     A Call to Economic Arms:  The New American Mandate


[The following is an extended essay Paul Tsongas wrote in late
 1990, before deciding to run for President on the Democratic
 ticket.  It was subsequently reprinted as a campaign book, 
 and is being distributed on computer bulletin boards.  For more
 information, contact Tsongas for President, 2 Oliver Street, 
 Boston, MA, 02109,  voice phone 617-422-0100.]



                                       Paul E. Tsongas
                                       Foley, Hoag & Eliot
                                       One Post Office Square
                                       Boston, MA  02109
                                       (617) 482-1390



     A Call to Economic Arms:  The New American Mandate



     America is greatness.  It is the pursuit of excellence and
the fulfillment of human capacity.  America is not the casual
acceptance of economic decline and social disintegration.  Yet,
that is what some are prepared to endure.  We are better than
what we are being asked to be by our leaders.  We are a nation of
goals, not a nation of limits.  We must have leadership that is
committed to world pre-eminence in the strength of our economy,
in the cohesion of our society, and in the quality of our
environment.  To accept anything less is to do violence to the
two centuries of our history.

     America is not just another country.  It is not just another
place.  It is the embrace of fundamental human values that define
what man can become.  America is "We The People" as respectful
keepers of the sacred trust that was forged by the blood and
hardships of those who came before us.  America has been be-
queathed to us.  It is a living heritage meant for us to preserve
and then bequeath to other Americans, yet unborn and yet proven
to be worthy.

     Today, that heritage is under attack.

     Its restoration is the great challenge of our generation.

     This is the mandate to which we must now attend.

     America faces great economic peril as our standard of living
is threatened by Europe 1992 and the Pacific Rim.  Once the
world's greatest economic power, we are selling off our national
patrimony as we sink ever deeper into national debt.  The
Reagan-Bush years have seen us become the world's greatest debtor
nation.  America is also witnessing the weakening of its social
fabric as more and more families dissolve under the onslaught of
a culture that glorifies the immediate and the shallow.  As our
historic values are disregarded by today's society-in-a-hurry,
the civility of America has been lessened.  Finally, America is
adrift as our leaders flinch from the difficult decisions that
will safeguard us from the energy and environmental threats that
confront us.  This nation's will is not being called upon on the
home front because of a fear that our people are not ready for an
honest and forceful response to these threats.  I strongly
disagree.

     The purposeful avoidance of difficult issues caused serious
erosion to our society in the eighties.  The eighties, fortunate-
ly, are over.  The icon of indulgence that we worshipped during
that decade has proven to be a false god.  However, it has left
behind a legacy of comfort and ease and the pursuit of self.

     That legacy is not what America is all about.  That legacy
contravenes the values of our ancestors.  These forebears created
a nation with an enduring work ethic, a sense of personal
discipline, and an acute appreciation of the common good.  They
had a sense of purpose that gave meaning to their lives and
strengthened their nation.  They defined patriotism as what they
did, not what they avoided doing.

     They left that sense of purpose and that patriotism to our
keeping.  We have set it aside.

     America is asking us to return to that purpose.  The time
has come for a New American Mandate, based on the precious values
of the past but focused on a vision of the future.  The New
American Mandate is a positive response to America under siege. 
Saddam Hussein is an acknowledged threat, but he is not the only
one.  Just as we deploy our men and women in the Persian Gulf, we
must deploy every American to stop our economic bleeding, to
restore our social fabric, and to meet head on the environmental
and energy threats to our well being.

     We must all be soldiers - everyone of us.  Our men and women
in the armed forces demonstrate their love of country by facing
possible death in the sands of the Arabian peninsula.  We must be
prepared to love our country as well in our every day deeds and
our every day commitments.

     America in 1991 needs our total devotion.  This paper is
meant to provide the battle plan to deploy that devotion in a way
that will strengthen the nation we love.

     The mission of the Democratic Party in 1992 would normally
be to put one of its own in the White House.  But these are not
normal times.

     What our country needs is not just a President - but a
President with the necessary mandate.  In many respects the
mandate to correctly change our course is more critical than
which party will oversee that change from the White House.

     One thing is clear.  Democrats must avoid, at all costs,
emulating the "Pledge of Allegiance/Willie Horton/Read My Lips"
campaign of George Bush.  That campaign was designed to win in
November, not govern in January.  There was no attempt to seek a
mandate except, of course, the one on taxes which everyone knew
was a cynical ruse.  The rest was all hot button politics.  It
was philosophy by polling data.

     So George Bush rules, and the nation is without a sense of
direction.  His media consultants patted themselves on the back,
pleased with a victory that would enhance their professional
reputations.  Having had no interest in creating a prevailing
wind, the White House now acts as a spinning weathervane.  The
Persian Gulf is addressed but all else remains set aside.  The
country looks for some sign of the "vision thing," but to no
avail.

     We Democrats, of course, could do the same thing.

     Winning would be thrilling as all victories are.  But on
January 20th the issues would be no less real.  Perhaps our
Democrat could be fortunate like Ronald Reagan and escape before
the consequences of his policies were fully realized.  But if
that is our offering, why would the American people substitute
one army of "feel-good" salesmen for another?

     Let us use 1992 to articulate the cold challenges and the
real threats to America that came before Saddam Hussein and will
remain after Saddam Hussein.  Let us seek to rally our nation to
forcefully address these issues.  Let us create a mandate, a
mandate that will allow purposeful and effective governance.

     Without such a mandate, the White House will be a prison. 
And the President will be captive to economic and social forces
he cannot control.  With a mandate, the fortunes of America will
truly brighten because the people will be deployed with purpose.

     This is the New American Mandate we must create.

     It requires the re-emergence of America as the world's
pre-eminent economic power.  It calls upon America to lead the
fight for world environmental equilibrium.  It demands that, once
and for all, we achieve energy sufficiency.  It seeks the
repairing of the American social fabric so that we are
spiritually one community.  It positions America as the critical
partner in achieving world peace but based upon the principles of
true burden sharing.

     If we Democrats cause that to happen, we will have truly
served our country, no matter who wins the election.

     The White House and a mandate.  Both or neither.  Let's get
on with it.

     This paper will address six of the issues around which the
strength of our nation revolves.  They are:

     Economic Survival

     Education

     Environment

     Energy

     Foreign Policy

     Our Cultural Fabric

     My views reflect my ten years on Capitol Hill, my
observations these past six years in the private sector, and my
earlier experiences living outside the United States.


I.  Economic Survival:  The Creation of National Wealth

     There is no reason why the United States should not be the
pre-eminent economic power on earth.  No reason whatsoever.  We
have the land, the resources and the people.  What we lack is the
leadership.  Our political leadership has chosen to ignore
difficult economic realities.  It has, instead, decided to
finance short-term avoidance by placing the nation under crushing
and unsustainable debt.  As a result, America is facing great
economic peril.  We are daily witnessing this ever-mounting
national debt, the inexorable sale of America to foreign
interests, and the steady deterioration of our capacity to
compete in the global marketplace.

     Yet, the alarm remains unsounded.  Washington is recession
proof.  The rest of the country, however, is not.  Washington
talk about "it's morning in America" rings hollow in communities
devastated by failing industries.  To them it's high noon. 
Bravado talk about "we can out-compete, out-produce and out-sell"
any country in the world without change in our national economic
policies is a self-serving delusion.

     Washington politicians should experience service on
corporate boards of companies that are trying to compete
internationally.  They should have their financial survival
riding on a startup business struggling under the burden of the
high costs of American capital.  They should have close relatives
seeking to manage companies under the quarterly gaze of Wall
Street vultures and getting battered by foreign companies whose
investors think in terms of years.  They should watch a son or
daughter sell off technological genius to the Japanese or Germans
or Swiss because no American company is interested.

     This is what is happening outside the Beltway.

     America's manufacturing base is under attack and Washington
treats it as just another issue.

     It is not just another issue.  It is the issue.  This
problem is our collective kryptonite.  An ever less competitive
manufacturing base inevitably means cataclysmic erosion of our
standard of living.  If we are reduced to just flipping
hamburgers and exploiting our raw materials, we will have an
economy, but it will be a diminished economy of decline and
defeat.  The American people would never stand for such a
prospect.  As the recent MIT report on competitiveness put it,
"In order to live well, a country must produce well."  This is
the slogan which should sit on the President's desk.

     It would perhaps be useful to put numbers on this concern. 
There are three major indices that tell the tale - the number of
persons employed in manufacturing, our balance of trade and the
federal budget deficit.

     Manufacturing employment:  The United States today has only
17% of its total workforce in manufacturing, down from 26% in
1970.  If defense industries are removed, we have only 15%.  The
Germans have 33% of their companies in manufacturing and the
Japanese have 28%.

     During the 1970's, the United States paid its production
workers the highest wages in the world and still maintained a
positive balance of trade.  Today, nine other nations pay higher
wages, yet our trade balance is chronically negative.

     Over the past five years, our average trade balance has been
$133 billion negative while the Germans have averaged $61 billion
positive.  Yet, the Germany average production wage and benefits
is $18.02 per hour compared with $13.92 in the United States.

     Overall productivity in this country grew at over 3% per
year from 1960 to 1973 but has risen by only 1% per year since
then.

     The average weekly earnings of the private nonagricultural
workforce grew (in 1984 dollars) from $262 in 1949 to $336 in
1959 to $387 in 1969.  Since then, it has declined to $376 in 179
and $335 in 1989.

     Balance of Trade:  Hard as it may be to believe, the United
States used to be a net exporter.  In 1960 we had a net balance
of trade surplus of $2.8 billion.  In 1970 it was a surplus of
$2.3 billion.  In 1980 it stood at a surplus of $1.1 billion. 
The 1980's have seen deficits steadily grow.  In 1990 our trade
deficit totalled over $95 billion.

     This deficit accumulation totals some $910 billion since
1980.  What does this mean?  It means that $910 billion of our
wealth has been transferred to someone else - either by resources
leaving this country or by foreigners buying up America.  At the
current rate we will either be in total hock to the outside world
or the outside world will own us.

     In contrast, the same timeframe saw Japan net a balance of
trade surplus of $57 billion in 1989.  (And this despite the fact
that it is far more dependent on imported oil than we are.) 
Germany enjoyed a surplus in 1989 of $55 billion.  These two
countries lost World War II but they are the clear victors in the
global economic wars of the present day.

     Again, this massive bleeding of America's economic base
should galvanize a fierce collective response with Washington in
the lead.  Check your local newspapers to see when it was last
mentioned and on which page it was printed.  This is avoidance
politics at its most destructive.

     Federal budget deficit:  Someday, teachers of political
history will relate the rhetoric and reality of the Reagan-Bush
economic era.  They will talk of two Republican conservatives who
successfully bashed Democrats as wild spenders.  They will speak
of these two leaders adamantly calling for a Constitutional
Amendment to force a balanced federal budget.  They will recall
the constant rhetoric of the need for the federal government to
match expenditures with incomes "like every American household." 
The students will readily understand the sheer power of this
political approach.

     Then the teacher will provide numbers.

     All forty presidents before Reagan ran up a combined
national debt of $994.3 billion.  Reagan-Bush alone added another
$2,623.5 billion.

     The much criticized Jimmy Carter ran an average budget
deficit of $57 billion.  George Bush has averaged $245 billion.

     George Bush in the FY 1990 budget alone ran a deficit
greater than the deficits of Democratic Presidents Carter,
Johnson, Kennedy and Truman combined.

     The students will not believe the teacher.  How could this
be, they will ask?  How could Reagan and Bush have gotten away
with balanced-budget rhetoric at a time of massive budget deficit
realities?  How could they lull the American people into
accepting such staggering debt without widespread revolt?

     More pointedly, they will ask, why did people allow this
enormous accumulation of debt which now burdens their generation?
This, of course, raises the pointed question of generational
morality.

     In FY 1991 the interest on the federal debt is $197 billion. 
By the year 2000, it is expected to reach 25% of the entire
federal budget.  This reality is morally reprehensible.  It is
the record of the Reagan-Bush years.

     The Democratic response must, above all, seek to reestablish
our manufacturing capability at, or above, that of the Japanese. 
The Republicans, of course, have carefully avoided the
articulation of any goals whatsoever.

     Some of them argue that the decline in our manufacturing
base is acceptable because it will be replaced by a service-based
economy.  This is the avoidance politicians' drug of choice. 
There is no such thing as being a major financial center in the
world without a vibrant competitive manufacturing sector.  Again,
numbers tell the story.  The largest American bank is Citicorp. 
In 1970 it ranked 2nd worldwide.  Chase Manhattan Bank was ranked
3rd.  In 1980 they ranked 5th and 11th, respectively.  Today,
they rank 24th and 54th.  Sixteen Japanese banks rank ahead of
our biggest.  In major financial transactions we are, in effect,
dropping from the radar screen.  It is no accident that the
world's six largest banks are now Japanese.  The Germans and
French also have major banking entities and they are resolute in
emphasizing manufacturing.  A nation without a manufacturing base
is a nation heading toward third world status.  So much for
morning in America.

     This economic silent spring is a disgrace.  Yet, no word of
alarm escapes from George Bush.  "Read my lips, add more debt."

     Our forefathers labored mightily to establish America as the
pre-eminent economic power on earth.  We have allowed the fruits
of their labors to be sold off to foreign buyers, one national
treasure after another.  We accept enormous trade deficits month
after month, year after year, with hardly a murmur.  We treat the
staggering federal deficits as inevitable results of political
gridlock.  It's time we faced up to our peril.

     This is where democracies rely upon the courage of their
elected leaders.  The normal political instinct is to always
engage in happy talk.  It is courage which allows a politician to
take a people beyond that.  It takes toughness to lead a people
toward their preservation no matter how disquieting the journey
may be.  For avoidance of unpleasant reality is simply part of
human nature.

     I learned that lesson once more in the aftermath of my
cancer diagnosis in 1983.  I found myself wishing for soothing
reassurance, but what I needed was tough love.  Not feeling ill,
I wanted to just go home and live a normal life and not deal with
the disease until I absolutely had to.  For a while that's what I
did.  And it was possible to push away the awareness of the
realities inside of me.

     By 1985, however, I was put on mild oral chemotherapy.  This
was done in hopes of avoiding the more toxic intravenous drugs. 
And I knew that after that would come radiation.  And after that,
perhaps, would come the still experimental bone marrow
transplant.  I even put myself on a macrobiotic diet in search of
an effortless deliverance.  My doctor was not impressed.

     When the time came for my late fall checkup my doctor was
shocked at my deteriorated condition and upset with me for not
seeking him out earlier than my scheduled appointment.  The
disease was voluminous in my body and was about to consume me.

     The next ten months contained no happy talk.  Monthly
sessions of intravenous chemotherapy were followed by target
radiation.  In late August, I was undergoing the bone marrow
transplant with its massive chemotherapy and whole body
radiation.  For the next six weeks I was confined to a sterile
hospital room, attempting to recover from these assaults to my
body.  These were weeks of fear and discomfort, of course, but
they were also weeks of slowly realizing that I was now able to
look at the monster full face.  In early October I was released
from that room.  I was back to work by mid-November, thin as a
rail, bald as a billiard ball and wondrous of my survival.

     I have often reflected back upon those ten months.  I know
that my hard-nosed, no-margin-for-error doctors saved my life. 
But I also know that I resented their tough approach during that
period.

     My story is my own but there are millions of Americans who
have had to learn the same lesson in countless other personal
crises.  Avoidance of hard truths makes the inevitable dealing
with them all the more difficult.  And what is true for
individuals is also true for nations.

     In 1991 there is a need for us to acknowledge that we must
get our financial house in order.  The New American Mandate is,
above all, an economic imperative.  It is committing ourselves to
the actions necessary to achieve full economic recovery and
unassailable competitive strength.  This involves what we do
every day in the workplace and every day in the marketplace.  It
is thinking about these daily events as expressions of economic
patriotism - as necessary prerequisites for the preservation of
our standard of living.

     Through the New American Mandate we will demand that our
leaders articulate the policies for this economic regeneration. 
Not just the comfortable policies, but the difficult ones as
well.  Not at some distant time when it will be politically
easier, but now, while we still have the capacity to control our
destiny.

     We need a national economic policy.  What we have today is a
naive faith that our companies can compete without any public
sector help as they struggle against foreign companies linked to
governments with resolute industrial policies.  Our companies are
going forth to do one-on-one battle and are being mugged.  Their
competitors are aided by governments that aggressively seek out
the advantages of uneven playing fields whenever possible.

     The Reagan-Bush response to all this has been benign neglect
on a global basis.  And the muggings continued unabated.  We
Democrats must do better.  We must level the playing field.

     There are many components to a national economic policy. 
Let me list a few.

Democratic and Republican Shibboleths

     Both political parties are going to have to abandon the
rusty core elements of their economic philosophies and head off
in new directions.  These archaic old saws are much embraced by
party chieftains.  The affection for them expressed by party
ideologues is matched only by our trading competitors' fervent
hope that they will never disappear.  These nations benefit by
our politics of self-delusion. 

Democrats

     Democrats have always believed that their essential mission
is social and economic justice.  And so it is.  Look for such
advancements in the twentieth century and in almost every
instance a Democrat's hand has been at work.  It is a noble
tradition.

     That tradition must never be abandoned.

     Underlying that mission, however, has been a rarely
acknowledged but enduring notion.  Wealth would be created by
others and after its creation we Democrats would intervene to
preserve fairness by the equitable redistribution of that wealth. 
During most of this century that may have been a logical battle
plan.  Not so any more.

     There is today one glaring truth.  You cannot redistribute
wealth that is never created.  A party devoted to the purpose of
carving up the economic pie should be alarmed by the reality that
the pie is shrinking.  Witness the devastation being visited upon
critical social programs by the shortfall in tax revenues in most
states in the country.

     Democrats are going to have to go back to the original act -
the creation of national wealth.  They are going to have to sit
down with the business community and jointly establish policies
of wealth creation.  It means giving up comfortable political
nuclear weapons - such as the marvelous boost gained from
routinely attacking corporate America and big business.  Some
recent Democratic rhetoric presents itself as traditional
populism, an "us-them" view of the world where the "them" is
anyone in the manufacturing, service or banking industries.  Wake
up, Democrats.  Without viable manufacturing, service and banking
sectors, there is no country.  A marriage - note the word is
marriage, not liaison - with corporate America is essential. 
Corporate America must survive, indeed thrive, if our Democratic
social agenda is to have any hope of implementation.

     This does not mean that we put aside our concern about 
social and economic justice.  That standard must remain in the
forefront of our consciousness.  But it must coexist with a
resolute determination that America must create wealth in order
to provide a decent standard of living for our people.

     To effectively deal with the problems of homelessness, of
AIDS, of affordable housing, of catastrophic health care for
everyone, of college scholarships, of all the human needs we care
about there must be revenue flow from which to secure the
necessary funds.  The more we want to solve the great human
injustices in our society, the more we are going to need a full
throttle economic engine.  One cannot exist without the other.

     Pro-business, some would call it.  And so it is. 
Aggressively so.  But commonwealth is what it is as well.  There
is a real political opening here for our party.  Many in the
business community are quite alarmed by the economic decline of
America and want to fight back.  They see an administration that
has always devoted its energies elsewhere and offers no real hope
that its disinterest will ever end.  These business leaders,
however, view the Democrats with deep skepticism.  They do truly
see us as "tax and spend" advocates who are instinctively hostile
to business interests.  Our task is to convince them that we
really understand one simple reality.  America's standard of
living is totally dependent upon their capacity to compete and be
profitable.  It's about time we said so and acted accordingly.

