The 100 Year Vision by Wesley K. Clark
Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems - our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short- term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.
Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We will seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And the Clark administration will institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise - in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas - we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day - whether they be terrorism or something else - that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.
If we are to remain competitive we will have to do more to develop our "human potential." To put it in a more familiar way, we should help every American to "be all he or she can be." For some this means only providing a framework of opportunities - for others it means more direct assistance in areas such as education, health care, and retirement security. And these are thirty year challenges - educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive, helping adults transition from job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives; promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures, improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits; and strengthening retirement security, simply because it is right; first for our society to assure that all its members who have contributed throughout their lifetimes are assured a minimal standard of living, and secondly to free the American worker and family to concentrate on the challenges of today. Such long-term challenges must be addressed right away, with a new urgency.
We have a solid foundation for meeting these challenges in many of the principles and programs already present today. They need not be enumerated here, except to argue for giving them the necessary priorities and resources. We can never ensure that every one has the same education, or health care, or retirement security, nor would we want to do so. But all Americans are better off when we ensure that each American will have fundamental educational skills and access to further educational development throughout their lives; that each American will have access to the diagnostic, preventive and acute health care and medicines needed for productive life, as well as some basic level of financial security in his or her retirement.
To do this we will have to get the resources and responsibilities right. In the first place, this means allocating responsibilities properly between public and private entities. Neither government nor "the market" is a universal tool - each must be used appropriately, whether the issues are in security, education, health or retirement. Then we must reexamine private versus public revenues and expenditures. We need to return to the aims of the 1990's when we sought to balance our federal budget and reduce the long- term public debt. Finally, it means properly allocating public responsibilities to regulate, outsource, or operate. This means retaining government regulation where necessary to meet public needs, and balancing the federal government's strengths of standardization and progressive financing with greater insights into the particular needs and challenges that State and local authorities bring.
As we work on education, health care, and retirement security we must also improve the business climate in the United States. This is not simply a matter of reducing interest rates and stimulating demand. Every year, this economy must create more than a million new jobs, just to maintain the same levels of employment, and to reduce unemployment to the levels achieved in the Clinton Administration, we must do much more immediately. This is in part a matter of smoothing the business cycle, with traditional monetary and fiscal tools, but as we improve communications and empower more international trade and finance, firms will naturally shift production and services to areas where the costs are lower. In the near term we should aim to create in America the best business environment in the world - using a variety of positive incentives to keep American jobs and businesses here, attract business from abroad, and to encourage the creation of new jobs, principally through the efforts of small business. These are not new concerns, but they must be addressed and resourced with a new urgency in facing the increasing challenges of technology and free trade. And labor must assist, promoting the attitudes, skills, education and labor mobility to enable long overdue hikes in the minimum wage in this country.
Quick Take on NH Town Hall Meeting (broadcast on C-Span, 9/26/03)
The format itself was effective and lent itself to intensely personal expressions of concern from those in attendance. Compared to the "men and women on the street" posing questions in the Cal debate, the NH folks were smart, intense and focused.
Two women stood out, and I thought the general's responses were powerful. The first lady spoke from her wheelchair and recited a frightening list of physical afflictions (as the very fit general locked in unblinklingly on what she was saying). It seemed to me as if she was going to ask about catastrophic health care, but at the last moment she asked, "Would you deny me access to medical marijuana?" Clark's response was literally without hesitation. "No," he said and left it at that. Partisan as I am, I thought it showed a unity of compassion and decisiveness, and not a hint of politics.
Later, a very angry and distraught woman, who had served many years in the armed forces, confronted the general about her experience with sexual abuse while under arms.
The general enfolded this wounded citizen and, to my mind with no air of patronization, apologized for his part as a senior commander in not ensuring her rights to justice "up through the line of command." (Cf. Cheney telling Russert that the CIA operative sent to Nigeria who later reported essentially "no worries," was so far below him in the hierarchy that he could not possibly be expected to know what the man said.)
