An Interview by Adam Meyerson
Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, was elected to the United States Senate in 1988 with the endorsement of National Review and the support of many conservatives who preferred him to incumbent Republican Lowell Weicker. He has since attracted considerable conservative attention with his support for capital gains tax cuts, his defense of President Reagan's use of force in Grenada and Libya and President Bush's military action in Panama, his deep religious commitments (he is an Orthodox Jew who will not campaign on the Sabbath), and his willingness to try market-based approaches to public policy, among them education vouchers, tradeable emissions permits in environmental regulation, and private insurance solutions for the crisis in long-term health care. While his voting record in the Senate has not differed much from that of his Democratic colleagues, he has also sharply criticized the national Democratic Party for moving from its traditional emphasis on military strength and economic growth.
Lieberman, 48, was previously majority leader of the Connecticut state senate and then state attorney general, each for six years. He frequently argues that national Democrats have a great deal to learn from the performance of state and local Democratic officials.
In May 1990, Senator Lieberman discussed his view of the role of government, the impact his religious values have had on his public policy views, and his criticism of both the national Democratic Party and the Bush administration, in an interview by Policy Review editor Adam Meyerson.
Policy Review: You've argued that the national Democratic Party needs to be more closely identified with economic growth, and you've been something of a maverick in the party in calling for targeted cuts in capital gains taxes. What models for the Democrats tody do you see in the economic positions of earlier Democratic leaders?
Senator Joseph Lieberman: The Democratic Party for most of this century was seen as the party of economic opportunity. We were committed to enterprise, to labor in the classic sense of working hard to make your way. We believed in opening up the system, so that everyone could enjoy the rewards of hard work. Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy all offered across-the-board leadership on behalf of economic growth, with the federal government leading the way in supporting and stimulating the economy. JFK said that a rising tide lifts all boats, and he aggressively used federal tax incentives as a stimulant for growth.
Somehow, in the last 15 to 20 years, the national Democratic Party has moved away from this tradition. The national Democratic Party now has a reputation of taking money, through taxes, from those who work and giving it to those who don't work. This is a simplification and a caricature, of course. But I think it's fair to say that Democrats at the national level have focused too exclusively on social policy, and that's not enough. The social commitments of the Democratic Party are important and should not be abandoned, but they are not enough to govern and probably not enough to get elected at the presidential level. It is critically important for us to come back as the party of growth, the party that encourages and rewards entrepreneurship and hard work.
The test of America's greatness in the years ahead is going to be our economic strength. Everyone in Washington talks about this, but I don't see much happening. So there's a real opportunity and a responsibility for the national Democratic Party to lead with an economic growth program. Besides, we will never be able to deal effectively with our social problems unless we have economic growth.
P.R.: Are you saying then that the Democrats are too strongly identified today with high taxes and high government spending?
Lieberman: We certainly have been, although I think that is changing. There's no question that part of what brought down national Democratic candidates in the last decade has been their association with high taxes and high spending. I know it's fashionable to consider the American people selfish in not wanting higher taxes, but is it unreasonable for a hard-working family to be angry about paying higher taxes when they see how often their money is wasted and how little they see in return that means something to the way they live? I don't think Americans are inherently opposed to paying their fair share. It's just that they want to see that they're getting something in return for what they pay.
The American people are very skeptical of what President Reagan called big government. But they're not skeptical about strong government. People really want leadership, especially on the things that most worry them. And a lot of people in this country are worried about our economic future, about whether we and our children are going to have a decent standard of living. I believe people in this country want leadership from Washington on this issue.
P.R.: You've called for greater government funding of civilian research and development, particularly in high-tech industries, and have criticized the "Adam Smith gospel" of those who oppose such industrial policy. Are you confident that centralized and politicized government agencies can do a better job than the marketplace in picking industrial winners and losers?