     To me this is not an abstraction.  My childhood was spent
experiencing the economic decline of my home city, Lowell,
Massachusetts.  My father (a Republican) owned a dry cleaners and
the entire family worked in the business.  My father worked from
6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., six days a week, 51 weeks a year. 
Sundays were spent doing the books and repairing the machinery. 
By any fair standard, this staggering workload should have
resulted in just rewards for him.  It didn't.  No matter how hard
he worked, no matter how conscientious he was, the forces of
Lowell's economic decline were too much to overcome.

     The remembrance of those days has left me with an inability
to view economic dislocation casually.  Perhaps I have too good a
memory.  But when I see our nation's economic indices, I have a
foreboding sense of not wanting these trends to run their course. 
I want to determine my own fate.  I believe the business world is
full of people who share this deep concern.  We Democrats must
reach out to them.

Republicans

     Whereas the Democrats must learn to embrace the world of
industrialists, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists,
Republicans are going to have to alter their views as well.

     At the Republican core is the almost religious belief that
an unfettered free market is the best of all worlds.

     Industrial policy is seen as equivalent to child
pornography.  It is seen as the domain of such reprobates as
Castro, the Sandinistas and the now discredited Communist
planners.

     This view is unschooled.  Industrial policies presuppose a
market system.  They show how to improve the competitiveness of
private firms through public policies.  Since Communist central
planning systems have neither markets nor private companies, it
is by definition a contradiction in terms to refer to them as
having industrial policies.

     Republicans are going to have to refine their perspectives
to realize that to embrace any component of an industrial policy
is not to immediately be guilty of Soviet-style central planning
activities.

     Industrial policy is what Japan has.  It is what Germany
has.  It is what we must have as well.

     When I was involved with the Chrysler bill some eleven years
ago, the attitude of the purist laissez faire proponents was,
basically, "let it die."  To argue the case for sustaining a
company with a viable future product line was difficult because
some felt it was government intervention.  And it was.  But if
the company had gone under would America have been better off? 
Of course not.  The government even made money on the deal when
it was all over.  But I never heard anyone say that they would
have voted differently.  An America with just two major auto
manufacturers is not an industrial policy.  Saving Chrysler was
industrial policy.  It worked and we should not be so quick to
forget that fact.

     Republicans are well trained to look at potential military
adversaries and demand weapon equivalence in defense of the
nation.  If these adversaries have a particular military
capability, then by definition, we must put aside all other
considerations to make our military capability even bigger and
better.

     Today our economic enemies are our political friends.  The
war they wage is in the marketplace, not on the battlefield. 
America can be done away with by economic decay just as assuredly
as by foreign invasion.  The implosion of the Warsaw Pact was
economic, political and social.  It collapsed from its own
internal weaknesses, not by the force of outside military attack. 
An ever diminishing standard of living in the United States will
cause us to battle each other over diminishing resources.  We
will cease to be a major factor in world affairs as we focus only
upon our downward spiral.

     For the Republicans as well there should be one glaring
truth.  American companies need the United States government as a
full partner if they are to have any hope of competing
internationally.  That means an industrial policy.  Take a deep
breath, my Republican friends.  It's a brave new world out there. 
Adam Smith was a marvelous man but he wouldn't know a
superconductor or memory chip if he tripped over one.

     Take another deep breath.  The threat to America today is
not only a diminished Soviet Union.  It is not just Saddam
Hussein.  It is the threat of a different dimension.  It is
Japanese, German, Taiwanese, Swiss, French, South Korean, etc. 
Friends all.  But just as capable of reducing us to impotence. 
They have already begun.  The adrenalin that Republicans would
call up at will to confront Soviets or Cubans or Sandinistas or
East Germans or North Koreans or the Iraqi Republican Guard must
be called up to confront our friends.

     This is war by another playwright.  But it's still war.

     It doesn't take a genius to understand the post-Gulf War
era.  The Japanese and Germans will have emerged as even more
formidable economic competitors.  They chose to bypass the
conflict while we made it our foremost national purpose.  It is
no accident that CNN and network coverage of the war was viewed
by Americans on Japanese TV sets and was interspersed with ads
from Japanese manufactured products.

     Republicans must acknowledge this and begin to mobilize
accordingly.  This means opening up to aggressive and resolute
policies which will put the government in the foxhole with our
beleaguered American companies.  Republicans who focus on
"defense strength" must be made to understand that such
capabilities come from government funds.  Government funds come
from taxes.  And taxes come from a vibrant economy.  Kill the
economy and you have no "defense strength."

     If the New American Mandate requires Democrats to embrace
the creation of wealth, it also requires Republicans to see honor
in asking the question "what works" and to see dishonor in
slavish adherence to past economic dogma.

     For Democrats the political opportunity lies in the
likelihood that George Bush will not act any differently about
this than Ronald Reagan did.  There are three reasons for this.

     First, the politics are an impediment.  Avoidance politics
have always been, and will always be, powerfully seductive. 
"Read my lips, no new taxes" was just the latest in a long line
of homage to false gods.  The Reagan-Bush line has been to gloss
over the dangers ("morning in America") and simply ignore
fundamental economic trends.  Their concern is the immediate
judgment of their electoral contemporaries not the judgment of
historians - even if that history is rapidly coming upon us.  It
is my contention that the accumulation of hard data as to our
economic dilemma has provided a base for electoral realism in
1992.  That base can only expand.  The 1992 Democratic campaign
must take it on faith that Americans are prepared to wage this
economic battle ferociously.  The Republicans will presume the
opposite and will continue their avoidance politics.

     Second, there is no sense of urgency.  Most of the key
economic decision makers in the administration come from
circumstances of affluence.  For them there will be financial
insulation no matter what happens.  Their economic safety nets
are made of steel cables.  There is no foreboding.  There is no
perception that the economic ground beneath them can tremble.  It
is just too removed from their own personal histories and
circumstances.  This is not meant to suggest venality.  It is
meant to suggest that perception of a particular threat is more
acute in those who have faced it before.

     Third, the trade deficit, the budget deficits and
manufacturing employment numbers listed above are all
Reagan-Bush.  They occurred during their watch.  They are the
party of record.

     To reverse course would be to acknowledge that their unaided
free market policies have been dysfunctional as we confront trade
competitors who have their public and private sectors in resolute
harmony.  To reverse course is to admit error.  It will never
happen.  At best they will work around the margins.  A full blown
frontal assault on the economic threat would require a
self-analysis of the past eleven years that will inevitably sully
the Reagan-Bush record.  George Bush cannot, and will not, do
this.  His course was set more than a decade ago when he
retreated from his declaration that Reagan's policies were
"voodoo economics."  Once he capitulated to that Republican
realpolitik, his options were narrowed forever.

     We Democrats must insure that George Bush's dilemma is not
America's dilemma.

Recognize the Peril

     This is step one.  This is where America and George Bush
must part company.  No one ever solved a problem he refused to
acknowledge.

     Yes, we are losing ground, particularly in high technology,
basic manufacturing, and financial services.

     Yes, it is the national crisis of the highest priority.

     Yes, it threatens to seriously reduce the American standard
of living.

     Yes, it will destroy the economic foundation of our military
national security.

     Yes, it will severely compromise our capability to play a
peacekeeping role in world affairs.

     Yes, we now believe that government must be an active
partner in this great challenge.

     Yes, America should be the pre-eminent manufacturing nation
on earth again.

     Yes, Americans are the equal of any workforce in the world.

     Good.  Now let's get on with it.

Be Prepared to Make Strategic Investments

     The notion of investing in the technologies necessary to
create the Star Wars program was hotly debated.  But it became
national policy and billions were allocated to that purpose.

     Why?  National security.

     What about investments in technologies that could impact our
economic national security?  Horrors.  That's central planning.

     In the long run would America be better off with hundreds of
billions invested in an improbable Star Wars system arrayed only 
against an imploding Soviet Union or by developing an
insurmountable lead in ceramic engines, supercomputers and memory
chips?  Indeed, without a thriving manufacturing capability in
these industries the economic base to fund military research can
not exist.  Many anti-industrial policy Republicans would say
that the non-functionality of Star Wars against the Soviet Union
is an unfortunate but necessary price of eternal vigilance
against a foreign military threat.  These people would also argue
against major governmental investments in strategic technologies
because, unlike the Japanese, "we can't pick winners and losers." 
What about the economic foreign threat?

     Again, it's a matter of mindset.

     Washington has been focused on the Soviet challenge for the
entire adult years of most of its leaders.  It rebels at the
notion that in the 1990's there are real dangers that do not
emanate from missiles or tanks or fighter aircraft.

     It must rethink threat.  Threat can be venal such as a
Saddam Hussein.  But threat can come from people who are friendly
and have no evil intent.
     The threat to America is economic as well.  We must think of
government and industry as partners with the same level of
enthusiasm, indeed patriotism, that the military-industrial
complex generates for its joint mission.  Strategic investments
in emerging technologies is part of an industrial policy which
will result in some losers, yes, but will also result in some
critical winners as well.  These winners will be a major part of
our economic future.  Particularly now that American venture
capital has shrunk dramatically, government has a contributing
role to play in insuring that our push for technological
competitiveness has a fair chance at success.

Promotion of Science and Research

     This is one area where the rhetoric is in place but not the
reality.  The National Science Foundation, the National
Institutes of Health, NASA, the Departments of Energy and
Agriculture among others, are the mothers' milk of cutting edge
research investigations.  We should not be satisfied with
marginal increases in these budgets.  Again, its a matter of
mindset.  The Manhattan Project.  The Apollo program.  The war in
the Persian Gulf.  It's just a matter of recognizing the threat
and responding to it.  There will be no manufacturing sector
without a powerful basic and applied research capability.  Put
these agencies at the top of our funding priorities.

     In addition to the traditional areas of basic and applied
research, we must devote more attention to applied engineering
and manufacturing engineering.

     The economic war that we are losing is centered on process
technologies.  The taking of new ideas, indeed, even old ideas,
and converting them to manufactured goods is the great trade
battle ground.  The winners here are those who can take high and
low tech products and simply manufacture them better.  It is the
process of manufacturing that should also be the recipient of
research monies since it is only the production of a technology
which creates wealth.  The initial discovery and development of a 
product are the stuff of Nobel Prizes and prideful articles in
trade journals.  But that is not enough.

     The prior definition of success embraced those who could
conceive new product ideas.  Today the definition of success
embraces those who can take those ideas, wherever they may
originate, and turn them into products quickly, efficiently, and
with great quality control.  The Japanese takeover of the
American-originated VCR market is an obvious example.  These are
the cash cows.  These are the providers of employment for a
nation's people.  They are equally worthy of intellectual inquiry
and investigation.

     The need here is to exalt science in all its dimensions. 
There must be a White House effort to create an environment
wherein young Americans choose science (and engineering) as a
career.  The society as a whole needs to acknowledge that we will
survive as a viable economy only by the fruits of the minds of
young American scientists.  To have our best and brightest
heading to law schools and Wall Street is a gross misallocation
of resources.  The best and the brightest should be in the
laboratories and in the production facilities.  The best and the
brightest should be deployed to reinvigorate our manufacturing
sector.  This will require a sea change away from the values of
the 1980's that drove our young away from occupations of
production and into the occupations of the paper chase.

     A society which pays its 29 year old science researchers
$25,000 a year and its 29 year old lawyers $100,000 a year and
its 29 year old investment bankers $200,000 a year and its 29
year old left fielders $2 million a year is sending all the wrong
messages.  It is a formula for unrelenting decline.  The young
American scientist must be recognized as the fuel of any viable
economic engine.

Change Anti-Trust Laws

     Current anti-trust laws prevent American companies from
joint venturing in almost any area including such critical ones
as research and development.  The rationale for this policy is
rooted in America of years past, long before our companies faced
foreign corporate behemoths.  We need to pool our resources to be
equal with our competition.  We have to allow our companies to
muscle up.  Joint venturing is the sine qua non of that
capability.  It must become an everyday occurrence in order to
equip these companies to compete in the global marketplace.

     American companies should be released from anti-trust
constraints in areas which impact on their capabilities in
international trade.

     This is one area where our Japanese and German competitors
view us with great mirth.  To them the concept of group
strategies is an obvious way of maximizing your strengths. 
Seeing America hobbled by her own hand must seem to be a heaven-
sent advantage.

     Current American law pays homage to a period when all the
producers were American and thus cooperation between them was
clearly dangerous to the consuming public.  Today most of the
producers are foreign and they threaten to eradicate American
producers.  There must be a serious rethinking.  The fact that
our anti-trust laws were not changed years ago speaks to the
absolute neglect of the cutting edge issues of competitiveness
while we engage endlessly in the rhetoric of promoting
competitiveness.  Democrats are particularly vulnerable to this
criticism.  We must give our companies a more level playing field
through policy changes that don't require massive federal
expenditures.

Increase our savings rate

     Congress should pass laws which encourage savings over
consumption.  This will create a capital pool which will begin to
match the resource base that countries with high savings rates
enjoy.  The lack of a capital pool is the economic equivalent of
unilateral disarmament.

     The numbers here are staggering.  Compare the United States,
Japan and Germany in years 1980, 1984 and 1988.  Our national
savings as a percentage of GNP went from 18.8 to 17.0 to 15.1.

     Germany had rates of 21.7 to 21.7 to 24.5.

     Japan, of course, was in a class by itself.  It had rates of
31.1 to 30.7 to 33.3.

     We need a dramatic improvement in our rate of savings in
order to provide the much needed capital base for investment.

     A much greater abundance of capital will serve two purposes. 
 First, it will reduce the cost of capital to U.S. companies.
Currently the cost of capital in America far exceeds that of
Japan and Germany.  It renders corporate decision makers unable
to make investments whose payout is long term.  This financial
barrier is lethal to the kinds of corporate strategies that are
necessary in order to compete.

     Second, it will reduce our current hazardous dependence on
outside sources of capital.  These are sources which can quickly
evaporate when these nations decide they have other more pressing
uses for these funds: i.e. West Germany's current interest in
investing in the restoration of former East Germany.  Being
dependent on foreign capital is not unlike being dependent on
foreign oil.  You don't control your own destiny.  Various
I.R.A.s for retirement, college expenses, home ownership are
examples of pro-savings incentives. Other ideas should be
aggressively explored.

     Finally, the savings ethic must be fully ingrained in the
American culture forever, not just to get us through this
difficult period.  That means our children must be part of it. 
Schools should work with banks to give each child a savings
account or some equivalent.  No matter how small, such accounts
establish a thought process.  Efforts should be made to allow the
pooling of funds into Childrens Mutual Funds, wherein school
groups could invest minor amounts of money at reduced service
fees.  This would have the additional benefit of directly
involving children in learning about and caring about the
American economic system.  These would be latter day Economic
Liberty Bonds.  Young people would be taking a personal step in
helping to provide the capital necessary in America's battle for
economic survival.

     The secondary value of such participation by the young is
the early awareness of how dependent America is upon the actions
of individuals.  Hopefully, this sense of personal relevance will
be reinforced by other actions and lead to a more contributory
attitude towards citizenship.  Our people must perceive America's
economic vulnerability and see their own essential role in
safeguarding their nation.

Investment Over Consumption

     There are a lot of indices that show the inevitable decline
of American economic fortunes compared to those of the Japanese
and Germans.  Inevitable, that is, if these numbers are not
changed.

     Probably the most significant are the numbers which reflect
the differences in mindset relative to investment and
consumption.

     Consumption is today.

     Investment is tomorrow.

     It is seed corn consumed versus seed corn planted.  Nothing
is more basic.

     Yet relative to our competitors, we are devoted to
consumption, and they are devoted to investment.

     Again raw numbers.  The investment rates of the United
States, Japan and Germany.  Public and private.  Years 1970, 1980
and 1988.

     United States: public  15.1 and 15.6 and 15.5.
                    private  2.5 and  1.8 and  1.6.

     Germany:       public  20.9 and 19.1 and 17.5.
                    private  4.6 and  3.6 and  2.4.

     Japan:         public  31.0 and 25.5 and 25.3.
                    private  4.5 and  6.1 and  5.2.

     The reasons for this are historical.  Japan and Germany were
ravaged during World War II.  Their leadership and their
populations had known the horrors of economic disequilibrium -
from runaway inflation to personal deprivation.  Out of this
adversity came the intense Post-War determination to create
patterns of economic behavior that value future stability and
security over present day consumption.  We saw the Post-War
period as the time to reap the fruits of our victory.  Present
day consumption was seen as an earned reward eclipsing any
widespread sense of providing for the future.  The 1980's were
the epitome of that mindset.  It was assumed the future would
always be economically secure.  That assumption was wrong.  The
result of these national patterns if allowed to persist will be a
much lesser America.  Fewer good jobs.  More foreign ownership. 
More social dislocation.  Less world influence.  More crushing
debt, both personal and national.  The savers will dominate the
spenders.  The investors will eclipse the consumers.  The lean
and hungry will always prevail over the comfortable and
complacent.

     The problem here is not that all of this is not understood. 
The problem is that being understood by economists is one thing. 
Being understood by politicians is quite another.  And
transforming understanding into action is more difficult still.

     The economists will say that investment and consumption are
like a seesaw.  In order for investment to go up, consumption
must come down.  Herein lies the political dilemma.  But herein
also lies the opportunity for political leadership.

     Through the New American Mandate, our people will affirm
their commitment to a policy that defines the common good as the
promotion of investment over consumption.  We need to create in
ourselves the kind of steely will to survive economically that
our Japanese and German counterparts still have.  We must fashion
a political environment wherein a drumbeat for necessary economic
policies allows our elected officials to do what is right without
fear of immediate ouster.  Voting for needed economic reform must
be demanded by the electorate.  Continued avoidance of such
reform must be clearly identified as unacceptable pandering by
politicians who are putting their own re-election concerns above
the national interest.

     This involves choices, few of which will be easy.  Yet
relative to the economic decisions being faced by countries like
Poland and the Soviet Union they are far less onerous.  Far less. 
It means looking at the entitlement programs, heretofore a
political never-never land in American politics.  Would the
Congress support a policy of reducing the yearly increase in
entitlements by one percent below the cost of living?  It's not a
great deal but it would establish a policy of economic response. 
But politically it will not pass, even for those above a certain
income level, in the absence of a clear understanding as to the
nation's need for such a measure.  It must be seen as patriotic
to rally all of us to this cause.  The principle of shared
sacrifice for the common good must be advanced.  This is the
"vision thing" that George Bush finds so hard to come to grips
with.

     The policy must be made clear to every American.  We must
make the transition from a high consumption/low investment
country to a lesser consumption/high investment country.  Japan
and Germany did so decades ago because adversity gave them no
choice.  Can America do the same without having experienced such
deprivation?  Can we act in time to lessen the impact of far more
painful decisions in the future?
     I believe we can if the political leadership is prepared to
show the way.

Reduce the capital gains tax for investments in appropriate
securities held for a long period of time
     The current capital gains tax debate would only happen in a
political environment far removed from the pressures faced by
American companies.  We don't need an across the board capital
gains reduction as President Bush fought so desperately for last
year.  Encouraging people to invest in raw land or commercial
buildings or art collections adds nothing to our competitiveness. 
They are simply less critical recipients of our capital. 
Providing capital gains advantages to people who speculate in the
stock market is equally counterproductive since it rewards
short-term corporate horizons at the expense of long-term
corporate strategies.  It also encourages our most talented to
seek their fortunes by speculative and manipulative paper
shuffling as opposed to production oriented careers.  Michael
Milken at $500 million a year is very powerful career counseling
of the worse kind.

     We need to limit capital gains incentives to long-term
investments in corporate America.  This signals that such
investments are our nation's top investment priority.  To be
effective, this signal cannot be rhetoric, but must be pure
marketplace.  Invest here and your returns will be maximized.  
Very simple.  Invest in an American company, hold that stock
rather than speculate with it, and you get a significantly lower
capital gains tax rate.  The longer the stock is held, the lower
the tax rate.

