BILL MOYERS:
The president made it clear last night: He intends this election to be a referendum on his response to 9/11 and his invasion of Iraq. He was defiant.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.
BILL MOYERS: And on his domestic agenda he offered a laundry list of aspirations. For a while you might have thought you were listening to…well, Lyndon Johnson.
GEORGE W. BUSH:
Soon every senior will be able to get the prescription drug coverage and we will double the number of people in our job training program.
We will provide tax relief and other incentives to attract new business, we will offer a tax credit to encourage small businesses and their employees to set up health savings accounts.
Seven million more affordable homes in the next 10 years.
BILL MOYERS:
Of course, the numbers don't add up. A war without end and a wish list a mile long with record deficits of more than 400 billion dollars. Who's going to pay for all of it?
It's time to bring in the author of one of my favorite books, EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU KNOW ABOUT POLITICS… AND WHY YOU'RE WRONG. Kathleen Hall Jamieson is Director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center in Philadelphia. She's one of the country's leading analysts of politics and media, and a regular on NOW. Welcome back.
Did President Bush's speech last night succeed on his terms?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
Yes, the speech did three things that it needed to do. It recapped the promises kept, the tax cuts, the prescription drug benefit, No Child Left Behind. It extended from that vision into-- a second term. Expansion of No Child Left Behind. Changes in Social Security. The private investment account proposal.
It also build on health savings accounts. In other words, it charted where we're going in the next four years. And finally it said biographically here's what I want you to remember about me. And this was the message of the whole convention, I'm resolute in these times of terror and the strong implication is, "You can trust me." And then the self effacing moment that came toward the end of the speech, he acknowledges that-- you know-- presidents do make mistakes and everybody points them out.
In the process, he subtlety reminds people that this isn't the person who, in a press conference, a while ago in the spring, couldn't remember any mistakes.
BILL MOYERS:
I heard some voters being interviewed on National Public Radio this morning and they- each one Democrats and Republicans said-- well-- he had made them think more sympathetically about the agony of decision in the White House. That was successful in that regard, right?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
It's very successful. And they-- it is a very difficult job. And one of the things that we should remember as we ask about that difficult job, what are the qualifications that we're asking about when we think about the person that's gonna sit in the office. Because one of the messages that's part of the Republican Convention was-- that Kerry isn't qualified to be Commander in Chief.
To the extent that we are now thinking about how you conduct a war in Iraq, how you conduct a war against terror, we are thinking about the criteria for the office differently than we ever have in the past.
BILL MOYERS:
You-- saw the speech by the lieutenant governor of Maryland-- Michael Steele. And he said-- quote, "I don't want to use the words 'Commander in Chief' to describe John Kerry." What do you make of that? What was your reaction to that?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
My reaction was to say that we're running into very dangerous territory when we suggest that someone isn't qualified to perform that role. Particularly someone who has served his country by volunteering for service and somebody who has had a career in the US Senate.
There's an implication across many of the statements that are made-- in the more strident of the speeches at the republican convention. That Democrats don't really wanna protect the country. There's the statement in Zell Miller's speech, for example, that-says they don't believe of any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy. That's not true.
It's not true that there's a Republican or a Democrat in this country who would not do everything possible to defend the country in foreign-- both foreign and domestic.
BILL MOYERS:
You're not going to agree with me or respond to this, I don't think. But when I saw Zell Miller I was reminded that every generation produces a southern demagogue. George Wallace, etcetera. And it seems to me that the south has produced a new demagogue in Zell Miller.
Because three years ago he was calling John Kerry a hero.
How do explain on the same platform a John McCain asking for civility in the political campaigns, going for the high road. And a Zell Miller who goes for the gutter?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
one of the things that one has to ask about the political process is where the boundaries on an appropriate political speech. And what the certain types of speech do to our capacity to hold an election that's thoughtful and directed toward the future. When you discredit the other candidate and that candidate is elected president, and this is true on either side, half the country that has voted for that person now brings a different sense to governance than it really ought to bring.
I like the notion that candidates on both sides are qualified and one shouldn't impugn their integrity or their patriotism or their interest in defending the country. John McCain was making that point in his speech by saying the enemy is over there. The enemy isn't here. And when he was asked about-- at a number of occasions whether Kerry is qualified to be President, he said yes. Qualified to be commander in chief. He said yes.