Bottom line: he asked her to take him aside after the meeting so that he could follow up on her case.
Another perfect marriage of politics, policy, and moral standards. Now, I hope the general keeps us abreast of this citizen's fight for dignity.
Speaking of which, he wants to make the Patriot Act completely transparent. Having previously genuflected before the the Bill of Rights, WKC asserted, in effect, that the PAct is guilty until proven innocent, and that it needs to be audited constantly to justify itself.
Soundbite: "They say they need to know what books we're taking out of the library. I'd like to know who asked for that, how many times and what for?" Oy, did he brook this kind of interference in his own command strategies? (Let us note, however, that with all the mishagas over Kosovo, no one criticizes WKC as the ultimate desk jockey while on assignment as the Joint Chief's own chief strategist and security adviser.)
Another lady asked Clark if he would encourage or discourage a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages, Clark gave another one word answer, "Discourage."
All in all, terrific television and a quantum leap in engagement for the general. Very well done.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel Issues Statement in Support of General Wesley Clark's Presidential Candidacy
As a war veteran wounded in Korea, no one knows better than I the tragedy of war. In Iraq, people are losing their lives every day. Our troops are in harm's way, the human and financial costs continue to rise, and there is no end in sight. I think of my army unit which went to Korea in 1950. 53 year later, it is still there.
The decision to go to war in Iraq cannot be rescinded, but the exit strategy - how and when we will bring our brave men and women home - is a vital issue. So far, we have no indication from the current Administration that they have a plan. Some pundits have said the U.S. occupation in Iraq may last for several generations, and it is costing a billion dollars a week.
That is why I think it is so important that we as a nation change our direction as well as change our president.
I agree with former President Clinton that Democrats are fortunate that we have such a wide selection of presidential candidates. I cannot believe that the American people - while we all still feel the pain of the September 11th attacks - will think that George W. Bush, no matter how many miscalculations he makes, is the only person who can be president. We need a leader who can inspire us to rise above this time of tragedy and economic gloom and bring hope that the future will be more secure and more prosperous.
It is clear that Four-star General Wesley Clark can be that leader.
Wesley Clark is one of the greatest Americans alive today. During his 34 years in the army, he not only rose to become NATO Supreme Allied Commander, he also earned the silver star, two bronze stars and a purple heart fighting for his country. He commanded the successful NATO military action in Kosovo that saved millions of people while keeping allied casualties to a minimum.
If the Republicans think they have an edge on the issue of national security, Wesley Clark takes that off-the-table. No one can challenge the General's national security credentials or his preparation to be commander-in-chief. No one can question his patriotism. And no landing on an aircraft carrier or appearance in a flight suit can replace a purple heart and a silver star as a demonstration of service to this country.
He is a former military man who understands the costs of war and the necessity of the cooperation of the international community. He is an American citizen who knows that you cannot have a world-class economy and keep jobs in America if we fail to invest in public education and run up massive deficits.
What has made America great is that we are not afraid to dream, and to seek to make those dreams reality. Now more than ever, Americans must not be afraid to dream and to look forward to better times and better leadership. Wesley Clark's candidacy makes our dreams about a better future more realistic than ever.
The General understands that no terrorist, no matter how dangerous, should deny Americans the right to their dreams. The current Administration has abandoned so many Americans looking for a job and dreaming of a chance to better their lives and their families. This Administration has used the war on terrorism as an excuse to deny Americans reliable health care, decent education and child care, affordable housing, equal opportunity, and civil rights. If we cannot afford to help people fulfil their dreams because we have to continue unfair tax cuts for the wealthy at the same time we spend billions on the military, then the terrorists will have already won.
The dream of Wesley Clark's candidacy is now reality. I have talked to Wesley Clark and talked to his supporters. I am convinced that his entry has changed the political dynamic of the campaign and will improve the quality of debate on both defense and economic issues.