TIME - Man of the Year/CompactPublishing-TimeMagazine-TimeManOfTheYear-Win31MSDOS.iso/moy/072092/07209921.000

Text File | 1993-04-08 | 17.4 KB | 388 lines

                                                                                COVER STORIES, Page 25

BILL CLINTON and AL GORE

An Interview With CLINTON


He denounces the politics of personal destruction and says that
Bush himself is to blame for it

By HENRY MULLER and JOHN F. STACKS/LITTLE ROCK and Bill Clinton


    Q. You are about to be nominated for the presidency of the
United States, the fulfillment of a long ambition. What are your
feelings about that achievement?

    A. I feel very grateful to the people who made it possible
and to the people here at home without whom I would not have
been in a position to run. I feel humbled by it; it's an
awesome responsibility. And I feel determined, as determined as
I've been since I've begun this. There is a feeling, I think
perhaps more intense among people my age and a little older,
that this is a moment we have to try to turn the country around,
revive it economically, reunite it, renew it.


    Q. What do you make of what you've had to go through to
get to the nomination?

    A. I don't know -- I'll probably have to go through some
more if the Republicans have their way.


    Q. Given the mood of the country, the state of the economy
and the President's lack of popularity, why are you not going
into this convention with a 20-point lead?

    A. First of all, a lot of this is not accidental. We live
in a time when the politics of personal destruction have been
proved very effective. This President got there not with a
vision but by first taking out his primary opponents and then
taking out his general-election opponent. We also live in a time
when people think pretty poorly about anybody who is in public
life. So you carry that baggage with you, and winning the
primary process has often been almost as much a negative as a
positive. Then you've got probably the deepest disillusionment
with the American political system in my lifetime, much deeper
than it was at Watergate. We will have more new members of
Congress as a result of it.

    It means I've got a real job to do to demonstrate to
people that I'm not part of the problem. I've been part of the
solution for years, and I'm going to be as President. This Perot
phenomenon is in part the result of people's sense that both
parties have let them down in Washington, which is true.
Americans want to hate politics, and the political system, but
they desperately want it to work.

    I think I'm being given a chance in effect to start again.
Under the circumstances, after all I've been through, to be in
what is a functional three-way dead heat is not all that bad.
I'll take that.


    Q. Floyd Brown [creator of the Willie Horton ads in
1988] is ready to air a new attack advertisement, featuring
Gennifer Flowers.

    A. Well, that's the way the Republicans do things. That's
one of the reasons the country's in the fix it's in today,
because too many people have voted on base instincts and
diversion and division. This will be a test in this election not
just of my character but of the larger character of the American
people and what they want for their country and whether they're
prepared to make the changes it will take to turn the country
around. That doesn't bother me.


    Q. It doesn't bother you?

    A. It doesn't bother me in the sense that I'm not
surprised by it. This is the way the Republicans make a living
in national politics, by destroying their opponents. That's
their bread and butter. They don't care if they are
hypocritical. They don't care if they are fair. They don't care
if they're dealing with doctored evidence. They don't care
anything about that. That's their deal. They are not interested
in governing and changing. They are very interested in
maintaining power. It worked for them in 1988, so they're going
to run this dog out in '92 and see if it will work again.


    Q. When you hear them talk about Gennifer Flowers, do you
want to talk about Jennifer Fitzgerald [the subject of
unproven rumors about a relationship with Bush]?

    A. No. You know that if they do this, the free media may
extend beyond Spy magazine [whose current issue features a
story about alleged extramarital affairs by Bush]. When you
live by the sword, you have to be careful. There is a certain
arrogance and relative hypocrisy in all this that's pretty
appalling. You know, when I hear them talking about that, what
I want to talk about is my life, my family, my record. I'm out
here worrying about what's happening to the rest of the country.
Why, with the worst economic record in 50 years, would we be
having an election talking about this?

    They can't afford to be judged on their record or on their
vision for the future. They can't afford to be judged on Ronald
Reagan's standard: Are you better off than you were four years
ago? Or on the "kinder, gentler" standard. Would you be better
off four years from now? And that's what I've got to remind the
people of.


    Q. So you think attacking your opponents personally would
be counterproductive?

    A. I have taken the position that I would fight on
political issues and the differences that we have over record
and issues. What these people have done to pollute our politics
is wrong. Not only dishonest but just wrong. And I don't want
to get into doing the same thing they do. And no one, no serious
person, believes that Floyd Brown is independent of the
Republican campaign.