And then he said, but I believe George Bush is more qualified and then he makes that case.
We have the same kind of exchange, interestingly, a couple of weeks ago. Now Tommy Franks who led the Iraq troops, has endorsed George Bush, and gave a speech last night--
BILL MOYERS:
Yeah.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
On his behalf. But when Tommy Franks was asked whether Kerry was qualified to be Commander in Chief, Tommy Franks said absolutely.
And so one of the problems that we're having in the discourse right now is a selective use of statements on each side. And one of the things that good news organizations-- are doing increasingly is checking that and putting back in context.
BILL MOYERS:
And the-- WASHINGTON POST this morning had a front page story, "GOP prism distorts some Kerry votes." Obviously-- this is a good thing to do-- whomever the candidate is. But it takes a long time for a story like this to catch up with the millions of people who see what they see on television.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
One of the things that is incredibly important in a visual age is not simply that the print process do this. But that television take its visual capacity and show us what the actual context was.
Last night, both ABC and CBS ran fact checks on the Zell Miller, Dick Cheney speeches from the previous night. And what's powerful about that is through the quote from the speech and then for example, in the challenge to the weapons system. Where the argument is that Kerry opposed every weapons system that's being used to win the war on terror.
Seeing Cheney in his younger incarnation saying we need a 30 percent cut in defense is more effective than anything a print journalists will ever be able to do in situating the context around the claim. And here's the irony, some of the weapons systems that Zell Miller accuses John Kerry of opposing, Dick Cheney opposed as well.
BILL MOYERS:
Did the president last night effectively unite and link 9/11 and Iraq?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
I don't think the President effectively linked them, and I don't think that was his job. I think McCain did.
But what I think the President did accomplish in-- the convention as a whole, was to remind people-- of-- what it was like to experience September 11th. And-- to remember Democrat or Republican, how reassuring it was in that moment in which he stood up for the country with the firemen at his side.
If you're watching the convention closely, you heard it so often that at a certain point that almost narcotized your sensibilities and you could no longer respond to it. But there were other moments i in that early week in which-- Democrats and Republicans rallied around the President, the speech at National Cathedral is among the better speeches in the modern history of the presidency.
And that was a speech the country desperately needed. It's too long to have the sound bite of standing with the fire fighter. It doesn't have the evocative rubble beneath you and the fire fighters surrounding. But it nonetheless is a moment in which George Bush was the President of everyone in the country.
It's legitimate for him to remind us both that that's the context of his presidency and it's the context in which we are making a choice. The challenge for John Kerry is that he didn't have a chance to lead in that moment. The President did. And as a result, how does he establish that he's on comparable footing.
BILL MOYERS:
Last night the President said John Kerry is "running on a platform of increasing taxes." True or false?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
John Kerry would increase taxes for those making over $200,000. He would cut them further for those who are in the middle class. So is he - running on a platform that would increase taxes for all? No, actually he would decrease the taxes for some.
What Kerry would like to do with that money is increase access to health insurance coverage. And essentially the question for the nation ought to be, then, is that a trade off it wants to take? Are those upper income earners ultimately advantaged because the country is better off if more people have health care coverage. There was a study a couple of weeks ago that said that one of the things that's depressing job growth is rising health insurance costs.
We know that the number of people without insurance has risen in past years. We know that health savings accounts, group buying for small business which is a Bush proposal, and what Bush sees as tort reform, are his options to the Kerry plan. What we should be asking is: In a world in which there are two competing proposals, which better serve the country in the long term in a world in which there are other trade-offs. If you spend the money for health insurance coverage, you're not spending it for something else.
BILL MOYERS:
How is, the president, if he's reelected, going to pay for all these programs that, like Lyndon Johnson, he was pressing with vigor. This is a man who-- spent the surplus. How's he gonna do it?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
Well, first the Republicans raise the question about Kerry. Does he have enough money to pay for his programs as well? There's a charge in the Bush speech that Kerry's got two trillion dollars in promises. But Kerry's figures differ from that. Republicans exaggerate the Democratic costs, Democrats exaggerate the Republican costs.