     In addition, efforts should be made to define new
enterprises.  While the focus of the capital gains tax
differential must be on corporate investments, it makes obvious
sense to give an added incentive to such new enterprises.  The
growth of the American industrial base has always come from small
and emerging businesses.  These are the entrepreneurs with the
greatest maneuverability.  But they also have the greatest
vulnerability.  Today with the shrinking of the venture capital
markets they are at even greater risk.  There should be
differentials here large enough to attract serious investment
into those new ventures which will provide sources of fresh
employment in the years ahead.  It is time for paying attention
to sunrise enterprises as well as sunset enterprises.

     It is this combination of criteria that should make the
capital gains reduction a central part of creating an America in
economic rebound.  Such a program would channel capital towards
our industrial/manufacturing sector and would stretch out the
time horizons of investors.

     The obstacle here is party politics.  Some Democrats oppose
any capital gains differential because supporting it prevents
them from using the "class warfare" argument against the
Republicans.  Taking aggressive anti-business positions is second
nature to them.  Class warfare is certainly good politics.  But
it's good politics at the expense of the nation's industrial
base.   Democrats should be concerned with what a targeted
capital gains tax would do for America and not be focused on a
myopic discourse about who benefits the most under such a system. 
It is the common good that counts.

     I learned this lesson in 1975 in Lowell.  My home city was
being crushed under double digit unemployment.  The downtown was
a visually unattractive array of buildings that had not seen any
reinvestment for decades.  Lowell was everyone's model of a
depressed mill city.

     As a new Congressman I proposed the creation of the Lowell
Financial and Development Corporation.  This entity would be
funded by the local banks contributing one-twentieth of one
percent of their assets to it.  The corporation would then
reinvest those funds in restoring the historic buildings of the
downtown.  There was the expected resistance from some of the
bankers but eventually they agreed because they, in essence,
owned this devaluating property.

     What was not expected was the feeling by a few non-business
people that the corporation was inappropriate because it would
benefit some building owners that they considered unsavory. 
These people don't deserve to receive financial rewards, they
argued, because they are responsible for letting these buildings
fall into disarray in the first place.

     I must admit that I felt some sympathy for this
righteousness but not enough to change my mind.  The corporation
was created, and it and its organizational twin, the Lowell Plan,
have been very successful.  Lowell has become a national model of
urban renaissance.

     Did the "unsavory" people benefit?  They sure did.  But so
did everyone else in a once-depressed mill city with what had
seemed a marginal future.  So what.

Provide for a Research & Development Tax Credit

     This should be self-explanatory.  We can't compete long term
if we are not putting our earnings back into research and
development.  Such reinvestment back into a company should be
viewed as the corporate investment of highest priority and taxed
accordingly.  Farmers who consume their seed corn are never heard
from again.  The same is true of companies.  We have to help
American companies strengthen their prospects for the long term.

Change the counterproductive short term U.S. corporate
perspective

     The U.S. system of corporate survival is strictly a short
term game.  All of the forces in the marketplace reward the
shortsighted and penalize the wise.  It cuts down the chief
executive officer (and his board of directors) who thinks long
term and is willing to put his money where his strategy is.  For
example, CEO #1 and CEO #2 have similar companies with equivalent
earnings.  CEO #1 takes 30% of his earnings and invests it in a
long term research project that he has faith in.  CEO #2 shares
that faith but chooses to retain that 30% as an earnings dividend
to the shareholder.  Company #1's stock, therefore, will be lower
than Company #2's because its earnings are lower.  Company #1,
therefore, is more attractive to a takeover since its stock can
be acquired at a lower price and it has a long term technology 
strategy.  Company #2 is less attractive to a takeover for
exactly the opposite reasons - higher stock price and less long
term technological promise.  Who is the better CEO?  Who is the
safer CEO?  These are questions that will yield two different
answers.  This is especially true if company #2 uses its higher
stock price to acquire company #1 and then slashes the research
and development budget in order to help pay off the resultant
debt.  This is the true American corporate nightmare.  We must
enact fundamental changes to reverse this reality.  It means
charting new waters but it must be done.

     The role of CEO must be redefined in accordance with the new
world economic realities.  Historically the CEO was charged with
maximizing the short term value of the stockholder's holdings, no
more, no less.  Any policy which veered from this approach was an
invitation to hostile shareholder lawsuits.

     The new definition must include the notion of the CEO as
keeper of the assets of the company.  Those assets are
all-inclusive - human, technological, physical and financial. 
The primary responsibility must be the advancement and growth of
those assets over the long term.  It must prevail over the policy
of short term shareholder value that comes at the expense of the
nation's long term need to have growing vibrant companies.  We
must get to the point where the pursuit of short term profits by
destroying assets, selling off assets, and ravaging research and
development budgets, will be seen as highly inappropriate.

     Unshackling a progressive CEO also demands that we redefine
the proper role for corporate directors as we attempt to be
internationally competitive.  At issue here are the same concerns
- i.e. corporate strategies and corporate time horizons.  But it
also involves the attendant issue of director exposure to
shareholder lawsuits where the shareholder's interest is
immediate cash-in value irrespective of management practices that
strengthen the company's future.  Corporate board meetings are
generally focused on month-to-month or quarter-to-quarter
reporting of data, as opposed to exhaustive examination of long
term corporate strategies.  We must implement ways for directors
to support long term horizon strategies that benefit the company
and the nation over the long haul and not have these directors
subject to instant legal liability.
     I experienced this catch-22 while serving on the board of a
publicly-held company.  The corporation had accumulated excess
cash as a result of divestitures and had to decide what to do
with this resource.  The choices were pretty straightforward. 
Keeping the cash on hand was an open invitation for a takeover
bid by someone seeking to buy the company, take the cash and just
dump the rest of the assets.  This would weaken the remaining
company dramatically and we all knew that.

     Distribution of the cash as dividends and a possible
management buyout, etc. were a second possible approach.  This
was the safest of director options since it would be well
received by the shareholders.  The problem with it was simple. 
The company would not have gained any new strength as it ventured
forth in the future.  The cash would have been expended without
impact on our competitive capability.  It would have created a
company with lesser viability over the long term.

     The final possibility was to use the cash to acquire a
complementary second company and end up with a larger
corporation.  This would mean better market share, a broader
technology base and real economies of scale.  It was a classic
example of technological synergy and corporation muscling up.  An
easy decision?  Hardly.  It was the decision most likely to put
the directors at risk because we would be choosing to bet on long
term stock appreciation rather than immediate shareholder gain.

     There was a direct correlation between director legal
liability and preserving the company.  Put another way, to
maximize our own personal legal security, we would have had to
vote to leave the company in a weakened position.

     We chose not to do so.  We made the acquisition.  The
company is now profitable and the stock is appreciating.

     That's all very nice but I vividly remember walking to my
car after the meeting wondering whether I had risked the
financial well-being of my family by deciding to make the company
as competitive as possible.  What if the gamble had failed and I
had been sued?  Would I have been able to convince my family that
their financial sacrifice was warranted?

     These dynamics are lethal to American competitiveness. 
Unless directors are convinced that long term strategies will not
invite hostile takeovers, unless directors are convinced that
supporting long term strategies will not expose them to serious
legal exposure - unless these are the new realities in the
corporate board room, nothing will change no matter how
progressive corporate management wants to be.

     There is, admittedly, a very fine line here.  The threat of
stockholder lawsuits has a real and valid function.  Corporate
directors should fear a reckoning if they do not meet their
fiduciary responsibilities.  But why should short term
shareholder value be considered more responsible by our legal
system than long term competitive viability?  Why should the
de facto damaging of the nation's industrial capability be a
safeguard against lawsuits?  Somehow the ground rules have to
change.  We must seize the opportunity to step back and rethink
existing assumptions.  This would entail changing the scope of
director responsibility to include the requirement that long term
competitive viability be a standard component of any decision
making process.  Another would be a requirement that directors
annually review research and development budgets both as to the
percentage of the total corporate budget compared to competitors
and as to the particular research agenda.  Boards should include
directors who possess relevant skills in the appropriate
technologies and not just financial and management expertise.

     Another counterproductive assumption is the one that holds
that every public corporation must release its financial data
every three months..  These quarterly reports define corporate
America today.  Their release triggers instant response by Wall
Street and other like watchers.  Nothing is as sacred as these
quarterly announcements.  Nothing is as traditional and nothing
is as expected.

     Yet that doesn't make them necessarily valuable.  Is it not
time to ponder the following?  Neither Japan nor Germany has such
a practice.  They rely upon annual reports.  They are known to
have much longer corporate time horizons than we do.  We should
explore the concept of stretching out quarterly reports to
semi-annual reports.  Or indeed even to just annual reports.  If
our very successful trading competitors do just nicely, thank
you, without quarterly reports, why are they essential here?  I
would suggest that serving the gurus and traders and speculators
and raiders of Wall Street is far less important than serving
those within our companies who are trying to survive.

     Let the debate begin.  The need is to stretch out corporate
horizons.  Quarterly reports do just the opposite.

Management-Labor Attitude Changes

     The rhetoric about management-labor cooperation is oft-heard
but needs a boost from the Presidential bully pulpit.

     Management must be encouraged to drop old attitudes about
workers being the "other side" and to engage workers in true
joint consultation and decision making.  These are the only
avenues to the kind of productivity and quality control necessary
to have competitive products.  There is a new awareness about the
need to change archaic management techniques but change comes
hard.  Management of the old school still occupies too many
executive suites, buttressed by too many old bulls in the board
rooms.

     The President should give high and consistent visibility to
companies that are inclusive in their practices and progressive
in their techniques by visiting plants where these practices are
in place.

     By publicly holding out such companies as models, it will
help create an environment wherein regressive management
techniques will be more and more isolated over time.  It will
bring about the kind of dialogue about management practices that
will accelerate progressive change.  This dialogue will provoke
the kind of critical corporate self-analysis that too often
happens only after Chapter 11 has been filed and the golden
parachutes deployed.  The need is for mid-course corrections, not
better corporate autopsies.

     Correspondingly, the unions (and non-unions) must change
more rapidly as well.  Union officials should save their
ammunition to fight for issues like wage scale, health benefits
and worker safety.  No effort should be expended trying to defend
illogical work rules that are nothing but feather bedding.  The
common goal should be highest possible productivity at the
highest possible wage rates.  Many union officials have been very
active in forging this new direction but if we are to be
competitive there needs to be near unanimous acceptance of this
perspective.  A President, especially a Democratic President,
should give overt support to progressive union leaders while
being willing to criticize those who cling to outmoded views.

     This rationale applies equally to non-union work forces. 
The New American Mandate means workers who proudly embrace their
responsibility to help their companies prosper.

     Companies saddled with management that distrusts its
workforce combined with workforce leadership which feels no
responsibility to maximize productivity are doomed.  Such foolish
leadership causes job loss for innocent workers and GNP loss for
the country.  Pick up any paper and you will read about such
lamentable situations every day in almost every industry.  The
President has a role to play to guide management and labor away
from such destructive practices.       

Economic Loyalty

     This is one area where the political leadership in both
parties at every level has failed to call forth America's
capacity to promote its own self-interest.

     Economic loyalty to one's fellow countrymen is not a value
that is fashionable in America today.  To raise the matter in a
public speech is to cause more seat squirming than a discourse on
safe sex.  To suggest it to the generation of the 80's is to
invite barely concealed disdain.

     Yet, what is loyalty to one's country?  What is loyalty to
one's fellow countryman?  What is one's obligation to the larger
societal "family" in times of economic distress?

     If, during the last four decades, I had sent $100 to the
Soviet Union to aid them in their war effort against us I would
have been justly accused of treason.  I would be vilified by both
conservatives and liberals as having aided and abetted a nation
which threatens my country. Properly so.

     If, at the same time, I had sent $40,000 to Japan or Germany
(or Great Britain, etc.) to aid them in their economic war effort
against us, however friendly, I would be totally ignored by
American conservatives.  I would be the recipient of comments
about how nice my Mercedes or Lexus (or Jaguar or Audi or BMW,
etc.) looked.  In addition, there would be absolutely no
suggestion from American liberals that the American auto worker
rendered unemployed by my car purchase decision should be of any
relevance to me.

     We are in the grip of a kind of 1980's loyalty, that is,
loyalty to one's self and one's image with no concern for the
common wealth.  Indeed, to suggest a rethinking of our collective
responsibilities to each other is to encounter extreme
defensiveness.

     This 1980's loyalty is not confined to "Me-Generation" fast
trackers.

     The average corporate chief executive officer is often no
better.  Chances are excellent that he or she drives to work in
an expensive foreign import, dressed to the nines in foreign
shoes and clothing, all the while lamenting the decline of
America's industrial base and the easy availability of capital in
other countries.

     This is where the New American Mandate would seek to change
attitudes.  We used to think that patriotism was supporting our
troops in the Persian Gulf and buying a Mercedes on the same day. 
The New American Mandate would be a lot more comprehensive.

     An American parable for the 1980's is as follows.  A well
paid engineer working for an American company buys an Infiniti. 
Six months later he/she gets a layoff notice because his/her
company can't compete with its Japanese counterpart.  The
engineer drives home in a funk and never, never equates the two
events.

     This is not an argument for a mindless Buy America policy. 
That approach suggested that we buy domestically produced items
irrespective of all other considerations - such as quality and
price.  As the not-so proud owner of a Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega
in my time, I am all too fully aware of the downside of such a
policy.  It promotes the laziness and inefficiency of any
protectionist policy.  It is more compassionate but ultimately
leads to the same kind of inevitable manufacturing base
deterioration.  The incentive to excel is seriously weakened.

     But there are harbors of logical refuge between mindless Buy
America and soulless 1980's non-loyalty.  In between there are
cases where a consumer is faced with choices where the
distinctions are not so obvious.  Economic loyalty is simply
opting to put one's capital towards the strengthening of America,
not the strengthening of another country.  These are cases where
the benefit of the doubt tips the scales in favor of the American
product.

     The recent focus on quality control in American cars, for
example, clearly offers such opportunities today.

     Finally, it should be emphasized that this is not a call for
protectionism or foreign bashing.  These two are the siren's
temptation.  The former is nothing more than the acceptance of
full scale competitive retreat.  It is a warm refuge but only
temporary and eventually fatal.  Erecting protectionist barriers
is counterproductive.  Our efforts should be focused on openness
elsewhere and full reciprocity in world trade.

     The latter is equally dangerous.  It is quite appropriate to
criticize foreign countries when their policies are in error. 
Certainly there is no shortage of selfish and irresponsible
practices carried out by our allies and trading partners.  We
should not be hesitant about pointing these out and calling for
correction.

     Some politicians, however, go beyond this and seek to swim
in the murky waters of demagoguery.  Blaming foreign nations for
our economic woes is standard fare for elected officials because
it is invariably well received - particularly in areas of high
unemployment.  It is a lot more rewarding politically to bash
imports than to suggest that there may be fault in attitudes or
strategies here at home.  This political tactic is avoidance
politics of a different kind.  It allows people to walk away
resenting other nations when they should be demanding changes in
how we do things in America.  By continuing to persist in denial
we put off the necessary self-examination and rethinking that
will lead to true competitiveness.  Thus, the foreign basher
ultimately serves the interests of the foreigner by putting off
the critical day of our own renewal.

     But the issue here is not just economic.  It is social as
well.  A sense among consumers that we care about our fellow
countrymen and are willing to demonstrate economic loyalty in
their behalf strengthens the bonds between us.  Imagine if a
neighbor owned a particular business and you needed to buy a
product sold by such a business.  Is it not natural to want to
give the neighbor your business if at all possible?  Well, this
is the same thing except your neighbor lives further away.

     The issue here is not about where productive economic
loyalty ends and counterproductive Buy America begins.  The issue
is a collective recognition of the economic peril faced by our
country.  It is incorporating that recognition into our daily
lives as a constant thought process.  In the economic war we are
all by definition soldiers because we are consumers.  The issue
is deciding which army we are part of.

     A final thought.  This call for economic loyalty is in
response to our current economic dilemma.  The point here is not
to despise foreign products.  On the contrary, we all need a
viable global economy with the free flow of goods across borders. 
The point is to calibrate our consumer decision making to the
economic conditions prevailing in the country we all call home. 
In other times this would not be as relevant.  In the happy
future it will not be as necessary either.  But in today's
troubled conditions, it is very important.  It is, ironically,
calling upon Americans to begin to think the way Japanese
corporate leaders and German consumers have acted for decades. 
They have viewed this attitude as a kind of deep patriotism. 
Hokey, isn't it?  But who is buying up whose national treasures? 
Their citizens understand economic loyalty instinctively.  It's
about time we did the same.

     We are all part of one team.  And we are tied to the
success, or lack thereof, of all the other members of our team.

     Today an American professor, for example, is paid less than
her German counterpart teaching the same subject matter and more
than her British counterpart.  Since the skills are equivalent,
why are the salaries different?  Very simple.  The German "team"
is doing very well, the American "team" less well and the British
"team" even less well.  The American professor is being dragged
down by the relative lack of success of her "team."  Does that
professor ever think in these terms?  Very doubtful.  But we must
bring about that kind of awareness.

     The role here of our political leadership is to make
Americans aware that if one American worker is thrown overboard,
we are all dragged down just a bit.  The more of our team members
that are cast overboard, the further down we all go.

     What it comes down to is this.  I go to buy a product, let's
say an automobile.  I live in a cold climate and want four-wheel
drive capability.  My choice is narrowed to a Jeep and an Isuzu.
     My judgment will involve issues like style and cost.  But it
doesn't end there.  When I see the Jeep I sense an American
autoworker who will remain employed if I buy it.  I derive a
quiet pleasure knowing that my money will remain in our economy
and multiply.  I instinctively understand that my economic
well-being will eventually be determined by the economic
well-being of every other American.  I think like a Japanese
would.  Or a German would.  I think like an economic patriot.


II.  Education - The Meeting House of Our Society

     America in the 1990's will rise or fall as our public
schools rise or fall.  The health of our school systems is the
major building block determinant of our long term economic and
social viability.   Knowledge is power.  Work skills are power. 
Real power.  Real economic power.  The lack of knowledge and work
skills is weakness.  It is economic impotence.  It is the
transition from greatness to irrelevance.

     Knowledge and work skills are also hope.  They are the only
source of social mobility available to millions of our fellow
citizens.  They are what turns despair into hope.  Only they can
create true opportunity so that young people choose lives of
promise over lives of personal and societal destructiveness.

     Education is America's great calling.

     Education, ah, education.  Everyone is for it.  It is the
motherhood and apple pie issue of the 90's.  Well, at least the
rhetoric would suggest so.  The reality is quite different.

     Republicans talk about it.  President Bush, during the
campaign, said that he wanted to be known as the education
President.  No one would call him that two years later.  Money
for the Persian Gulf and Star Wars and the Stealth bomber?  Sure. 
Money for serious funding of schools?  Gee, that's really a local
and state issue.  Money for serious skills training for
non-college bound students?  Gee, that's not how we think in
America.

     Democrats love to talk about it as well.  As with the
Republicans, the talk is not purposefully false.  It is, in fact,
well intentioned.  But improvements in education to many
Democrats only means a lot more money.  It does not mean serious
structural reform.  Cutting edge issues like merit pay and
teacher competence standards are offensive to some teacher unions
and as a result some Democrats oppose them.  Controversial
experiments like Boston University's takeover of the Chelsea
schools, national testing of high school seniors, school choice,
magnet schools for young black male students, uniforms for public
school students, limiting bilingual education - all make
Democrats very nervous.  This is not to argue that any of these
ideas is valid.  This is to argue that new and radical concepts
need to be tested.  We need an atmosphere where the search for
educational excellence is an objective undiluted by
considerations as to what some interest groups may oppose.