    Q. Do you find the President complicit in this?

    A. Yeah, I just don't believe that he doesn't know about
it. He could stop this stuff in a heartbeat. You know, this is
the good cop-bad cop thing they always do. They feel they've
got a personal destruction machine over at the Republican
Committee that rivals the KGB. That's what they do. I don't mind
if they want to run down Arkansas because it's always been a
poor state, or go after my record on the issues, but they
believe that the press is giving them leave to go beyond what
has ever been considered the acceptable bounds of
political-campaign discourse. They basically believe there is
no difference now in tabloid journalism and legitimate
journalism, and the whole thing is in free fall, and they're
going to take advantage of it. I believe the best way for me to
demonstrate my character is to make sure people know the whole
story of my life and my work and my family and what I'm fighting
for in this election. So you know, we'll just have a little
contest and see who's right about the American people.


    Q. What do you hear when Dan Quayle talks about family
values? Is that code for something?

    A. Well, yes and no. I have a little different take on
this than some people do in our party. I think family values
are important. You can't raise children without them. On the
other hand, the Republicans don't feed hungry children. They
don't dignify work. My beef with Quayle is not his saying
fathers should take responsibility for their children or that
it's a good thing when a child's fortunate enough to have two
parents to take care of him or her. My beef is that they use the
issue of family values in two ways that are not legitimate. One
is as a flat-out excuse for their not having done anything. And
the second is it's a wedge issue. The implication is always: We
the Republicans represent your family values and the other guys
don't. You know, I was looking at my wife and child and Al
Gore's family up there today and thinking that we were not
without family values. I was sitting out there under that
carport with my 87-year-old great-uncle the other day, who did
so much to raise me when I was a kid, and thinking that we were
not without family values. The clear implication is Clinton,
Cuomo, all these guys, they are in a cultural elite and they
don't really share your values, they don't live by them, they
don't like them, they don't like you. You know that's their
whole deal -- it's a bunch of bull.


    Q. Did your choice of Al Gore have much to do with your
perceptions of Quayle?

    A. No. We've not been close. I mean, we were friendly but
not close, even though we're neighbors. But I looked around the
country for people I thought had real ability, real character,
real achievement. I found that there were a remarkable number of
things where we had the same passions, like the economy and
children's issues, and areas where he knew things that I didn't
just by the nature of his job, and where he had a real
important perspective that I thought would be important for my
presidency, like in defense and arms control and foreign policy
and issues that are important for the whole world, like his
environmental positions.


    Q. How much time did you spend with him before the choice?

    A. I had one very long meeting with him. I knew a lot
about him. I was real familiar with his record, but we just
never spent a lot of time together. We set up a time to talk,
and I thought it would go on about an hour, and I talked to him
for nearly three hours. It was fascinating. I mean, first of all
I was somewhat surprised that he would discuss it with me.


    Q. Why is that?

    A. I don't know. I just didn't know whether it was a good
thing for him to do, or whether it would be something he would
be interested in doing. But I decided that he really loves his
country. And that he really does believe, just like I do, that
we just couldn't pass this election.

    I think the Earth Summit in Rio had a big impact on him
too. He wanted America to be a leader in these areas, and he
found our country dragging its feet. He saw the Germans and
Japanese down there just eating our lunch, selling environmental
technology and environmental cleanup stuff all around the world.
I think that really may have been something that made him even
more determined to entertain this partnership.


    Q. You didn't have to sell him the idea?

    A. This is not the sort of thing where a thoughtful person
would be eager, so I don't know that he was eager, but he was
determined. I think you know he felt exactly like he said out
there today: there are a lot of us, and I guess in our
generation, who went through a lot of things because we were
children of the '60s, and we believe the time has come for us
to secure this country's future. Every generation has to do it,
and about every generation something fairly bad happens to
America -- it's endemic to the human condition.


    Q. How important was it that he had been around the
presidential campaign block once and probably wouldn't be
presenting you with any surprises?

    A. What I thought was important is that he knew it's a
process like nothing else and that he had a real sense of how
to handle himself with the press and how to communicate to the
people. I thought that with only a four-month campaign, there
was a lot of learning he wouldn't have to go through that other
people would, and we wouldn't have to worry about what might
happen that would be destructive for him.


    Q. Senator Tsongas has now endorsed you, but Jesse Jackson
criticized your choice of Al Gore. Mario Cuomo agreed to
nominate you, but not without giving you a little difficulty.
Do you get the feeling the Democratic Party is ever going to
pull together to elect a President?

    A. Oh, I think so. Keep in mind that this has always been
sort of a fractious bunch. I mean, look at what Truman had to
confront in '48. And Kennedy didn't get Johnson to agree to run
with him until he got to the convention. You know these are not
unprecedented difficulties. In fact, in some ways we are more
united than we normally are.