But there's a question on both sides about how you pay for it. Kerry, however, has said something that President Bush hasn't said. He said that if there isn't sufficient money, he will cut back on implementing his other priorities. So he's made a statement about what the trade off is. But President Bush has-in last night's speech that is the deficit time bomb.
It's the proposal to permit private investment accounts for Social Security. Now, the Democrats call that privatization versus private investment accounts. You're gonna hear a war of words. But if he is standing behind the proposal of 2000.
BILL MOYERS:
To privatize it. To-- make it--
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
Permit private investment accounts. The large question is how do you pay for the transition costs.
BILL MOYERS:
Two trillion dollars, some estimate it would take to go from the present system to a system of private retirement right?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
Right, but the more usual estimate is a trillion or a little bit over.
Now, if you had to find a trillion dollars in 2000, if you still thought they were-- big protected surpluses, and it turned out for circumstances that there weren't, you had a way to do it. You could say well, okay, they can take it out of the surplus. We don't have that anymore.
Now we're running a very high deficit. And so the question for President Bush is-- how do you pay the transition cost? The question for John Kerry is-- do you really believe that growth in the economy is going to be sufficient to preserve Social Security? And there's another lurking question that neither is addressing. The bigger problem is actually with Medicare, not with Social Security.
And we've just added a large entitlement. Prescription drug benefits. When Alan Greenspan gave a speech at the end of August, he was worrying about some of these things.
BILL MOYERS:
The Chairman of the Fed, right?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
And when Alan Greenspan is worried about some of these things, I worry about some of these things. And then, once a year, I get a document, this is my document which tells me my qualifications for Social Security, and people don't ordinarily read all this print. But-- let me read--
BILL MOYERS:
We all get this, right?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
We all get this. "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change. Because by 2042 the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 73 percent of scheduled benefits." I find that chilling.
BILL MOYERS:
Because?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
Because-- we have two candidates who aren't talking about the fiscal realities underlying Social Security and Medicare. And we're not having the discussion about how we're going to pay to honor a guarantee that many who have paid into Social Security consider ironclad. And by contrast, my children don't believe there will ever be Social Security there for them. But that's a different matter.
BILL MOYERS:
Well, what you're saying is what we all know that our political system no longer serves to deal with the issues that we really wrestle with every day.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
And it also says that politicians are afraid that if they told the public the truth about costs and trade offs that they couldn't be elected. We need to find a way in the political process to stop penalizing the truth tellers. And to start putting forward the statements that are basically the agreed upon fact.
Here's what we know about Medicare and it's long term solvency. Here's what we know about Social Security's long term solvency. Here's what it would take to get us where we need to go.
When George Bush says he wants to move to private investment accounts he's making an argument that there would be a better yield for Social Security that way.
That raises another question. What if the market doesn't do well over time. What if historical averages don't hold for people. What if they make a strategic mistake. But nonetheless, it's a worthy contribution to the debate. We need to have the debate however, in an environment in which we're talking about some of these other things.
But imagine saying to the public, well, yes, I think we should raise the age of entitlement to Social Security. Or-- maybe-- those of you who are wealthy shouldn't get as many benefits. In fact-- maybe you shouldn't get any benefits at all. And by the way, maybe we'll scale back everybody's benefits. That person could probably be immediately be dumped into the electoral trash heap of history.
BILL MOYERS:
You would like to see a campaign on the high road. A campaign that addresses these issues. We have eight weeks to go. We're in the home stretch. What do you think this campaign is gonna be like?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
There's a hurricane approaching the Florida coast and some people are saying it's going to be worst than Andrew. The morning news this morning-- turned on the television set at seven o'clock, is talking about the hurricane approaching. That's how I feel about this election. This is a consequential election in which the issues are incredibly important.
And-- regardless of who is elected, someone is going to have to lead on those issues. We're- in a moment in which this hurricane of distraction is coming down on the electorate. We've got charges that should not be levied. And there are some on both sides. And at a moment in which what the electorate desperately needs is a way to keep that hurricane at bay so we can get down to the business at hand, I'm afraid it's approaching the coast.
I saw that as one of those you know- the Shakespearian metaphors in which the weather is always portending something.
BILL MOYERS:
Kathleen Hall Jamieson will be here at the eye of the hurricane-- over those next eight weeks and I look forward to talking to you more. Thank you for joining us on NOW.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:
You're welcome.
| 