     Businessmen talk about education as well.  They opine about
how critical a well-trained and educated workforce is to their
survival.  Some business leaders - David Kearns of Xerox and John
Akers of IBM come to mind - have become national spokesmen in
behalf of public education.  They have put this issue at the
forefront of their personal agendas and have rendered the nation
a great service by doing so.

     They, however, are not typical.

     Go to the corporate suites of your Fortune 1000 companies
and ask a very simple question of the chief executive officers
and members of the board of directors.  When was the last time
you set foot in a public school classroom?  The answers would
reveal the obvious.  The issue of quality public education does
not enjoy the personal involvement of the very people who
proclaim its vital importance.  And in some cases, they are even
putting their resources toward ballot initiatives that would
reduce taxes and devastate public education.

     Is public education the top priority in America?  Is it the
vehicle to provide true opportunity for those who don't happen to
be affluent?  Is it the only way of having a workforce capable of
competing against its international counterparts?  Is it the
place where our societal values are reinforced, and, sadly, in
some cases, introduced for the first time?

     The answer to these questions must be a resolute "Yes!"
resounding from coast to coast.

     Yes, it means money.  Real money.  It means that when budget
crunches come, public education is not viewed as the obvious 
candidate for slashing.

     Today it is.  As chairman of the Massachusetts Board of
Regents, I saw a Democratic governor cut the public higher
education budget by 22% from 1988 to 1990 while state
appropriations as a whole increased 18%.  Then, in 1991, we found
ourselves with a Republican governor whose staff was seeking ways
to actually close three to five campuses.  Education, thus, has
been an equal opportunity candidate for bi-partisan attack.  Why? 
Well, in Massachusetts both governors were openly pro-education
in their public pronouncements.  That did not prevent the
bloodletting.  Political realities intruded.  There is one
fundamental truth at work here.  Students in K through 12 can't
vote.  And students in public colleges often don't vote.  Unless
these students are protected by their voting elders, in
particular the business community, they are vulnerable because
they have no counterattack capability.

     Making public education a top priority means openness to new
- even radical - notions of educational innovation.  Let's
criticize bold ideas after they have been found to be flawed, 
not before they are tested.

     This means structural reform.  Merit pay and standards of
teacher competence.  School based management.  Uniform testing
standards for graduating seniors.  Parental involvement in
choosing teachers.  Parental and teacher involvement in choosing
principals.  Longer school days.  The powers that be in the
teacher unions must be leaders in bringing about these necessary
changes.  Some already are.  All must be.  The same is true with
school officials, school committees, mayors and city councils.

     Finally, and most fundamentally, it means that all of
America must get to know what the inside of a classroom looks
like.

     Parents are going to have to invest their time in the
buildings where their children are fashioning the dimensions of
their lives.  Teachers are going to have to be assisted.  They
are going to have to be made to feel as important as their task
really  is.  They are also going to have to be scrutinized. 
Parents are going to have to be able to know the differences in
teaching philosophies.  They must learn to tell when a principal
is being creative and caring, and when a principal is just
playing out the string.  Parents are also going to have to see
their role as nurturing children other than their own in these
classrooms.  Parents should help involve retirees and
grandparents in this task as well.  The public schools should
become the meeting houses of our society where all of our society
is walking through the school doors on a regular basis.  This is
the New American Mandate.

     This approach must involve institutions as well as
individuals.  I would suggest the following matrix.  The public
schools (pre-K through 12) are at the center of the matrix. 
Arranged around it are four centers of institutional capability
and energy.  Each of the four focuses its efforts towards the
public school center.  The four are public higher education,
private higher education, non-profit institutions (clergy,
hospitals, museums, foundations, performing arts, etc.) and the
business community.

     What this translates into is the rector, the priest, the
rabbi, the museum director, the lawyer, the executive vice
president, the faculty member, the college hockey coach, the
chief executive officer, the surgeon, the secretary, the shop
foreman, the researcher, the union organizer - all will be in the
classrooms, affirming by their very presence the criticality of
education.

     What do they do there?  Anything.  Everything.  It will
range from a once-a-year reading to a third grade class to
once-a-month tutoring of a particular student.  It will mean a
corporate funded day spent at a college campus to expose sixth
graders to the notion that college may be relevant to them.  It
may mean mentoring a whole class and taking responsibility for
elevating their horizons, their career sightlines.

     Does this make a difference?  That is no longer a question. 
There are staggering examples of outsiders radically affecting
the lives of students whose classes they become part of.  The Dr.
Eugene Lang intervention at his Bronx alma mater junior high
school is the most acclaimed example but there are countless
others.  It works.  Hopefully, we can get to the point where
every student in every classroom has someone beyond the
overloaded teacher caring about his or her future.  That outside
person must attest to the basic truth that as goes public
education so goes America.

     The interface of these people and the classroom will, of
course, change things forever.  Everyone investing his or her
time in a classroom will, by definition, become a committed
advocate for quality education.  This will translate into real
political power in  behalf of the educational system.  It will
also translate into corporate and non-corporate resources being
funneled to the system.

     To educators, that is the good news.  More threatening will
be the sense of overview, and the realization that these
outsiders will be rendering judgements about the performance of
teachers and administrators.  Some will balk at this, unsure of
this brave new world.  They cannot be allowed to prevail.

     These intervenors should be seen as a wonderful resource. 
They can help seek out technical assistance relationships with
colleges and corporations, both as to teaching theories as well
as management techniques.

     It will be a different world.  Committed, competent teachers
and administrators will welcome the respect and caring.  The new
found availability of resources will strengthen their sense of
the relevance of their profession.

     The political leaders must by their personal actions bring
about this "meetinghouse of our society."  That's how one becomes
the education President or the education Governor or the
education Congressman.  The President must be willing to devote
considerable personal time to make this happen.  It must be an
unrelenting theme.  The President must be the Principal-In-Chief.
New Educational Needs

     There are two areas where the discussion on education has
finally begun to focus.

     First is the pre-kindergarten stage.  More and more it is
becoming obvious that the experiences of a child at the youngest
ages predetermines his or her capacity to learn in a school
setting.  Youngsters arriving at school from dysfunctional
families are immediately at a disadvantage.  There is a much
greater likelihood of their academic efforts being rendered
futile before they even begin.

     We are going to have to focus resources on children from
difficult environments in the pre-kindergarten years (ala
Headstart) and during the after-school hours when these children
confront the reality of empty apartments and homes.

     The second area of new focus is skills training.  There is
now a steady drumbeat from observers that the great shortfall in
American education involves not the student who goes to college
but the student who doesn't.  It is the "non-college bound
post-secondary gap."

     The great economic challenge that we face will be fought in
the trenches of the workplace.  It will be a competition of
skills.  There will be a direct link between the skills of the
nation's workforce and the resultant standard of living of that
nation.  Manufacturers will go where the workforce is the most
highly skilled, no matter where that may be.  This is not a
matter of choice for them.  It is a matter of being competitive.

     If our non-supervisory workers are less skilled than their
foreign counterparts they will be paid wages that reflect that
reality.  Third world skills will command third world wages. 
Highly paid jobs will move offshore and we will be left with the
unattractive residuals.

     And, if our workforce continues to experience deterioration
of wage scales the rest of the economy will deteriorate as well. 
Thus, in this new world economic order it is not just the
capacity of the highly educated which determines our fate, it is
the skill levels of the basic worker as well.  A skilled American
workforce will provide good jobs for educated managers and
professionals.  An unskilled American workforce will not.  The
whole system implodes together.

     Not surprisingly, our competitors have discovered this
already.  In Japan, skills are learned in the companies because
the companies expect workers to remain with them for the duration
of their careers.  In America, the reality of three year worker
turnover causes our companies to be wary of such an investment. 
In Germany, the school system coordinates this effort and
students are in school/work situations at the age of sixteen.  In
France, companies are taxed 1% on their sales.  If they do worker
training they don't pay the tax.  If they don't, they pay the tax
and the government does the training.

     Three models to achieve the same critical end.  We have
allowed this need to escape serious attention until recently.  I
believe the French model deserves consideration but adapted to
the American context with its vocational technical schools and
community colleges taking the lead.

     This is a constructive approach to a problem that confronts
us.  For Democrats, it is far better to pursue this option than
to criticize companies for moving their operations offshore. 
Such criticism will never have a beneficial effect.  Companies
are never going to forego profitability and competitiveness in
order to placate Democratic outrage.  These companies are not
being un-American, they are simply responding to a perceived
differential in the quality of the workforce.  To forestall such
moves, we have only to provide a workforce that is equally
skilled.  Certainly for reasons of logistics and management
control, any American company would prefer to have its operations
as close by as possible.  And finally, it has been my experience
that American CEO's are more nationalistic than they are given
credit for.  They want a stronger America.  It's our job to help
them make the decision that's right for America without
diminishing the viability of their companies.


III.  The Environment - Equilibrium With Earth

     There has always been an environmental constituency.  Unlike
many interest groups its objective has historically not been its
own economic well-being.  Its goal has been the preservation of
nature, a sense of being at one with the land and water and air
and all the creatures which co-inhabit this planet.

     That core environmental constituency has been a political
bedrock, hundreds of thousands, indeed, millions of people,
feeling very strongly about the legitimacy of their cause.

     What is different about this issue in the modern day is the
newly recruited battalions to the environmentalist army and the
breadth of their concerns.  The historic group (begun in large
part by moderate Republicans) is sometimes dismissed as
"tree-huggers."  (It is ironic that someone's love of a tree
could be viewed as a negative characteristic.)  The modern
coalition, however, involves people whose interests are much
closer to home.  It involves citizens who have been affected by
toxic dump sites or air pollution or have come to fear the
quality of the water they drink.  These newly minted
conservationists are going to be no less committed to the cause
of environmental protection.  Indeed, in many respects they bring
a kind of passion that has been sometimes absent.  A despoiled
earth will not be tolerated by human beings dependent upon a
clean earth for survival.

     Now there is a third group in this coalition.

     This group is largely a time-of-being phenomenon.  It is the
post-Cold War generation.  If one sees generations in terms of
time frames and definitive events, the progression in recent
times arguably would be Depression/World War II, Cold War, and
Vietnam/Civil Rights/Nuclear War.

     When the Berlin Wall came crashing down, the spectre of
East-West nuclear confrontation was rendered highly improbable. 
The young people now coming of age know, and will only know, the
return of democracy to Eastern Europe and the centrifugal forces
at play in a weakened Soviet Union.

     An era has passed and with it much of the fear of a
superpower caused nuclear winter.

     As this generation analyzes the world in which it will
mature and live out its years, it does not perceive a world of
calm and quietude.  It perceives other dislocations.  And one of
the most severe stems from the mindless abuse of our planet by
generations focused on other issues.  This new generation sees a
world of possible climatic cataclysm, of a world buried in its
own excessive trash, a world where the air they will breath will
threaten the health of themselves and of the children they are
beginning to bear.  They see virgin forests of antiquity falling
to greed.  And they see population growth which threatens to turn
the future of mankind into an endless series of bloody clashes
over ever-limited resources.

     Simply put, they sense global disequilibrium.  The earth is
not at peace with its inhabitants.  We are consuming resources at
a rate which is not generationably sustainable.  We see
population growth rendering third world cities dysfunctional.  We
are despoiling this mother spaceship and will eventually render
it hostile to human well-being.

     Our young think differently than we do.  As we get older the
time frame we think in shrinks because our remaining time on
earth has lessened.

     Not so the young.  With their sense of their own immortality
they can look out and see forever.  A planet in disequilibrium is
hazy to short-term focused adults.  It is alarmingly clear to our
offspring.  They know they will inherit the consequences.

     I learned this lesson soon after the Valdez oil spill in
Alaska.  I was driving through Chatham on Cape Cod and noticed
that I needed gasoline.  Without much thought I turned into the
nearest service station and pulled up next to the pumps.  There
came an immediate howl from my three children.  I had stopped at
an Exxon station.  They demanded that I drive away.

     My response to them was that this particular gas station
owner had no responsibility for the oil spill.  They rejected
that argument as irrelevant.  I was patronizing a despoiler of
the environment.  No more.  No less.  Their voices reached an
insistent crescendo of righteousness and I decided to drive off
to calm the din.

     The incident troubled me.  As the Senate co-author of the
Alaska Lands Act, I have always seen myself as an ardent and
committed environmentalist.  I always saw myself as the defender
of Alaska's wonders.  My children, however, were beyond me in
their sensitivity.  How different from what I thought about when
I was their age.  They had become dedicated environmental
activists and I had never noticed.

     We should welcome their alarm.  It calls us to a true
stewardship of our environment.  And such a stewardship is
uniquely American.  We are the continental nation.  Descendants
of Teddy Roosevelt and Ansel Adams.  We should see this calling
as returning home to what we are truly all about.

     Specifically what?

International Leadership

     It is appalling that we were the most notable footdraggers
at the recent international convention on global warming.  So
much for George Bush being the environmental President.  We must
lead the charge for global conservationism.  If not us, who?  If
not now, when?

     Washington has true champions of the environment in the
House and Senate and in the EPA.  Let the White House use its
influence to spread that commitment throughout the land and
across this globe.  Let the New American Mandate establish the
principle that love of earth is mainstream America, a reflection
of the best of us in all of us.

     The vehicle for doing this would be to proclaim the goal of
global equilibrium.  This means the pursuit of policies and
lifestyles that allow the consumption of resources to be
consistent with having an inhabitable planet over the
generations.

     The issues here are obvious.  Global warming and the
depletion of the ozone layer are the most noted but they are
merely the tip of the melting iceberg.  These two issues deserve
the highest level of attention and concern rather than the
jittery avoidance that has characterized the Reagan-Bush years. 
I chaired the first hearings on global warming as a Congressman
in June, 1977.  It was an issue that was obscure to some, but all
too relevant to those who testified.  In the absence of any White
House or media concern the matter remained dormant until the very
hot summer of 1988.  All of a sudden it was a topic of popular
discourse.  That is not how serious issues should be confronted. 
The White House needs to establish a national dialogue on the
scientific data.  Pretending that these matters are secondary is
risking the lives of millions of people should they ever  come to
pass.

A recycling ethic

     Ancient history is often marked by great events that took
place at large feasts or simple small repasts.  From the tales of
Homer in ancient Greece to the beginnings of the world's great
faiths, history was often made when people broke bread together.
     The archeologists of today are unable to find virtually any
artifacts from those events.

     But the archeologists in the year 2991 will be able to
unearth artifacts of millions upon millions of meals consumed in
1991.  They need only go to the local landfill and dig a bit. 
There they will discover the true artifact of our time - the
disposable, once used, plastic utensil.  In addition, they will
find all kinds of commodities specifically designed to be thrown
away rather than repaired when they are broken.

     The age of the disposable society must give way to the age
of recycling.

     Recycling must become as much an automatic personal habit as
brushing one's teeth.  Again, here, as in other issues referred
to previously, it is a matter of mindset.

     Such a mindset already exists.  But its existence is
inversely proportional to the age of the person.  The young do
not thoughtlessly dispose of aluminum cans into trash cans as do
many of their parents.  They want to collect them for recycling.
 
     There is great promise here.  As a member of the Recycling
Advisory Council, I am struck at how willing corporate America is
to move in this direction.  In many respects they are far ahead
of the politicians.  Much is happening.  Americans instinctively
want to be in harmony with their environment..  A clear call for
sustainable lifestyles will be received with great response.  Let
us sound that call.

     Such a call has to be backed up by government procurement
policies at the local, state and federal level that give real
preference to recycled products.  This will help to establish
markets that are now often fledgling and vulnerable.

     It means introducing a virgin materials fee.  This would
give recycled commodities only a slight economic competitive
advantage over virgin products, but it would set a tone as to the
need for manufacturers to rethink procurement practices.  The
proceeds from such a fee would be channeled to help with
recycling and disposal costs.

     It means setting up a commission to establish a consistent
standard for consumer guidance so that a "green" label or a
"recycling" label has specific meaning and consumers can express
their environmentalism with their pocketbooks.  There can be no
doubt that environmental consumerism is the nuclear weapon of
recycling.  It only needs specific guidelines in order to be
fully unleashed.  Once this happens, the market will respond
accordingly.  Only by having functioning markets for recycled
goods can we hope to achieve any worthwhile level of recycling.

     It means establishing product design standards to maximize
recyclability.

     It means policies that minimize waste materials in the
manufacturing processes of American companies.

     It means packaging standards that result in the least use of
throw-away materials and the greatest use of containers that are
earth friendly.

     The objective of all these policies should be to create a
mindset of avid consumer and governmental activism so that an
equilibrium lifestyle becomes a simple matter of every day habit
and behavior.

Global Warming

     The issues here are well known.  We need energy policies
which maximize the investment in conservation and renewables and
which minimize the burning of those fossil fuels which cause the
greatest emissions.  On the cutting edge here are the utilities. 
Federal and state regulatory policies should tie a utility's rate
of return to its commitment to energy conservation and the
encouragement of renewable energy sources.  The loss of a
utility's revenue base caused by using less fossil fuel based
energy should result in a net plus in the utility's rate of
return.  That rate of return should be above that which could be
achieved by the usual standards of proper financial and technical
management.  Utilities must be put in a position to maximize
their shareholders' value by aggressively and relentlessly
pursuing policies consistent with the need to reduce global
warming.

     We also need policies which maximize the planting of carbon
dioxide consuming trees both in America and worldwide and which
minimize the need to cut down existing trees anywhere.  There are
going to have to be serious discussions about how to save
tropical rain forests which are so vital to any effort to lessen
the buildup of carbon dioxide.  Telling countries not to demolish
their forests is as effective as their telling us to reduce our
energy consumption.  These countries will not adopt policies
which benefit mankind but go against their national economic self
interests.  The developed world has to be prepared to tip the
economic scales in exchange for the obvious benefits it will
receive.  This is an area where we can turn to the Japanese and
Germans and ask them to take the lead.  They had all sorts of
reasons for bypassing the Persian Gulf war.  We expended our
resources to safeguard their interests.  Here is an opportunity
for them to do the same for all of us in preserving the great
forests in the developing world.  A planet threatened by rising
oceans is in no less peril than one threatened by a Saddam
Hussein.  This is a brave new world and quite uncomfortable.  But
global warming isn't very comfortable either.

     Planting trees should be a national passion.  It should be a
normal and recurring event at schools, in city parks, at
factories, in backyards and front yards.  The President should
make this a standard ceremony when visiting various parts of the
country.  It would be a ceremony with real moral purpose - a
purpose instinctively understood by our young.

     The earlier section on recycling is applicable here since it
is the use of wood products to make paper which consumes an
enormous number of trees.  We must get to the point where the
paper we write on, the newspapers we read, and the circulars we
receive in the mail are all printed on recycled paper.

     One major obstacle here will be some in the press since the
commitment to environmentalism in the editorial department is
sometimes not matched by the vice-president of business
operations.  The latter will go on for hours on why today's high
speed newspaper printing process cannot use recycled paper due to
lessened fiber strength.

     Come on, fourth estate.  Let's see total leadership here.

Land Use

     Loss of woodlands, open space and farm land is the result of
investment dollars being used for development.  The implosion of
many of our urban centers is the result of an absence of
investment dollars being used for development.

     We deplore the loss of the natural landscape.

     We deplore the decline of our urban centers.

     Since neither has to occur, there must be a better way.

     Development dollars flow in very prescribed channels.  As a
partner in a development company, I know this all too well. 
Forming these channels are tax laws, zoning regulations,
investment incentives, and land use policies such as height
restrictions, green space requirements, and the like.  Government
sets the channels and the market place responds accordingly. 
Developers go where government tells them to go whether or not it
makes any sense.  The battle over development pits
conservationists against developers.  It should be
conservationists against government officials since the
developers are only building where and what the laws allow.