    Q. The emphasis in your economic program seems to have
changed. You started off months ago saying you thought you could
reduce the deficit to zero your first term -- now you're talking
about reducing it by half.

    A. When I started in New Hampshire working with those
numbers, we felt the deficit was going to be about $250 billion
a year, not $400 billion. The second thing that has really made
a big impression on me is the argument of those 100 economists,
who recommended a $50 billion increase in investment on a
one-year basis to get the economy going again, even if it all
was added to the deficit. I didn't buy the argument that we
should just add it all to the deficit, but what impressed me
about their argument is that we had an investment deficit in
this country that was as big as or bigger than the budget
deficit, and that without increased investment you couldn't get
growth, and without growth you could never do anything on the
budget deficit. Now, I've seen politicians for 12 years talk
about a growth dividend that didn't materialize and
underestimate the deficit. But it is clearly true that the
primary components of the deficit today are low growth and
uncontrolled health-care costs. And low growth manifests itself
both in terms of less money going into the Treasury and more
people making claims on entitlements. So I did go back and
emphasize investment more because I think without it, you could
never get enough growth to balance the thing anyway.


    Q. Isn't there a political vulnerability there, another
big-spending Democrat coming down the pike?

    A. If you look at it, I've got more budget cuts in my
budget than Bush has advocated. Bush has expanded parts of the
government that I recommended restricting, including total
federal employment. I want a leaner bureaucracy and more
investment. Most of that will go into private hands. If you
build roads and bridges and high-speed rail networks, that money
winds up being spent on contracts in the private sector. I've
always supported increased investment targeted to areas that
would promote economic growth and education, but I've tried to
restrict the growth of what you might call the permanent
government.


    Q. On the entitlement side, you've in effect postponed
whatever big bite you might take out of entitlements by saying
it's part of the health-cost problem, but there's no mention of
Social Security.

    A. Well, I wouldn't rule that out. I just didn't put it in
for sure. I want to look at it. The explosion of health-care
costs is the entitlement problem. And it swamps the fact that
upper-income people get them and that they don't pay full taxes
on them or whatever, it's just not even close. So my belief is
that the great challenge of my Administration on the
entitlements issue would be to prove you could bring health
costs back down to no more than the rate of inflation. That is
light-years more important than anything else. As a matter of
common fairness, you ought to ask upper-income people to pay
more for what they get. But it's more symbolic than real. The
real money is in reducing poverty so you reduce the number of
people making claims. And then to do something about health-care
costs.


    Q. What I hear you saying is we can get out of our
troubles without anyone but the rich paying a little bit more.

    A. That's what I believe. The middle class has paid
through the nose for a decade. We have to be somewhat wary of
making a problem of inadequate income even worse by taxing
people whose incomes are going down. That's my premise.


    Q. Do we understand correctly that except for the top 2%
of incomes in this country, you are not going to raise taxes?
That 98% of the people in this country are going to get from
you the same pledge that 100% got from George Bush in 1988?

    A. Those are two different things. The thing I think will
work is to raise the top tax rate on people with gross incomes
above $200,000 to 35% or 36% and put a surtax on people with
incomes of a million dollars or more a year. But it would not
be fair for you to say I'm running on a read-my-lips pledge just
because I'm in principle opposed to raising taxes on the middle
class. I think Bush made a terrible mistake saying "Read my
lips" without knowing what the facts were, and I don't want to
get into that.


    Q. President Bush went to war over Kuwait. He has talked
about the possibility of U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia under
a U.N. umbrella. Now that the cold war is over, when and where
is the use of American force overseas justified?

    A. When our vital interests are at stake, when there is a
clear, sharply defined objective that is achievable at
acceptable cost, and when you are sure you can build the support
here at home. The gulf war is a good example of that. Especially
when it can be done through multinational support. It's
appropriate for us to support the airlift to Sarajevo. If we do
get involved further there, it certainly ought to be through a
U.N. aegis and not on our own, and we need to be very careful
that we don't have a European Beirut.


    Q. Do you really think it will be a three-man race all the
way, or will one candidate fade?

    A. I don't know. I don't know because this is a strange
year. How many Americans are out there who won't listen to
anybody who holds any elected office, who has ever been
identified with any political party? I don't know. And that
really is unfathomable.


    Q. Is it your sense that the public has got to the point
where it's saying yes to change and the question is who is going
to do it?

    A. Almost. I think the public says, We want change, who
can do it, and dare I take a chance? The message I want to send
is that you have to take a chance, and here's your best chance.