great believer in competitive athletics. I have no doubt at all that my competitive instincts started at a very young age. I initially began in track and field events and then shifted to basketball. But from the earliest that I can remember – second, third grade – I wanted to be the fastest runner in the class. I was not very much interested in the classroom. My teachers would often say that my only interest in life was the playground and playground activities. That competitive instinct was just innate from the very beginning, and it certainly sharpened in my basketball years. I got an awful lot out of basketball. The coaches were just terrific and gave me a lot of guidance and direction; made sure I didn’t go astray, I guess; and impressed upon me the importance of working together, cooperation, team spirit if you will – lessons that I think . . . I hope I’ve carried with me throughout my life.

Question: When did public service first spark your interest?

Transcript: One of my very vivid recollections is walking across the stage at the commencement of DePaul University in Greencastle, Indiana to receive my undergraduate degree and thinking very clearly to myself I didn’t have the slightest idea of what I wanted to do, and being quite envious, really, of my fellow students who seemed to have a much more directed, focused life than I did. I traveled a year in Europe. I enrolled at a university there – ______ University – ________, but didn’t really study very much. It was the first time I had ever been to Europe. I began then to develop an interest in government and politics, I guess just from reading the newspapers. I came back and I went to law school. I thought I would practice law. And I did for a period of time, but to be blunt about it I was bored by it. I went to a Chicago firm – marvelous lawyers, good people, but I just was not engaged. And I decided, “Well, I can go back and practice law in Indiana.” I enjoyed it more. County city practice, a lot of contacts with clients, I tried a lot of cases; but even then I had a certain restlessness. And I said, “Well I’ll give politics a try.” And I did and I enjoyed it. I can’t identify any single point where I suddenly said, “Well I’m going to go into politics and make that my calling,” but it grew over a period of years after really I left college.

Recorded on: 7/5/07