     The late 1980's saw this truth play itself out on Cape Cod. 
As chairman of a state environmental task force I had proposed
the idea of a moratorium on development on the Cape.  The notion
created a firestorm and I was vilified by developers and town
officials and state legislators.  They deemed the idea
irresponsible and stated their strong belief that it would die of
its own illogic.  No elected officials beyond a few isolated
selectmen came to my defense.  The Boston political establishment
was nowhere to be found.

     Then a funny thing happened.  The Boston Globe did a poll
and found that two-thirds of the Cape inhabitants supported the
concept and fully three-fourths endorsed the regional land use
planning proposal known as the Cape Cod Planning Commission. 
This revelation raised the political stakes considerably.

     When I scheduled a hearing at Cape Cod Community College, I
was picketed and heckled at by hundreds of developers and
construction workers.  In response, the Cape's conservationist
community began to organize in earnest and the battles lines were
drawn.  Charges and countercharges were the order of the day and
soon no one was safe from the controversy.

     The issues were placed on the ballot and we won handily.  In
a subsequent 1990 special election, the planning commission was
enacted into law despite a severe economic downturn that had seen
development come to a virtual halt.

     In the end, the developers saw me and the conservationists
as the enemy.  The conservationists, in turn, saw the developers
as the enemy.  I, however, did not blame the developers.  They
were only trying to make a living.  I blamed the elected town
officials who had determined the rules of the game.  They were
the ones who had allowed unconstrained development that was at
variance with the wishes of their constituents.  They could have
prevented the abuses by voting the appropriate safeguards.  They
chose not to.  As a result, the battle between developers and the
conservationist community was unavoidable.  It could have been
otherwise.  It should have been otherwise.

     It serves little purpose to constantly have these battles
over development issues.  The end result is often exhaustion,
bitterness and/or bankruptcy.  It would be far better to
establish land use guidelines that everyone understands and which
reflect a community's consensus.  That is what political
leadership is paid to do.

     The reason that all this means something has to do with two
values.  First, it is the preservation of the land that God gave
to us.  There is a spirituality to our surroundings.  Primitive
people understand this.  Modernized people often don't. 
Secondly, it is the retention of the unique character of all the
places which make up America.  It is who we are as contrasted to
who everyone else in the world is.

     The role of the Federal government here is primarily to
articulate the importance of these values and to adopt policies
that support its position.  These are essentially local and state
matters, but the feds should also look at their own approaches. 
It should do a systematic analysis of existing federal tax laws
(such as the various depletion allowances) to see if they are
incompatible with these values .  It should also reexamine the
adequacy of tax and funding policies which would direct
investment away from open space to our urban centers (such as
historic preservation tax credits, urban enterprise zones, UDAG
grants, etc.)

     It should further look for other opportunities to preserve
open space.  The scheduled closure of some of our military bases
that was announced recently would be such an opportunity.

     Finally, it should encourage mayors and governors and
legislatures and city councils to consider the issue more
pointedly.  Visits to places that have preserved land or retained
a sense of character should be high on the agenda of top
governmental officials, including the President and Vice
President.

     Again, as in previous sections, the above is not meant to be
exhaustive of policy initiatives but rather is suggestive of a
philosophy that would cause us to constantly think in terms of an
equilibrium with the earth.

Population Control

     Nothing would serve the cause of environmental equilibrium
as much as population control.  Nothing would insure
environmental  disequilibrium as much as the world's population
growing uncontrollably.  The same can be said relative to the
issues of energy use and world social order.

     The earth is simply not capable of accommodating endless
human expansion.  We are increasing at a rate of 93 million
people a year.  In 1830 there were one billion people.  In 1990
there are 5.3 billion.  Within the next decade we will increase
population equivalent to all the inhabitants of Africa and South
America combined.  Towns have become cities.  And cities have
become megalopolises.  It cannot continue.

     The dilemma is not food.  We can produce enough to feed the
world's current population.  People starve today because of
political instability and the failure of food distribution
systems.  The starvation in Ethiopia and the Sudan is made even
more tragic by the fact that it need not be.

     The real dilemma of unconstrained population growth is
three-fold.

     First, while food stuffs can be produced every year into
infinity, fossil fuel energy cannot.  The earth is energy
resource limited and those limits are very real.  (More on this
in the next section.)

     Secondly, the world's burgeoning population is streaming
into the major cities, particularly in the third world, and
rendering those cities virtually unworkable.  This is a formula
for great social and political upheaval in the wake of serious
degradation of even the most basic quality of life in those
cities.

     Thirdly, the growing consumption of, and demand for, natural
resources is virtually unsustainable.  There is just so much
clean air.  Just so much clean water.  Just so many available
landfills.  Just so many ways to dispose of hazardous wastes. 
The land and the oceans are receiving unspeakable volumes of
waste each and every day.  The earth was never meant to be a
giant waste disposal unit.  To pretend that it can is to threaten
human survival.

     None of this is new.  No one doubts the inevitable
consequences of unlimited population expansion.  So why don't we
take it seriously?

     The reason, very simply, is domestic politics.  The
Reagan-Bush years have been marked by open hostility to family
planning worldwide.  While the Democrats supported such efforts
as quietly as possible hoping no one would notice, the
Republicans saw it as a clear opportunity to placate domestic
political interest groups.

     The Reagan-Bush approach has bought marvelous political
self-benefit at the expense of future social dislocation.  And
they don't care one bit.

     We Democrats must care.  Our obligation lies beyond the
Roger Ailes perspective.  We will be judged in future years by
how  well and how forcefully we began the drive for a stable
world population.  In this regard the New American Mandate is a
moral imperative that is worldwide in its responsibility.


IV.  Energy, Fossil Fuels - Someday There Won't Be Any

     There are two basic realities about energy facing Americans. 
First, we have no national energy policy (presuming that
importing oil does not qualify as such a policy).  Sadly, it took
the war in the Persian Gulf to again make this obvious.  The
1980's decade of energy issue avoidance has hopefully come to an
end although the White House may be the last to acknowledge it. 
Second, our energy use is based almost exclusively upon the
consumption of finite energy resources (particularly oil) and
that is, by definition, unsustainable over the long term.   This
will eventually create ever-deepening crises of supply and cause
desperate and powerful nations to seek to acquire remaining oil
reserves by force.  All of this was foreseen long ago by energy
and military analysts.  Again, witness the Persian Gulf where the
world's dependence upon foreign oil reserves greatly raised the
stakes in the current confrontation.

     Put it another way.  The earth has provided  a finite amount
of fossil fuels for its inhabitants.  The number of inhabitants
rises every year increasing total energy use.  The per capita
consumption of these fossil fuels also increases as more and more
countries become industrialized and as more and more people enjoy
energy-intensive lifestyles.  This dilemma will not be solved by
asking developing countries to forego comforts which we take for
granted.

     Every year the total energy use is subtracted from what the
earth started out with.  Since supply is always heading downward
and use is always heading upward, sooner or later what the
nations need will not be available.  At first, prices that are
confiscatory beyond measure will mean that the rich will have
energy resources and the poor will not.  But even that inequity
will not be sustainable as each year drains more fossil fuels. 
Eventually even supply at any price will not be possible. 
Nations will continually go to war to survive.  Today that is
self-evident.

     To make matters worse, most of the earth's readily
obtainable oil reserves are in one of the most unstable areas of
the world politically.  Thus the prospect of war exists into the
future, long after Saddam Hussein has passed from the scene.

     The discussion of this issue reveals the limited capacity of
middle-aged decision makers to think in terms beyond their
expected lifespans.  When 55 year oil experts talk in glowing
terms about a 50 year supply of that resource, that means they
are confident of supply during their expected natural lives. 
That is reassuring.  It is, however, less reassuring to their 25
year old children who are not certain they will have died by the
age of 75.  It is obviously not at all reassuring to their five
year old grandchildren.

     Let's up the estimate to 100 years.  Nothing changes in
respect to our moral obligation not to visit certain calamity
upon future generations.  This is where the issue of purpose
comes into play.  This is where the New American Mandate comes
into play.

     If we are dealing with a finite resource; if we are
depleting that resource; and if we are not aggressively pursuing
policies to bring about energy use based on renewables; then we
are condemning a future generation to the unspeakable.  Which
generation?  Who knows?  The next one or the one after that or
the one after that?  The moral burden does not lift; our purpose
must be to assure the survival of those future generations.

     We need a national energy policy.

     Such a policy must view current use patterns as
unacceptable, particularly the return to overreliance upon
imported oil.

     It must view the long term goal as minimizing finite
resource use, again, especially oil.  The future must be based
upon energy resources that are sustainable.

     One mission is to get from here to there in as smooth a
transition as possible.  That will take decades, intense
investment, rethinking, and lifestyle modification.  The
alternative is to request that God replace all the oil and gas
that we've consumed.  That would certainly be a lot easier but in
case He chooses to let us resolve this matter by ourselves, an
energy policy will be required.

Yearly Supply-Demand Report

     The reasons the country doesn't have an energy policy are
complex.  But one reason stems from the fact that the general
public has little idea how much oil, gas and coal reserves we
have in this country.  There are experts who know - or think they
know - but the average person is just never brought into the
discussion.

     There should be an annual Supply-Demand Report detailing the
best estimates of oil, gas and coal reserves.  Such data
collection is already being done.  But it is buried.  This report
should be the subject of focused presidential attention and
annual Congressional hearings.

     The purpose here is simple.  If there are actions required
to be taken in order to secure our energy future, they will only
be accepted if the people of this nation know the true facts. 
During the 1980's we reverted back to extreme foreign oil
dependence but it was done silently.  Few people in the Congress
or on Main Street were aware that oil imports in 1990 averaged
42%, their highest level since 1979 and up from 35% in 1973.  Oil
from the Persian Gulf accounted for 24% of all U.S. oil imports
in 1989, up from 17% in 1987.  The Reagan-Bush administrations
saw no need to make reference to or bring these facts forcefully
to the attention of the public.  Avoidance politics prevailed
once more.

     Then, all of a sudden, we are at war in the Persian Gulf and
oil is a critical cause of our involvement.  The yearly debate
over the Supply-Demand Report would educate both government
officials and the general public if it were given due notice when
it is released.

Maximize Conservation

     This one is self-evident.  Every barrel of oil not consumed
is a barrel of oil preserved for future generations.  Every MCF
of gas not burned, every ton of coal - all are stored in loving
deference to our descendants.  This is the New American Mandate
extended to those future Americans whose viability is in our
hands.  Conservation has become more mainstream, largely free
from the early notions that it was somewhat "soft."  In those
days real tough men produced energy.  Conservation was the domain
of the timid little old tree hugger ladies and unwashed hippies. 
Today it is the domain of corporate CEO's who see the savings to
their bottom lines.

     Mainstream, however, is not enough.  It must become the
number one energy priority.  This means a return to the debates
of yesteryear - efficiency standards, tax credits.  It also means
higher rates of return for utilities that maximize their
commitment to conservation and load management and a lesser rate
of return for utilities that don't.  Such a rate differential
should be significant enough to thoroughly incentivize utility
CEO's.  These companies are our most effective energy army and
they are already deployed.  Using them is far preferable to
devising new untested approaches using public employees.

     And it can be done.  When I became a director of Boston
Edison in 1985 I was a committed conservationist coming into a
company that was known to be hostile to any of the so-called
demand side management options.

     The outside environmental community - and the state
Department of Public Utilities - had harshly criticized Boston
Edison for its attitude.  I shared much of their perspective and
struggled inside the board to bring about change.  This effort
led to much company turmoil and in the end to serious management
changes.

     Boston Edison is now a recognized leader in demand side
management.  But the lesson here is not the obvious one.  Yes,
there was inertia.  Yes, there was resentment against policies
advocated by people who were always critical anyway.  But I
believe the major resistance was pure market place.  The
regulators and environmentalists were calling upon Edison to
pursue policies that were at variance with the cherished
principles of market share retention and resultant shareholder
value.  They were being asked to use their resources to shrink
their revenue base.  It was totally counter intuitive for people
who had spent their careers concerned about profitability.

     This fierce resistance can instantly become fierce support
if regulators just change the rules.  To truly maximize
conservation we must make it in the economic self-interest of
utilities to become devoted conservationists.

     Conservation also means higher gasoline prices.  As usual,
George Bush blanches when asked to do this by his energy policy
advisers.  His recently announced energy policy is warmed over
Reagan with production taking center stage and conservation
belittled.  It is a sad lesson of American politics that a
President would send troops to defend oil rich nations but not be
willing to take the tough political steps necessary to reduce
domestic oil demand.  I understand the politics.  It's just the
ethics that I can't fathom.  Washington should have a predictable
policy of raising the Federal excise tax on gasoline.  It should
be raised a certain amount each year, every year, so that
consumers can make sensible decisions about the cars they will
drive before the annual increases go into effect.  Three to five
cents a year each year would be one possibility.  Nothing, but
nothing, promotes the purchase of fuel efficient cars like
anticipated higher gas prices.  That is an unavoidable fact of
life.  It has been years since automobile ads spoke of fuel
efficiency.  All of today's ads speak of acceleration and power
and mightiness.  While this measure will not be well-received, a
three to five cents a year annual increase would not begin to
reach today's tax levels in virtually all other Western nations. 
Japan, Germany and Italy, for example, have gas prices exceeding
$3 a gallon.  They have faced the issue.  We have only just
begun.  The loss of American lives in the Persian Gulf is an
unacceptable price to pay for the once-understandable desire to
keep gas prices low.  Our need to lessen oil import dependence
should no longer be a national objective supported by lofty
rhetoric but devoid of the meaningful actions needed to
accomplish that objective.

     It also means higher federal taxes on fuel inefficient
automobiles that are then rebated, dollar for dollar, to
purchasers of fuel efficient automobiles.  The consumer buying a
car consistent with our national energy policy should be
subsidized by the consumer buying a car at variance with that
policy.

     Finally, it means greater investments in mass transit and
the rail system.  These would be funded by the gas tax.  Again,
those who use energy efficient means should be rewarded for such
use.  It is astonishing to think that we are still debating how
much should be allocated to mass transit as opposed to new
highways.  This debate can only happen in an atmosphere wherein
no national energy policy exists.

     These measures must be matched by all-out efforts to achieve
conservation internationally.  The electricity and transportation
systems are particularly inefficient in many third world
countries.  The United Nations must put this effort at the top of
their energy funding agenda.  We must cause this to happen.

Maximize Renewables

     This is the future.  Solar, wind, hydro, etc.  We were on
the road to making these technologies viable when the Reagan
administration blew away the funding for them.  There is an
enormous amount of research and development necessary before some
of these technologies become truly affordable and operational. 
But in terms of long-term national security interest, the Gulf
crisis should make it clear that energy dependence is no bargain. 
Better to spend billions to make those technologies viable than
to spend many more billions funding the consequences of energy
dependence.

     Here again the utilities are prime-time players.  Utilities
that aggressively promote these technologies should enjoy a
higher rate of return than those that don't.

     Finally, it should be noted that every dollar spent on
renewables (and conservation) remains in the economy and
multiplies.  To the extent that American-based solutions exist,
they should be preferred over imported solutions in pursuit of
the simple goal of keeping U.S. dollars at home.  Thus, a dollar
paid to an installer of insulation or invested in a wind energy
project stays here and circulates.  The benefit of that over
sending a dollar overseas to purchase oil is not insignificant.

Research into Nuclear Options

     This one is not self-evident.  But it is necessary
nonetheless.  Let's say we maximize conservation and renewables
tomorrow.  Let's also agree that by doing so we have stretched
out the fossil fuel reserves by twenty, fifty, even one hundred
years.  There's still a very real problem.  We will never arrive
at a time of energy use based solely on renewables.

     There must be a major base load energy capability that is
sustainable.  Inevitably that capability has to be nuclear.  The
fact that this is an unhappy reality does not make it any less of
a reality.  The other base-load alternative is massive reliance
on coal, and that is not possible in an era of real concern over
global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

     Every nuclear power plant operating in the world today
represents millions of barrels of oil not consumed.  Indeed, one
can, ironically, argue that we have served our descendants by the
use of nuclear power since they will inherit the oil we did not
use.  Each plant also represents tens of millions of dollars not
sent to OPEC but kept in the American economy.  This call for
nuclear power, of course, goes against every instinct of most
environmentalists.  It also offends those concerned with the
issue of nuclear safety and the attendant issue of the disposal
of nuclear waste.  These concerns are very real and will never
disappear.

     When I was struggling with the issue of nuclear power as a
Congressman and Senator in the 1970's, there was furious debate
among my staff members and outside advisors.  The split saw my
strong environmental supporters aligned with my political
advisors.  The argument was clear.  Environmentalists were
fiercely anti-nuclear.  They were my most dedicated loyalists. 
And they had valid concerns that were always being casually
dismissed by utilities and governments alike.  Being anti-nuclear
would be substantively correct and politically beneficial.

     On the other side was my energy staff person.  He was not
unsympathetic to the logic arrayed against him.  He thought the
nuclear industry and the utilities had been mindless, stubborn
and reactionary.  He thought that they had become their own worst
enemy for good reason.

     But, he asked, if you eliminate nuclear what do you put in
its stead?  What exactly is the replacement process for shutting
down the nuclear option?  Tell me specifically what substitutes
for what.
     At first we provided the expected response about
conservation and renewables.  But when you tried to put numbers
on them, there was a huge gap no matter how aggressively we
pushed these options.

     That left oil, gas and coal.  All were finite and oil and
coal had particular problems if you overloaded the system with
them.  While gas would be a clean energy source it would not
substitute for everything else.

     In the end, there were no open doors left.

     Accepting this was excruciating.  Politically it was all
downside.  It remains the most difficult and uncomfortable policy
position I have ever taken.  But today, more than a decade later,
I still feel the same way.

     That doesn't eliminate the real problems with nuclear
energy.  But they have to be viewed in context.

     It is much easier to have those concerns dominate our policy
since they are immediate, and the dire consequences that are the
focus of this paper may be decades away.  My responsibility is to
today, of course, but it is even stronger to those who have not
lived the half century I have enjoyed.  A policy that disregards
the viability of our descendants is a policy of no moral value. 
This looking beyond ourselves is part of the return to purpose.

     Further, it should be noted that the greenhouse effect is a
compelling argument by itself for nuclear power.  If the buildup
of carbon dioxide is indeed a threat to the world's climate, then
an energy source which produces no carbon dioxide should have
some currency.  This is an extremely difficult divide for
environmentalists to cross.  But the debate has begun.

     It's a matter of evaluating risks.  The risk of a nuclear
accident is quite knowable.  The risk of rising oceans has never
been experienced and thus elicits no strong fears.  But one can
begin to imagine the dimensions of such a calamity.  For me I
choose to take the greenhouse effect very seriously.  I hope I'm
wrong.

     Finally, it is interesting to see how differently
governments have treated this issue of nuclear power.  France is
a country ruled by the liberal Socialist Party yet is driving
toward virtually full dependence upon nuclear power.  They see it
as freedom from oil dependence and an end to the financial
hemorrhaging of that dependence.

     Japan and South Korea are strong adherents of nuclear as
their electricity producer.

     Germany is ruled by the conservative Christian Democrats yet
has closed off the nuclear option.  Others have as well.

     In the long run which countries will benefit?  In my mind,
the French have done the most to secure their energy future. 
They have decided upon a course which if followed by other
nations will render the Persian Gulf less critical and thereby
less likely to result in the kind of dilemma we now face there. 
It will result in less oil demand, thereby reducing world oil
prices and thus lessening the dollars spent on such oil. 
Finally, and most importantly, it results in oil never being
consumed as nuclear plants take the place of oil-fired units. 
The savings herein are staggering.  Oil Imports in 1989 accounted
for $45 billion of our $109 billion trade deficit.  The 112
nuclear plants operating that year in the U.S. saved 740,000
barrels of oil per day.  That cut our 1989 oil import bill by
$4.7 billion or about 10%.  Since 1973, nuclear plants have
reduced our trade deficit by a total of $125 billion.  As oil
prices increase over time the trade deficit reduction potential
of nuclear power will only increase.  These are enormous economic
factors which cannot and should not be brushed aside, especially
by a nation with chronic and massive trade deficits, more than
one third of which is strictly due to oil imports.

     There are, however,  two valid arguments against nuclear
power.  First, it is just another avenue to avoid the
conservation and renewable policies that must come first.  True. 
Any nuclear option must follow conservation and renewables.  Any
attempt to move to nuclear without recognizing this maxim is
properly doomed to failure.  This reality has been told to the
nuclear industry for years but has had no impact as they continue
to view nuclear development as a sainted option and conservation
and renewables as latter-day appeasement of wooly headed
environmentalists.  This attitude has served them very poorly
indeed.

     Secondly, the technologies appropriate for the future are
not in place.  There is merit to this argument.  The American
nuclear industry consists of scores of nuclear power plants,
virtually all of which are different from one another.  The
inefficiencies and hazards of this reality are not to be taken
lightly.  If every nuclear power plant is custom-made there will
always be problems since every plant has its own distinct
learning curve.

     The nuclear industry and the utilities have been foolish in
ignoring these legitimate criticisms.  They refused to rethink
how the nuclear option could be perfected and instead chose to
defend and perpetuate past practices.  They gave opponents no
reason to hope that critical self-analysis was possible.  As a
result, today the industry lies in disarray.

     The new nuclear age will require technologies in nuclear
fission which allow for smaller, safer, modular power plants in
limited design options.  Knowledge will have to be transferrable
so that talented personnel will be transferrable.

     There will not be any more 1200 megawatt power plants.  They
are too costly and no utility in this day and age is going to
take the risk of building one.  Nor should they.  In this case,
smaller is indeed better.  The future is in the 300-500 megawatt
range.  What about cost?  They will be expensive but the case for
nuclear is not its cost.  It is preserving fossil fuels,
lessening the hazards of oil dependence, reducing the trade
deficit  and minimizing carbon dioxide output.  The federal
government is going to have to invest in developing these new
prototypes in concert with industry.  There must be a sharing of
the financial risk in order to move rapidly.  This joint venture
would seek the development of two or three prototype models based
on today's design and engineering capability rather than attempt
to add bells and whistles onto twenty to thirty year old
blueprints.

     What about the disposal of nuclear wastes?  This is not a
simple matter since we are talking about materials that will long
outlive us.  But the problem already exists.  It exists outside
the nuclear power industry because of military uses primarily,
but also research and medical applications as well.  Given the
choice of finding a technological solution to limited amounts of
nuclear waste and finding a technological solution to massive
quantities of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I will choose the
former.  Not because its easy but because the latter is undoable.

     But the fact remains that the disposal issue has been
brushed aside.  To advocate for nuclear must be to commit upfront
to the funding necessary to secure the disposal option.  Neither
the nuclear industry nor the federal government has chosen to
face up to this.  Until a disposal option is identified and
accepted, we will always be at a standstill.

     What about the concern for future generations if we leave
this nuclear waste behind?  This is a serious argument.  But
again a choice.  Nuclear waste stored in deep salt mines versus a
world in conflict over diminishing fossil fuels.  Once more I
choose the former.  Not because it's easy but because the
consequences of the latter are all too knowable.

     The research community must also be funded to develop
non-fission alternatives.  There are compelling reasons to push
aggressively for fusion options (or others not now known) that
may be much safer and more inexhaustible.  We are talking about
an availability that stretches well into the 21st century.  But
that is when its need will be most critical.  This must be a kind
of mini-Manhattan Project of the future.  A nuclear source that
can never turn into a Chernobyl.  A nuclear source that can light
the darkness for those who come generations later without the
dilemma of waste disposal.  This is the necessary technology for
us to develop in order to secure our safety and our descendants'
safety.

     Finally, it should be noted that there are other serious
economic consequences of the United States losing its
technological edge in nuclear power.  If we let our capability
wither, as we are now doing, sooner or later there will not be an
American company able to build a nuclear power plant.  All of the
know-how will be Japanese or French or whatever.  And when the
world recognizes the need for non-fossil fuel base-load
generation and turns to nuclear we will again have lost our
competitive position.  The trade implications of this are
obvious.  But it also means loss of U.S. influence on issues such
as safety design and waste disposal.  The role of the federal
government is critical here because only it can take the steps
necessary to coordinate the emergence of the new nuclear power
option.  The President and Congress must jointly agree as to the
necessity for this option and then provide the leadership to work
with industry to make it happen.  This will involve issues such
as funding, regulation and site selection.

Fossil Fuels

     People who don't like to contemplate the nuclear option will
want to take refuge in the notion that we can always go back to
finding more fossil fuels.

     People who dismiss conservation and renewables will do the
same.

     Let's go out and extract more oil and gas.  This is, in
essence, the current policy.

     The scarcity of oil reserves contrasts with the more
plentiful reserves of gas in North America so the two are not to
be seen as identical.  But the prime weakness here is the obvious
- the more we find and extract, the less there will be.  We
obviously do need a vibrant oil and gas drilling and production
capability.  For the next few decades this capacity is absolutely
essential.

     But beyond the available U.S. oil reserves, particularly in
the Southwestern states, the options are less attractive.

     Take the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.  There are two possible
approaches.  First, go in, exploit it and secure the several
months at most supply said to possibly exist there.  Whatever
environmental damage occurs, that is just the price that has to
be paid.

     Second, keep the oil in the ground, preserve the environment
and treat that oil (if it exists) as available to future
generations whose need will be much more acute than ours. 
Obviously, the first approach offers greater current political
advantage.  The second, however, offers greater fulfillment to
the generational responsibility.  Guess which one George Bush
chose?

     But the second also offers strategic value as well.  As we
face future crisis after future crisis occasioned by our
dependence upon foreign oil, are we not better positioned if we
have put into place alternatives and conservation and have the
maximum amount of fossil fuels still in the ground?  Put another
way, does not a Drain America First approach maximize our
vulnerability?

     But beyond these arguments, the Bush proposal to open up the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge bespeaks of how much our oil addiction has
diminished all our other values.  Alaska is not just another
place.  It is the most beautiful and most preserved land on
earth.  It is, by far, the grandest gesture we have made in
deference to God's wondrous creation.  To seek to put the
wildlife refuge at risk while balking at a gasoline tax to
achieve the same net result is hypocrisy in the extreme for
someone who talked about wanting to be the environmental
president.  The Democrats in 1992 should commit to veto any
effort to despoil this part of Alaska as a substitute for an
inevitable energy policy.  In many respects, this issue is a
"defining moment" for our values as keepers of the land,
protectors of nature's wildlife and guardians of the energy needs
of our descendants.

     But even in the lower forty-eight states, the concern is
where the fossil fuels will come from.  Once the relatively easy
oil and gas reserves are tapped you begin to get into some pretty
dicey alternatives.  Drilling a hole to extract oil is one thing. 
Crushing a mountain to extract oil shale is quite another. 
Drilling a hole to extract gas is one thing.  Mining arid regions
of the country for coal is quite another.

     This is not to argue against fossil fuel development.  That
will happen and should happen in the decades of transition. 
Indeed, the nation is looking to natural gas to step in and
substitute for oil in ways unexpected just a few years ago.

     This, combined with the development of ethanol, methanol and
other alternative fuels, offers real time hope of lessening our
Persian Gulf addiction.  However, the fact remains that the
conservation/renewables/nuclear options should be put at the head
of the energy line.  Only by doing that can we contemplate the
wonders of grandchildren and great grandchildren without the
burden of knowing we have sacrificed them for our own comfort and
convenience.


V.  Foreign Policy - Time to Heal Thyself

     Since the end of World War II the United States has held the
Soviet Union at bay.  The policy was called containment.  It was
a test of American resolve and determination that has extended
for more than four decades.

     Today we have witnessed the triumph of that policy.  By
containing communism, we allowed its inherent contradictions to
eventually cause its downfall.  Communism did not fall to
invading armies or to an onslaught of nuclear warheads.  Its
demise was the result of two internal phenomena.  First, the
sense of injustice which fueled Marxist-Leninism soon gave way to
police states wherever communism was dominant.  Freedom was the
first casualty of this "worker's paradise."  Anyone crossing
through Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin could not avoid the
heavy sense of oppression that characterized all of Eastern
Europe.  Second, the allure of communism as a cureall for the
ills of capitalism came apart as more and more countries found
that communism equalled petty corruption, bureaucratic
inefficiency and economic stagnation.  A system based on the
theory of noble common interest faltered upon the reality that
human beings need incentives that relate to themselves and their
families.  There must be a causal relationship between hard work
and reward if there is to be hard work.  Communism as an economic
system destroyed that relationship.  The result was thus
inevitable.  This inevitability, however, required time to
manifest itself.  It was containment that bought that time.

     The price paid by America (and its allies to a much lesser
extent) was enormous.  Thousands of lives were given to protect
freedom and trillions of dollars were expended as well.  But the
wisdom of Harry Truman has been borne out by history.  Contain
communism.  Believe in the fundamental superiority of democracy
and the free enterprise system.  Hold fast and eventually
people's yearning to be free and to provide their families with a
decent standard of living will prevail.  He was right.  It took
an awfully long time but it was accomplished without one nuclear
warhead being fired in anger.

     The collapse of the Berlin Wall brought the Cold War to an
end.  It will take a decade to mop up the remains but they will
be mopped up.  There will undoubtedly be setbacks as the Soviet
Union suffers through the terrible throes of transition.  Even if
there were to be a new rightist regime in Moscow, it would be
unlike the Soviet Union of the past forty-five years.  The reason
is quite simple.  The Warsaw Pact is gone forever.

     The fearsome armies of East Germany are now but memories as
the Germanys have united in an emotional embrace that has turned
the faces of the East Germans toward the West.  Elsewhere
throughout the Warsaw Pact, playwrights and union leaders have
become heads of state and freedom is savored as only it can be
tasted by the formerly enslaved.

     Within the Soviet Union as well the question is not one of a
possible Warsaw Pact army moving westward across Europe.  The
question is whether various republics will remain as part of the
Soviet Union.  And the answer is almost assuredly not.  There
will be new nations based on old identities.   Lithuania, Estonia
and Latvia are but the beginning of a long debate over what
constitutes a viable national state that can endure.

     And, finally, even within core Russia, the forces of freedom
and self-expression have been loosened.  Each day adds to the
deeper rooting of expectations.  The traditions of parliamentary
debate, of open citizen criticism, of religious observance, of
free market experimentation are all quite fragile.  But they now
exist in the minds of the Soviet people reinforced by images of
the rampant freedom being experienced by their fellow citizens in
Eastern Europe.

     This is the joy of a great emancipation.  But this is the
honeymoon.  More difficult days will follow as the harsh
realities of transition set in.  This is not a transition to be
marked in months or years.  It will take decades.  And the long
road will provide endless opportunities for demagogues to stake
their claim to leadership.  The sheer amount of dashed
expectations will create mountains of bitterness and resentment
as the coming economic dislocations set in.

     Freedom is lovely.  But chaos is frightening.  And sooner or
later there will be those who will take advantage of the deep
instinctive fear of public disorder.  One must understand that
the alternative to Mikhail Gorbachev is not just Boris Yeltsin.^
It is the hardline military conservatives as well.  The 1990's
will see events in the Soviet Union (and Eastern Europe) which
will not be pretty.

     It is essential here to understand two fundamental points. 
First, a Soviet Union in transition will always pose a certain
danger to us but that danger is not the risk of advancing Warsaw
Pact armies preceding a carefully planned nuclear attack.  It is
the danger of an unstable leadership which happens to be well
armed.  It is the danger, not of miscalculation, but unbalanced
desperation. As long as nuclear weapons exist in such vast
numbers they cannot be allowed to drift from our consciousness.

     Second, it is in everyone's interest to make the Soviet
transition as smooth as possible.  The less the economic chaos,
the less will be the risk of political extremism.  The Western
nations must help demonstrate to the Soviet people that there is
a light at the end of the democratic tunnel.  Economic
deprivation makes freedom less relevant to a people.  We must
ensure that economic hope is not extinguished within the minds of
the Soviet citizenry.

     This means a coalition of North American, EEC and Pacific
Rim nations meeting at an economic summit with the Soviets (and
the East Europeans) and hammering out Marshall Plan II.  This
will be a Marshall Plan not to contain communism but to keep it
in its grave (the hard view) or to enable a long suffering people
to enjoy the fruits of freedom at long last (the benign view). 
Instead of arraying our forces of war against the East, let us
demonstrate the genius of democracy by unleashing the true
generosity inherent in free nations.  This generosity will
involve the usual forms of assistance but it must include as well
the transfer of knowledge.  The task here is to bring into being
the organizational infrastructure necessary for economic reforms
to succeed.  This is not just a matter of letters of credit or
food aid.  It is fundamentally a matter of providing skills and
experience and management.  These are human talents that can only
be transferred by other human beings.  It obviously involves the
deployment of various Western corporate and academic entities. 
But it also means Western experts such as retired business
executives and consultants on leave devoting themselves to the
great task of the 1990's and beyond - the full integration of the
former Warsaw Pact into the commonwealth of nations.   Such an
integration will also enable us to have a greater capability to
influence the outcome of the independence movements in the
republics.

     Finally, a thought about how we have been affected by our
relationship with this great Asian continental nation.  Both the
USSR and the United States spent the latter part of this century
preparing for war against each other.  This constant tension gave
us our worst risk of loss of civil liberties (McCarthyism), our
closest brush with annihilation (Cuban Missile Crisis) and our
most bitter foreign involvement (Vietnam).  All those are past. 
What is not is the economic price that both countries have paid. 
We are both like muscle bound weight lifters who now have little
use for all the accumulated intercontinental muscle.  The contest
now is not weight lifting but long distance running.  All around
are the smaller, quicker nations who devoted themselves to
business while we were both focused on confrontation.  As one
observer has noted "the Cold War is over and the Japanese won."

     Both the United States and the Soviet Union need to ramp
down their military machines to levels that provide true military
security without rendering them economically impotent.  There
will be a lot of sorting out as we seek to find the appropriate
level.  I would opt to reduce our troop commitments overseas and
retain the research and development capabilities.  There is no
military might in a nation impoverished by an inability to
compete in the global marketplace.  There is no sustainable
military might when the national economy is in decline.  This
must be the most significant underpinning of the New American
Mandate.  The Soviets face that reality now.  But we face it
also.

The New World Order

     Harken a new chapter of world peace and harmony?  Sadly not. 
But one must rejoice about the passing of the spectre of the
superpowers having at each other in a fit of nuclear
miscalculation.  We have been delivered from the immediate threat
of nuclear winter.

     This deliverance, however, has given center stage to other
destructive forces as we have now witnessed in the extreme.  They
are not the aftermath of the East-West confrontation.  They are
local; they are regional; they are linguistic; they are
religious; they are ethnic; they are economic; they are tribal.

     The world seems capable of offering up an endless array of
bloody incidents on virtually every continent.  The Persian Gulf
has our attention but it is only the latest crisis.  El Salvador,
Ghana, Rumania, Argentina, South Africa, China, Panama, Liberia,
Kuwait, India, East Timor, Haiti, Afghanistan, Philippines, on
and on.  A year from now there will be others.  The overlay of
East versus West, of conflict based on capitalism versus
Marxist-Leninism, is gone.  That context hid other determining
forces that are now free to roam at will across the landscape of
the lesser developed world.  Many of these countries are not
rooted in centuries of jurisprudence and democratic institutions. 
For some of them, their history as a country is measured only in
post World War II terms.  Many of the boundaries of these
countries were artificially determined by outsiders to
accommodate foreign agendas.  Often those boundaries cut across
natural groupings or put historically rival groupings in the same
nation.

     Creating a nation requires a great deal more than geography. 
There must be a sense of people, a sense of common history.  Many
of today's nations lack these essential attributes.  They are
square pegs trying to fit into round holes carved by others.  For
some, the future cannot hold as tribal or ethnic or religious
rivalries come roaring back from their bloody pasts.  Added to
this basic disequilibrium is the communications technology
available worldwide which has raised expectations concerning
freedom, standards of living, health care and the like.  Many of
these expectations will not be met.

     Thus, we have a world where possible mass annihilation by
nuclear warheads has given way to continuous individual and small
group death by machetes, AK-47's and tanks.

     What does the United States do in these situations?

The End of Pax Americana

     It is clear that we cannot intercede in every case where
clashes have broken out.  Most of these conflicts are going to
involve the loss of innocent life and the temptation is going to
be to go in and somehow make things all right.  That temptation
is a snare and must be resisted.  There is going to be a lot of
sorting out in the years ahead as groups go against groups in
countries where the institutional bonds are weaker than the bonds
of ethnicity or religion.  And often they are weaker than the
acute remembrance of past injustices.  Horrid affairs will take
place and we must try to contribute to their prevention as much
as possible.  But no American blood should be casually spilled
taking sides in the internal affairs of woeful nations.  Our good
offices, yes, but not our blood.  The threshold of American
involvement must be raised to a level consistent with clear
national interests that are embraced by the American people.

     A clear example of this is Lebanon.  In 1982 I stood on the
balcony of the American ambassador's residence in East Beirut and
watched Israeli planes bombing PLO positions in West Beirut.  The
night sky was illuminated with flares.  Nearby Christian gun
positions would occasionally fire in the direction of Moslem-held
West Beirut.  The scene below me was so different from anything I
had ever seen before that it required an effort to believe that
it was real and that people were dying in buildings I could
barely discern.  It was a scene out of Dante's inferno.

     The natural instinct was to somehow intervene to end the
bloodshed.  But when I met with leaders from the various factions
during my stay it was clear that ethnic and religious differences
combined with past horrors were beyond any rational arbitration. 
There were forces at play that were primal and they would not be
easily contained.  Not by us, not by any western nation.  Perhaps
not even by any nation.  Today, almost a decade later, there
still is not peace.

     A more difficult situation arises where borders are at
stake.  Herein there are other considerations that come into play
- considerations that speak to the essential concepts of national
sovereignty and non-aggression.  The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is
such an example.  It had to be addressed.

     In most instances the United States will not have great
national interests at stake.  In some cases, such as the Persian
Gulf, the American dependence on imported oil raises the stakes
considerably. Our economic vital interests, caused by our almost
twenty year failure to bring about energy self-sufficiency, will
continue to make us vulnerable to whatever winds blow in that
part of the world.

     We cannot, however, allow ourselves to continually become
the policeman of the world sending our youth to areas of great
risk and pouring our national treasure into the fray.  There must
be a police force in future instances but we should only be part
of the contingent.  We must not be the whole contingent or even
the majority of the contingent.

     Efforts are going to have to be made to provide a United
Nations Security Force with real teeth.  This will not happen
overnight and there are years of negotiations ahead to make it a
reality.  But one thing is for sure.  America no longer can
afford the role it has assumed since the end of World War II. 
Pax Americana must give way to Heal Thyself.  This is not
isolationism.  It is participation in a new internationalism
truly based on the principle of collective security.  This
principle has been articulated for decades but remains in the
realm of rhetoric not reality.  The United States must cause it
to become the basis for a new Pax Mundi.  True collective
security means true collective burden sharing.  The effort in the
Persian Gulf is a step in that direction but the journey is by no
means complete.

     Other nations, especially those with great trade surpluses,
have enjoyed a free ride as we willingly take up causes around
the world.  American blood is shed and we spend billions upon
billions of dollars that should be spent at home to reinvigorate
our economically depleted nation.  We are seen as willing to
fight battles for everyone else and rarely insistent that other
nations truly participate up to their proportionate share.  The
attitude used to be that we would never really push other nations
on these kind of issues so long as they were strong allies in 
confronting the Soviets.  Those days are over.

     There is a new world order, but we don't truly act that way. 
We need our resources at home.  We have a Herculean task to
steady our economic ship of state and to get out from under our
crushing national debt.  This is the first priority and all the
other priorities come after it.  Indeed, if we don't attend to
our economic peril, we won't be in a position to be of help to
anyone.

     The time has come to confront our allies with tough choices. 
Either they have interests at stake here or they don't.  If they
do, then they must either participate fully or be prepared to see
those interests adversely affected.  This new order will come
hard to countries who have prospered under our military umbrella
and devoted their resources to build mighty economies.  For them,
the message must be that the party is over.

     We have suffered our Vietnam.  We have seen our Marines
killed in Beirut.  Our troops in Saudi Arabia are the majority
force that contained the madness of Saddam Hussein, while not one
Japanese or German life was at risk.  Yet Japan is the most
dependent upon Persian Gulf oil of all the industrialized nations
in the world.  They had enormous economic interests at stake. 
Yet the Japanese say that their constitution, unfortunately,
prevents their involvement.  The Germans sold all kinds of
weaponry to Iraq including those necessary for chemical warfare. 
They even sold goods to Iraq after the embargo had been imposed. 
Rather than participate with other Europeans, however, the Bonn
government chose to play the role of bystander.  The Germans say
that they want to devote their resources to reincorporating East
Germany.  We should say enough!  They have vital interests here. 
They cannot be allowed to obviate their clear responsibilities by
hesitantly providing contributory funds under duress.  They are
doing only what they have to in order to quell American public
outrage.

     There will not be a new world order until and unless other
major countries are prepared to invest the blood of their sons
and daughters and the wealth of their treasuries in the duties of
the peacekeeper.  Our actions must force this new world order. 
We must not delay it by pretending we have unlimited young
soldiers and unlimited resources to spend all over the world.

     There are three choices before us:
     1.  Allow military aggression across borders to go
unchecked.
     2.  Deploy American troops, alone if necessary, as each new
world trouble spot erupts.
     3.  Put into place the new world order of multi-national
peacekeeping where the United States is a major player but only
in reasonable proportion to its allies.

     Option #1 will lead to world chaos.  There is no viable
recourse for America that removes us from the responsibilities of
a great global nation.  Our military strength and our democratic
values are world resources.  The issue is not whether to be
involved but how to be involved.  To some Americans the
temptation is to embrace a kind of latter day isolationism.  But
it will never be.  We are the hub around which allied democratic
nations revolve.  That reality cannot be ignored.  Iraq could not
have been allowed to conquer Kuwait with impunity.

     Option #2 will bankrupt America and cause undue personal
grief to the families of our servicemen and women.  This is the
policy that our allies desperately wish us to continue.  They
must be made to understand that an economically crippled and
divided America serves no one's interest over the long term. 
Japan and Germany are not safer with an America in economic
receivership.  It is truly galling that these nations have
managed to secure the safety of their youth while their interests
were defended by American men and women.

     Option #3 must be the basis of our foreign policy.  Only Pax
Mundi can call upon American military resources in a manner
consistent with our prevailing national needs.  We are but five
percent of the world's population.  We are the greatest debtor
nation the world has ever known.  We suffered about 60% of the
coalition casualties in the Persian Gulf.  These are facts. 
Let's have a foreign policy that recognizes these facts and
establishes the new world order in practice as well as in theory. 
We may be the most important policeman in the international
police force and we can accept that.  But we should never allow
ourselves to become the latter day paid soldiers for nations who
feel no moral obligation to sacrifice their own citizens.

The Third World

     There is a pattern to our travails abroad.  When it comes to
dealing with a superpower we are reasonably comfortable that we
know our enemy.  The Russians have been more European than not in
their 20th century history and mannerisms.  We have a good sense
of how they think and what motivates them.

     The same is true with our NATO allies and the Warsaw Pact
nations.  East-West we know.  All of our decision makers were
groomed in the school of East-West relations.  It is where we
have the "touch" that allows policies to have some hope of
success.  By contrast virtually none of our leaders came of age
in the North-South context.  They then must rely on position
papers prepared by others unaided by their own personal "feel"
for such matters.

     The Third World is very different.  And we don't truly
understand it.  In Vietnam we imposed an East-West overlay on the
Third World.  It was assumed that ideological dynamics were the
same everywhere.  The domino theory drove our decisions there but
Vietnam fell and the predicted onrush of Communist triumphs
around the world never materialized.  What happened?  Who knows? 
No one ever felt it was important enough to hold Congressional
hearings on the reason why the conceptual centerpiece of our
rationale turned out to be in error.  The war was over and no one
had the stomach to try and figure out how the best and brightest
could not understand what was happening inside the minds of
friends and foe alike.  An unhappy chapter.  So much sacrifice. 
Let's put it behind us.  It was just too painful.

     We never tried to figure out what we didn't know.

     Many hotspots of the future will be in the Third World. 
These potential conflicts will arise most probably over resource
questions or attempts to "remedy" colonially-imposed, artificial
borders.  How can we deal with these as they come upon us?  The
resolution of these potential crises cannot be endless military
engagement.  There are just too many disputed borders, ethnic
rivalries and unbalanced heads of state.  These non-U.S.-Soviet
confrontations must be the business of the world community but
there is a limit to the capacity and willingness of countries to
be militarily involved.  These confrontations call for a new
commitment to the rule of law in conflict mediation.  Such
mediation should be by entities that are perceived to be as third
world in their composition as reasonably possible.

     This means the strengthening of existing multilateral
institutions.  It means the creation of new mechanisms with
sufficient muscle to enforce the principle of peaceful resolution
of disputes.  The old adage of speak softly and carry a big stick
remains relevant today.

     When territorial and/or resource disputes do arise, such
disputes should be forced into binding and timely international
arbitration.  The objective here is to create a moral and legal
process that is created by the entire world community and not by
the usual Western players alone.  If the dispute is not resolved
satisfactorily, the World Court should be given in reality what
it has only been given in theory throughout the Cold War era,
namely the power to adjudicate the remedy.

     Should a potential aggressor refuse to seek a remedy through
binding arbitration or the World Court, or ignore the ruling of
such bodies, then economic sanctions as the primary enforcement
tool should be implemented swiftly and completely.  And they
should be kept in place until shown to be inadequate.  The world
community has demonstrated that strict sanctions can be
implemented effectively, witness the global response to the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait.  Should sanctions fail the capability must
exist to exercise the military option under United Nations
auspices.

     Herein it is essential that any future military actions
clearly have the appearance and substance of United Nations
supervision.  This will require a great deal of rethinking
because the current United Nations peacekeeping structure would
not have been able to counter Saddam Hussein in time to prevent
his possible invasion of Saudi Arabia, let alone evict him from
Kuwait.  The world's nations are going to have to sit down and
decide how to give the United Nations effective military
capability consistent with the concept of national sovereignty. 
It will require extensive negotiations obviously.  But the world
will be better served if the Saddam Hussein wannabes of the
future have less room to miscalculate world reaction to
unacceptable endeavors.  And we in the West will be better served
if such military responses are not perceived by third world
peoples as Western actions against non-Westerners.

     Finally, it's urgent that we spend the time necessary to
understand how Third World  nations think.  They are not mini
copies of Western nations.  They are different peoples with
different cultures - cultures no less worthy of our respect and
understanding.  They all need to be thought of as separate and
sovereign.  If we can do this we can avoid some of the quagmires
that we have experienced in the past.

     The nations of the Third World have a vastly different
perspective than we do.  Some are consumed with fears and
resentments about the former colonial powers.  Some have an
inherent uneasiness with nations that are mostly white and
Western.  Many of them deal from feelings of insecurity and
non-acceptance.  They don't act as we in the West would expect
because their cultures and histories and institutions are not the
same as ours.  Fundamentally, many of them do not believe that we
respect them.  And, sadly, they are often correct.  We think that
human history and the Judeo-Christian tradition are the same
thing.  Perhaps we can see how offensive that is to the billions
of people who don't share that tradition.  The Persian Gulf war
has demonstrated this dilemma.  Saddam Hussein was able to tap
into reserves of sympathy in the Moslem world when the bombing of
Iraq occurred.  This despite the obvious lawlessness and
brutality of his invasion of Kuwait.  How could these people
support such a dictator who had savagely killed other Arab
people?  The answer lies not in rationality but in the perception
that this was Iraq versus the United States and a handful of
Western allies.  It is said that war is politics by other means. 
True.  Future military actions must carefully calibrate the long
term political implications of our strategic decision making.

     It is in the self-interest of the United States to encourage
our colleges and universities to focus more effort on the history
and mores of non-Western cultures.  We need to understand the
thinking of Islam.  We need to know the legacy of American
involvement with regimes in Latin America.  We need to be aware
of the many cultures that determine the thinking of Asian and
African nations just as thoroughly as they seek to understand the
West.

     We cannot presume that the rest of the world thinks that way
we do.  There are powerful factors at work that cause nations and
peoples to have particular lenses through which they view events
around them.

     While this may sound self-evident I can attest to how easy
it is not to see it.

     I vividly recall how much my perspective changed during my
two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Ethiopia.  I lived in a
town/village called Wolisso and taught in the local school.

     In the summer between school years I remained in Wolisso to
work on a building project.  For that period of time I was the
only Peace Corps Volunteer there.  I found myself beginning to
think like an Ethiopian for the first time.  I also found myself
looking at non-Ethiopians through Ethiopian eyes.

     Since Wolisso was on the road from the capital city of Addis
Ababa to the provincial capital of Jimma there was occasional
traffic through the town.  Often they came at dangerously high
speeds given the fact that the road was usually full of people,
including children, and various kinds of livestock.

     One day, while walking along the road towards the building
site, I had to jump off of the side of the road as a car
barrelled past.  The driver of the large car was an Ethiopian. 
My reaction and that of the Ethiopians near me was clear
irritation.  Another arrogant upper-class Ethiopian.  But it was
soon dismissed as how things unfortunately were.

     Just as we had returned to the road to continue on our way,
another car came at us at a similarly irresponsible speed. 
Again, we all had to jump into the shallow gully at the side of
the road.

     As the car sped by with the horn blaring we all noticed that
the driver was white - either an American or a European.  My
reaction was not merely irritation but anger.  Real anger.  I
wanted to chase after the culprit and pummel him.  The Ethiopians
responded even more strongly.  They began to shout to each other
about the cursed "ferengi" (foreigner).

     Both drivers had committed the same act.  Both had
jeopardized the same people.  But there the sameness ended. 
History and perception and culture and nationalism came into play
and caused the reaction of the Ethiopians to each miscreant to be
radically different.  Even I was rendering separate judgments.
In the year that followed, I became acutely aware of  this
dichotomy and had no difficulty in seeing it in other
circumstances.

     It serves no purpose to argue that all of this is illogical. 
Logic and politics are not the same thing.  And if we are going
to be players in the non-Western world, we'd better understand
the hearts and minds of its people.

     But recourse to isolationism is not possible.

     It is inevitable that we will be involved in other Third
World crises after Kuwait.  It is then imperative that such
involvements only occur based on a true understanding of the
political and cultural forces at play and not just an assessment
of military capabilities.

     The evolution to Pax Mundi is going to require a great deal
more knowledge than we now have.  We are always going to be a
major player on the world scene, perhaps the dominant player. 
With American lives at risk, we have the moral duty to know what
we are getting into.


VI.  The Culture of America: The Essential Need

     Much of what has been written herein deals with policies and
rationalities.  I have attempted to analyze issues as objectively
as possible and to put forth real world solutions.  The effort
has been to cast off excessive dogma and to confront what is
coldly before us.  For some, this paper should now end at Chapter
V.

     What follows will seem somewhat ephemeral compared to the
previous chapters.  It will deal in matters less concrete but, to
me, at least as relevant.  It is the realm that has been mostly
ignored just because it doesn't lend itself to hard data or
legislative initiatives or regulatory changes.

     But there is more to America's renewal than policies and
programs and realities.  There is also the wondrous matter of
human will.  And there is the wondrous matter of societal
cohesion.

     There is no rational explanation for excellence and
achievement if one depends only upon predictions based on
quantitative data.  Potential is not performance.  Capacity is
not output.  There is a much deeper dimension.  That dimension is
the will of particular human beings to excel.  It is their
unrelenting drive to reach beyond.  That dimension is also the
capacity of a people to act in united purpose and to achieve
greatness by reasons of their cohesion.

     Where do these characteristics come from?  Why do some
individuals and some peoples have them despite serious
shortcomings and others not have them despite every advantage? 
How do you foster them?  How do you extend them throughout a
society?  How do you cause a society to properly value them?  I
believe that the single greatest determinant of human will and
societal cohesion is the culture that embraces and sustains a
people.  Culture is what gives us lift and what, in its absence,
can render us pitiable.

     To be part of a culture is to be truly blessed.  It provides
a sense of lineage - a knowing that one is part of something that
reaches far into the past, a reassurance that one is part of a
continuum, a strength  that comes from bonding with one's
ancestors as well as with one's contemporaries.  One is never
alone because one is woven into a larger fabric with other people
and with shared values.

     Not to be part of a culture is a curse.  There is only the
present, only the temporal.  Values and morals are ad hoc, a
sorting out on a day-to-day basis.  There is no spiritual frame
of reference.  One floats through life in search of a sense of a
larger belonging that, if found, is merely grafted on, not
brought up from within.

     The great nations of history have many differences.  But
they have one commonality - strong, vibrant, inclusive cultures.

     So it is with any human grouping.  It is true for families,
providing its members with a capacity to begin to answer the
inevitable inquiry "Who am I?"

     The mere grouping of individuals does not, by itself, make a
family.  There must be a strong sense of mutual concern and a
common purpose.  Correspondingly, the mere grouping of multitudes
does not, by itself, make a nation.  There must be the glue that
holds these multitudes firmly in a common embrace.  There must be
a culture that speaks to the people.

     Occasionally individuals not blessed with a coherent culture
will rise above their circumstances and achieve greatness.

     Nations never do.

     A nation's fate is inescapably a function of the strength of
its culture.  History certainly shows us that.  Coherent binding
cultures create great nations for good or for ill.  Centrifugal
national cultures create dissolution and disarray, always for
ill.

     Why does history record great advances by a people in a
particular era and no advances by a different people in precisely
the same era?  Why do a people advance in one time period and
then seem to regress in another?

     The answer does not lie in factors like natural resources,
geography or political systems alone.

     Often, the difference is culture.

     Will, discipline, dedication, commitment, patriotism,
togetherness, caring, reaching out - these are the manifestations
of a culture.

     How one defines culture is, of course, an endless debate. 
For me, it involves the values that emerge in the person.  It
defines what constitutes a life of worth and what constitutes
one's obligations beyond self.  It involves the sense of being
part of a clearly defined society which readily accepts you and
whose mores you honor deeply.  It demands that we view our fellow
countrymen as brothers and sisters whose condition and fate is of
true importance to us.  It is the fusion of scores of different
ethnic lineages into a vibrant continental nation.  It is E
Pluribus Unum.  Not only in legal and constitutional terms but in
the truest sense of a people bonded together.

     The role of the New American Mandate is to strengthen our
commonality.  We have to mold our many diverse cultures here in
America into a more cohesive "national family" where the emphasis
is put on such intangibles as self-esteem, inclusion,  work
ethic, education, pride in quality products, commitment to
learning, caring for each other.  We have to talk about and
debate and ponder how we can reinforce the cohesiveness that
connects us to each other and reinforces our sense of attachment. 
We must understand the constant need to nurture community.  For
it is this community which allows us to share goals.  And it
enables us to sense collective danger and to respond to that
danger as a whole people.  To compete with societies with strong
cultures requires an equally strong culture.  It's that simple. 
This is not commonality for the sake of commonality.  It's
knowing that while commonality is critical in creating a noble
society, it is, more importantly, the sine qua non of having a
viable economic future.  It is the necessary prerequisite.

     There are many parts to this discussion.  What follows are
examples of an attitude.  The fundamental point here, however, is
straightforward.  Our leaders, both public and private, must,
above all, commit to strengthening our national culture and to
make mighty the spiritual bonds that make us a people.

     A.  Minorities - Racial, Ethnic, Religious, Economic.

     Whose country is this anyway?  Whose history is it?  Are the
founding fathers the ancestors of all of us?  Or just some of us? 
When a young black child sees a picture of George Washington,
what are the feelings compared to when he sees a picture of
Martin Luther King?  Does a child of Greek immigrants feel more
connected to Thomas Paine or to Aristotle?  Do Cambodian refugees
from the killing fields feel true kinship with 18th century
Yankee farmers?  Does an American Jew at worship feel more linked
to the Puritans or to those who suffered in the Holocaust?  How
does a Mexican-American sort out his feelings about the Alamo? 
And do Native Americans really think that the history of America
began with Christopher Columbus?

     We are a diverse people.  Unlike many other countries, our
national history and most of our family histories do not
coincide.  Some Americans are descendants of those who crossed
the Bering land mass.  Others arrived yesterday by jet from
Bulgaria.  As we trace our national history most of us come to a
time when our families were not here.  They were part of the
history of another place.  So which history is relevant?  Both? 
Only one?  If only one, which one?

     The magical bond created by hundreds, even thousands, of
years of one people in one place is not available to us.  Our
history is much shorter.  Our family roots spread out all over
the world.  We must work resolutely at nurturing cultural
cohesiveness because it is not given to us in the same fashion
that it has been given to some others.

     The absence of such cohesiveness is alienation.

     Many of our people sense an otherness.  They sense that
there is an inner circle in America and they are not part of it.

     The problem is not statutory.  We have passed the
appropriate laws.  The obstacles are not institutional.  Most
companies and institutions actively seek diversity in the work
force.  The obstacles are less tangible.  They exist in the minds
of both the established and the disestablished.  It is very
powerful for something so subtle.

     The laws and the principles embodied in the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution opened the gates to a glorious
land of equal opportunity.  But nirvana remains elusive.

     Equal opportunity, we have learned, is more than an open
gate.  It is the appropriate complement of skills and fundamental
self-esteem that makes the open gate meaningful.  To just open
the gate is to engage in cruel gesture no matter how innocently
it is done.

     The nation must address the non-statutory needs of our
fellow countrymen and countrywomen.  It's not just money.  It's
creating a culture of true inclusivity.  It's sending out the
message that we will go out of our way to make sure that skills
and self-esteem are part of the package.  Not just government
programs.  It's one-on-one, human being to human being,
volunteerism and private institutional outreach.

     Mentoring in the public schools as described earlier is an
example but it's more than that.  It is a way of thinking.  It's
white, male America truly pondering what its like to be a woman
or a person of color and trying to break through to acceptance. 
It's recognizing that the presumptions of equal opportunity taken
for granted by well-educated and affluent white males are not
possible for those who every day cannot rest in the assurance
that they are automatically esteemed.

     That esteem must be established.

     If it is not, we will always have a lesser society.  We will
also always have an underclass.  And it will be increasingly
alienated.  It will be an unending source of violence to itself
and to others.  And it will serve as a monstrously heavy burden
on our society as we seek to compete with societies free of such
inner turmoil.  Indeed, it will preclude any hope of competing
successfully.

     B.  Diversity - The Wonders and The Limits

     There is no more perfect American portrait than a schoolyard
of children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.  It is
the vision, the inspiration of what America can be.  A diverse
America in harmony with itself is equipped to be the greatest
social and economic nation on this multicultural planet.

     The national discussion about diversity has included its
glorification and its damnation.  Some see it as a Godsend, some
see it as the devil's work.

     The challenge here is to understand that diversity gives us
composite strength, but that strength can only exist within a
commonality that holds us together.  I believe there are
unavoidable components to that commonality.

     First is language.  An America with scores of different
languages is truly rich in its texture.  In a multilingual world
such fluency is not only charming, it is also an enormous
advantage.  The appreciation of other languages, particularly
those spoken by significant numbers of immigrants in the locality 
should be part of the curriculum at the earliest grades in our
schools.

     All this, however, must rest upon one, and only one,
foundation - English.  As the language of the vast majority of
our citizens, as the language of assimilation for millions of our
immigrants, as the language of our government and commerce,
English is, and must remain, the core language of America.  Had
history been different there might have been a different language
that would have united us.  But our history is our history.  And
English is the only possible common tongue at this point of our
national life.  This is not to argue for the superiority of
English but for the reality of it.  Well-intentioned efforts to
provide pockets of other language existence is to doom those
pockets to be forever outside the commonality of America.  A
nation based on more than one language will always be inherently
in tension.  This is obviously true around the world where
language differences that coincide with ethnic or racial
differences are breeding grounds for never ending violence.  But
it is also true where language divides societies which seem on
the surface to be rock solid.  Witness today's non-violent but
separatist debate by the Province of Quebec in Canada.  It poses
great risk to an otherwise very cohesive nation.

     Children who do not speak English at home must be brought to
English proficiency as rapidly as possible.  Due respect should
be paid to their native tongue.  Efforts should be made to
provide adequate transition time.  But the message must be
unmistakable that in order to make American culture cohesive and
all-inclusive America must be English-speaking at its core.  We
want you to join us in that commonality and we will help you
achieve proficiency.

     Linguistic diversity is a strength.  A Tower of Babel is a
crippling weakness.  We must know where the former ends and the
latter begins.

     The second component of our commonality is education.  As
stated earlier, it has always been America's great equalizer. 
But this road to opportunity has not been uniformly embraced by
various groups.  Education is truly honored in some groups - from
the early Yankee settlers to the Jewish immigrants at the turn of
the century to today's Asian newcomers.  The pursuit of knowledge
and intellect was and is seen as the source of genuine esteem and
respect.  Many immigrant groups have had the same attitude in the
first and second generations and some seem to lose it
subsequently.  There is a latent anti-intellectualism in America
that seems to overcome this early appreciation of learning. 
Pride in being a top student sometimes gives way to fear of being
thought a bookworm - or even worse, a "geek."

     Here is where some serious soul searching must be done by
community leaders and the media. What are we honestly saying to
our young?  What values are we really conveying?  Does becoming
an educated person truly mean anything in the last analysis?

     The objective here involves the simple truth that the desire
to learn is fundamentally as critical as the opportunity to
learn.  Desire flows from children believing that learning
matters.  As a volunteer in the Peace Corps I taught students who
were desperately poor by our standards.  We used outdated or
inappropriate textbooks and the "facilities" were de minimus. 
The students were 9th and 10th graders almost all living away
from home and thus removed from the support of parents and
family.
     But they learned.  And learned very well despite every
conceivable disadvantage.  Because they wanted to.  Because they
valued it.  And because it was truly valued in their culture.

     No American classroom I ever entered was as resource poor as
my classrooms in Ethiopia.  But as I began to appreciate how the
will to be educated conquered all these obstacles, I would recall
the stories of Abraham Lincoln reading by candlelight.  I would
also remember how driven my father and his siblings were to learn
despite their immigrant backgrounds.

     These experiences left me a firm believer that society
creates learning by simply valuing it.  No amount of money, no
accumulation of technological equipment, can overcome a child's
sense that learning really doesn't matter that much.  We have
sent those signals and we have to change them.

     The conveying of values occurs every day.  The conveyors are
the leaders of America, the leaders of its subgroups and the
lords of the media.  Each must commit to sending a pro-learning,
pro-intellect, pro-education message.  How?  The best example in
my mind is Bill Cosby.  The Huxtable family, whatever the
criticisms of it, promotes a set of values with respect for
learning (and family) at the core.  It demonstrates how to retain
one's identity within a context that maximizes opportunity.  A
second example is Cosby himself.  He gave $20 million to Spelman
College, a powerful message of deep commitment to education - in
this case the education of blacks.  This is how people convey a
value system.  This is how learning is elevated to its rightful
and necessary status.  American philanthropists, foundations,
corporations, and everyday citizens would do well to see this as
a worthy road to travel.

     The same centrality of education must be promoted by the
local press.  A student who can throw an accurate forward pass is
certain in his mind that press adulation will follow.  A student
with very high scores in the SAT's never thinks that it will be
worthy of press coverage.  Yet, which is more important?  The
print media, radio and television should have education reporters
that systematically and regularly report on what is happening in
the classroom as well as what is happening on the athletic
fields.  Some are already moving in this direction.  It must
become a stampede.  

     The third component is equality of opportunity.

     In the great economic global competition, a nation's team
must be made up of all its diverse members.  As we face the
challenges of this global economy and as we face the challenges
of a threatened environment, every American contributes to our
response.  Positively or negatively.

     We will not become a world economic competitor using only
some of America.

     We will not become a society at peace with its natural
environment if whole sections of the population feel that they
have no stake in that society.

     By its sheer composition, America must be resolutely
inclusive.  Every person is part of the solution or, if not, will
be part of the problem.  Everyone will either be a rower or an
anchor.  We can have some effect on which they will be.

     The laws for the most part are in place.

     The task is the emotional acceptance, indeed, the emotional
embrace of the founding principle "All Men Are Created Equal."  
This basic belief has to empower people in all the modern forms. 
Those forms include race, sex, age and sexual preference.

     The battles of the past have been bitter.  We must put them
behind us and not tolerate the continued attempts to undermine
the progress we have made.

     This guarding against encroachments is a constant struggle
in the area of civil rights, women's rights and affirmative
action.  It's not just the laws but the messages those laws send
that are important.

     Human rights has to do with how we regard each other. 
Diminution of that regard lessens all of us.  And as a nation we
are made less viable if part of our human potential goes
unrealized.

     America is where "Be all you can be" was chosen as a slogan
for its armed forces.  For good reason.  Because in America more
than anywhere else, those five words are the cornerstone of what
we believe.

     The role of the President here is the constant and
unrelenting reaffirmation of that cornerstone.  We have to arrive
at the day when we truly look at each other as family.  Not just
because it would be nice.  But because the cohesiveness it will
provide will ensure our sustainability.

     C.  Giving

     'Tis more blessed to give than to receive. Now there's a
shopworn bromide if there ever was one.  Just the kind of homily
intended to lull the innocent into patterns of behavior that the
more worldly know to avoid.

     Except that it's true.  It is better to give.  Giving takes
time and it takes money.  But look at givers, and then look at
takers.  Who is really happier?

     Giving is Americana.  Thousands of colleges, hospitals,
museums and theaters exist because of the philanthropy of
individuals.  Tithing is an honored - and expected - part of some
religious traditions.

     Yet giving in America is very uneven.  Some people of wealth
recognize their responsibility back to society and are quite
generous.  Others feel no such responsibility and lavish upon
themselves and their friends every conceivable indulgence.  The
latter are hailed by the media which eagerly covers every last
gaudy detail.  The former will never have a program to compete
with "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

     So it is with corporate America.  Some companies are
extremely committed to being a good corporate neighbor.  They
recognize the need to give back to the community and seek to lend
personnel and financial resources to aid local and national
causes.  Other companies have a culture which, frankly, doesn't
give a damn about what's happening outside its office window or
factory gate.

     There is little to no public recognition of the good
corporate citizen.  There is absolutely no incentive, beyond
their own personal values, for company presidents and boards of
directors to engage in corporate giving.

     The President can change this.  There should be a Blue
Ribbon Committee of prominent individuals created to establish
voluntary guidelines for corporate giving.  Standards can be set. 
It has been done in Minneapolis.  Companies can choose to honor
them, ignore them, or something in between.  And every year a
list should be compiled as to who gave what, and that listing
should be made public.  Finally, the media should consider this
listing as important news and report on it extensively.

     Companies that care should be publicly acknowledged. 
Companies that don't should be open to scrutiny and criticism. 
The President should establish Presidential Medals for Corporate
and Individual Philanthropy.  The point here is to establish a
culture of giving, an embrace of giving, as an esteemed - and
expected - value for corporate America.  This notion, hopefully,
will then create an environment wherein Americans of all economic
means will find themselves more open to the same principle.  If
this were to happen the bonds between us all would be
strengthened.  Now, tell the truth.  If Donald Trump had endowed
chairs at Howard University instead of buying that yacht wouldn't
Howard be better off?  Wouldn't the country be better off?  And
truly, wouldn't Donald Trump be better off?

     Let's deglorify indulgence and return giving to the place it
enjoyed when great people made this country.

     D.  Culture as part of a Culture.

     Civilizations are measured by their art and cultural
achievements.  Sometimes it's architecture, sometimes it's music,
sometimes it's paintings and sometimes it's literature.

     These storehouses of human creativity and inspiration mark
the high water marks of what we are.  They are the places and
events which can uplift the soul - especially the soul of the
young.  How do you measure the impact on a young child of being
exposed to a performance of the Nutcracker Suite or the Messiah
in December?  Or the impact on an adolescent  being taken to a
matinee performance of "Les Miserables?"  Or a summers night
listening to a local orchestra perform?  Or a periodic visit to a
sculptor as she works on a piece of public art?  Or the chance to
see live theater instead of just another movie?

     We would all acknowledge these occurrences as valuable.  But
whose children have these experiences?  Generally it is the
children of the already educated or appreciative.  That's fine,
but the impact would be greater upon children of modest
circumstances who otherwise would not be so exposed.  These
children need a spiritual booster shot.  Some of them need it
desperately.  They need one spark, one glimmer to light the way
or to suggest a new direction.  This is where you change lives.

     In the absence of this, they will receive their values only
from the street and from the spiritual emptiness of television
programming.

     Investing in community cultural events is part of creating a
society that is intact and vibrant.  During budget crises,
government funds for the arts and humanities are always a
first-cut priority.  The reverse should be true.  During economic
crises the need is greater.

     The United States government must undertake to prioritize
funding of the arts and humanities, particularly for communities
outside the major urban centers.  The amounts here are de minimus
in the overall budgetary scheme of things.  It should be seen as
an investment in the personal horizons of its citizens,
particularly the young.  Not simply for the sake of supporting
cultural activities although that alone should be enough.  But
also in the understanding that we are competing with nations that
already value such activities.  Our increased embrace of them
will strengthen our people and help establish an increasingly
viable and functional American culture.

     E.  Spirituality.

     Separation of church and state is fundamental to freedom in
America.  This principle was adamantly proclaimed by the Founding
Fathers.

     They did not, however, dismiss spirituality.  Indeed, belief
in a higher order was part and parcel of the early Americans -
both the first Indian nations and the early European settlers.

     That spirituality is not unique to America, of course. 
There never was a great sustaining nation that was aspiritual. 
In our modern technological age with its impersonalness, the
search for larger purpose is no less felt.  That search for a
deeper meaning can exhibit itself in destructive ways, such as
drug and alcohol abuse, as well as other behavioral asymmetry. 
It need not be.

     The overt quest for spirituality has been seen politically
as a valuable electoral advantage by some on the right and a bit
too unsophisticated by some on the left.  Neither is appropriate. 
We all seek God in our own way.  We are all engaged in the search
for understanding of our place in the great order of things.  A
public acknowledgement of that search and a stated respect for
wherever that search may lead are not improper activities for the
political leadership of this nation.

     F.  The Land and the Buildings.

     The culture of a people is not separable from the physical
surroundings of that people.  We are of the earth.

     The preservation of the beauty of open spaces should be
pursued not only for the environmental reasons stated earlier, it
should be pursued for its capacity to renew the spirit and to
lend harmony to our culture.

     The same is true within the land that we occupy.  There is a
character to a place.  That character is defining.  Too often in
America the inhabited land all begins to look alike.  What is
unique about a locale is lost under the onslaught of sameness.

     A mall is a mall is a mall.  A commercial strip is a
commercial strip is a commercial strip.  A highway is a highway
is a highway.

     Care and attention should be paid to preserving the
character of the different parts of America.  The President is
uniquely positioned to encourage Americans to contemplate these
matters.  Although it is a predominately local matter, there are
federal roles such as historic preservation grants and UDAG-like
programs to keep urban centers viable.  Many of these cities are
already well on their way to implosion.  But beyond that, there
is the bully pulpit as Prince Charles has so aptly demonstrated
in Great Britain.  He cares about how his country resonates with
its surroundings.  Our leaders should do so as well.

     G.  Public Order.

     There is no way to talk about American culture in 1991
without addressing the issue of crime and public order.  There is
a darker side to the way we interact with each other.  Sadly, the
rise in crime in our country has been a constant theme for
decades.  This is especially true in our cities.

     It is impossible to achieve a viable American culture in the
midst of uncontrolled violence.  Citizens will simply not value
their membership in a society where they lack a sense of
reasonable physical security.  The fear of crime erodes the bond
between the citizen and the society.  Many of our inner cities
are cauldrons of acultural behavior.  Innocent people are unable
to escape the downdraft of this activity.

     How do we address this issue?  For years we have had a great
deal of law and order rhetoric from Richard Nixon's unleashing of
Spiro Agnew to the Willie Horton issue in 1988.  Congress has
passed tougher crime legislation and the death penalty has become
an all-too-common occurrence.

     But the goal of "safe streets" remains elusive.  We now have
a greater percentage of our citizenry behind bars than any nation
on earth.  That must be a sobering realization since it has not
significantly affected the citizenry's perception of physical
security.

     There are approaches to crime that deal with prevention. 
Obviously education, a sense of community, self-esteem - all
these are ingredients essential to minimizing the likelihood that
someone would engage in criminal behavior.  These matters have
been addressed earlier in this paper and are worthy of
reemphasis.

     There are other approaches that deal with punishment and the
certainty of that punishment.  These are equally important and,
as referenced above, the Congress has passed laws to accomplish
this.

     So what else can be done?

     There are two areas that I believe are left unaddressed. 
Neither is new.  Neither is easy.  The first involves getting
guns off our streets and the second involves recognizing that
wholesale drug trafficking should qualify for capital punishment.

     H.  Gun Control

     There is no greater hypocrisy than the prototypical
Republican position of tough on crime and easy on AK-47's.  The
rationale for this is pure politics.  Appeal to the millions who
worry about their safety but don't antagonize the National Rifle
Association.

     The availability of all kinds of weapons in America is no
accident.  The right to bear arms is seen by some as the only
absolute right granted by the constitution.  We have freedom of
speech but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theatre.  We have
freedom of the press but go too far and you'll be sued for libel.

     The two-facedness of the Republican posture is reflected in
the bizarre dilemma faced by many police, particularly urban
police.  Whom do you support?  The candidate who has the tougher
posture on crime but protects the rights of criminals to have
assault weapons?  Or the candidate who would ban assault weapons?

     I would suggest that our times requires a toughness in
dealing with crime, but combined with aggressive commitment to
get guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

     This extends beyond AK-47's.  The right to bear arms is not
a blanket purchase order for anyone to buy anything.  The ease of
killing with a gun stands in sharp contrast to the difficulty of
accomplishing the same end with a knife or other such weapon.

     Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  True.  But
people without guns have a harder time doing it.  Guns should be
available for self-protection by those who choose to have them. 
They should not be available, however, for those whose motives
are injurious to social stability.  The Brady bill to finally
bring about effective gun control should be passed immediately. 
It is tragic that George Bush has chosen not to endorse it.

     A serious, non-ideological commitment to return to a
sustainable sense of public order is needed.  Too many Americans
perceive a kind of anarchy in the streets and that cannot be
tolerated.  These guns must be taken off the streets.

     I.  Capital Crimes Against Society.

     Crime in America today falls into two categories in my mind. 
The first is the level of crime inherent in any society.  There
will always be a criminal element and there will always be crimes
of passion.

     The second is crime that is drug-related.  And this is not a
level of criminal activity that should be acceptable.  It is a
threat to our very being.

     This threat does not result from guns or bombs or knives. 
This threat results from commerce.  It is entrepreneurial.  Yet
it kills.  It kills in massive numbers.  Some of the people it
kills die.  Others live but in a larger sense they die as well. 
This is not your every day one-on-one street crime.  Or your
crime of passion.  This is a methodical, planned, knowing
slaughter of the many in pursuit of money.  Massive amounts of
money.  And this slaughter is today the greatest threat to our
domestic common security.

     It is the threat of big-time drug dealing.

     How can we tolerate this dissipation of our collective
strength?  Drugs are overwhelming us.  No society ravaged by
drugs is going to compete with anybody.  Yet those who engage in
and profit from this trade are considered lesser criminals by the
criminal code.  I kill one person in a fit of passion and I am a
murderer.  I kill thousands of people by methodical drug
trafficking and I am not a murderer.  By what standard of logic? 
By what definition of true threat?

     Who truly kills the drug user found in an alley with a
needle in his arm?  Who truly kills the store owner murdered by a
drug user in search of quick money for a drug purchase?  Who
truly kills the intravenous drug user who contracts AIDS?  Who
truly kills the victim of an automobile crash caused by drug use? 
Who truly kills the newborn cocaine dependent baby?

     The major drug trafficker does.  Yet in states that impose
the death penalty he is immune.  I repeat.  By what definition of
real threat?  By what recognition of actual damage to our
societal core?

     If the death penalty is society's way of identifying the
greatest threat, it must look past the one-on-one crime of
passion or criminal intent.  It must concentrate on those who
would destroy all of us.  It must focus on the trafficker and,
once and for all, declare a war on drugs that is a war on drugs. 
Billions upon billions for defense against fading foreign threats
embodied by the Soviets and only hesitance in addressing the true
angels of death within our borders.  Unless drug dealing is
significantly reduced, we will never be a viable nation.  We will
never compete.  We will be dragged down by our fellow citizens
lost in the demonic caverns of drug dependence.

     J.  Conclusion.

     We will be what our culture empowers us to be.  To
strengthen our common culture must be our common mission. 
Recognition of, and dedication to, that mission is the mandate of
our leadership.  It doesn't lend itself to ten point programs and
quarterly reviews.  It will be a discussion that will never end. 
It should never end.  The journey to renew America's spiritual
base will take us back through our history to harvest the wisdom
of that history.

     We will revisit our ancestors' thinking and learn once again
to pay homage to the basic values that made America.  Those
values, long since articulated, will then serve as our safe
passage to the future.

     In our collective veins flows the blood of those who crossed
the Bering Land bridge.  Of those who endured deprivation during
the winter in Plymouth.  Of those who suffered in the holds of
slave ships and on the decks of immigrant ships.  Vietnamese boat
people.  Hungarian freedom fighters.  Salvadoran refugees.  On
and on.

     Above all, there flows the blood of those who died for
America.  For our freedom.  Not so we could be cynical, or
uncaring or second best.  But in the belief that we would be
worthy of their sacrifice in how we lived our lives and how we
honored our country.  This is the New American Mandate.


VII.  Return to Purpose

     Adversity tests the character of individuals.  It also tests
the character of a people.  We are now being challenged by
outside forces that seek to erode our standard of living and by
others that portend environmental and energy cataclysm.  In
addition, we are challenged by internal forces that are
undermining the fabric of our social order.

     What would our ancestors have done?  Simple.  They would
have accepted the challenges and pushed ahead secure in the
knowledge that their destiny was within their control.  Avoidance
was not what they were all about.

     So it must be with us.

     Facing our challenges forthrightly is how we honor the
labors of our forebears.  It is our moral imperative.

     But, more importantly, it is the source of our hope.  We are
a blessed America.  It is our will and determination that will
deliver us.  Let us, again, unleash the spirit of the American
people and again secure our future and the future of our
descendents.

     Let us return to purpose.

                         # # #