Lieberman: Yes, the federal government should play a role in stimulating our economy. There's a pretty broad consensus about the danger signs in our economy -- the low rate of investment, the low rate of savings, the short-term perspective in management, the relatively decreasing rate of investment in research and development. There's also much tougher international competition. We still are the greatest economy in the world, certainly the greatest consumer economy, but we're being challenged in a way that we've never been challenged before. We have to meet that challenge. And one of the elements of the challenge is the extent to which governments in Japan and some of the other Asian economies as well as those in Europe cooperate with business in the creation of new products and services. We've got to do more of that ourselves.
To talk 19th-century economic theory when we're trying to compete with 21st-century economies just doesn't make sense anymore. The reality is that government is all over the economy. Two of our strongest export categories happen to be ones where the government has played a major supportive role -- aerospace and agriculture. One of the strongest sectors of our economy has been the defense sector, which is so dependent on the government. We have seen a number of commercial applications that have spun off from this governmental involvement.
Through tax incentives and a national policy of support for growth industries we've got to create a sense of partnership between the private and public sectors in this country. I'm not sure the Japanese MITI model is right for us. We've got to find some models that are uniquely American. That's one reason I like DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has been quite successfully choosing some potential winners in high-tech industry. Its projects aren't all winners. But it has done some interesting things within the American context -- low-interest loans, some grants, and taking an equity position in what it often correctly deems to be growth industries. I am sponsoring legislation that would expand DARPA's role, and get it more involved in stimulating development of high-tech products with civilian-sector application.
P.R.: Would you agree that perhaps our biggest economic competitiveness problem is our elementary and secondary education system?
Lieberman: It is in the long run. The numbers are awful. When 98 percent of Japanese kids graduate from high school and only 50 percent of the kids in most of our cities do, we're just not going to be prepared to compete. We need a sense of national purpose to improve our education system the way we did after Sputnik. Part of this is government's responsibility. But our crisis in education is ultimately rooted in changes in family life. Too many American families no longer play the role that they used to in conveying the value of educational excellence and achievement as the way to make it in America. We have to do everything we can to turn that around.
Money is not the only answer to the crisis in education. It's part of the answer, but we really have to deal with motivation. We also have to shake up the system. The current system is not functioning as well as it should. I'm intrigued by the ideas of vouchers and choice as a way to create competition in the educational marketplace. I bet such competition would be popular, and would excite a lot of families, a lot of parents, a lot of students.
P.R.: You've been something of a maverick in your party with your support of American military action in Grenada and Panama. What traditional principles of the Democratic Party justify such use of force?
Lieberman: Defense is another area, along with economic opportunity and growth, where the Democratic Party has left its traditional foundations over the past couple of decades. The party of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy understood that one of the most critical responsibilities of our national government is to protect our national security. These presidents all understood that the world is imperfect, and that although civilization has progressed in many ways, we still are imperfect enough to want to cause harm to one another. Unless you have strength, and show that you are willing to use that strength in international relations, people and governments will take advantage of you and you will suffer for your timidity. The United States should not go looking for fights, but we have to be ready to defend our interests and defend them wisely and courageously.
P.R.: Under what circumstances must the United States be prepared to use force?
Lieberman: Wherever American people or principles are in danger, we have to be open to the use of force. President Reagan's decision to order an air attack on Libya was a totally justifiable use of force because Colonel Qadhafi was a major supporter of international terrorism, which was hurting and killing Americans, and it was important to send him a message that he could no longer operate without fear of reprisal. It is very dangerous to let an international outlaw run loose.
The ouster of Noriega was another justifiable use of force. Again, both principles and people were involved: Panama is close to our border and in our natural sphere of influence. We have important commercial interests through the canal. Noriega violated democratic principles with his flagrant nullification of the election he clearly lost. His role in drug running threatened our security. And, finally, his encouragement of, or at least toleration of, attacks on American soldiers in Panama could not be permitted to escalate.
A military response was also necessary in Grenada. Our conflict with the Soviet Communists seems to be diminishing now in many regions. But when the new government took over in Grenada with Cuban support, the situation was clearly threatening to other democracies in the Caribbean. Was it threatening to our ultimate existence? No, but it was a threat to freedom in our hemisphere. We had the capacity to eliminate the threat without much risk, and I thought it was an important and appropriate use of force.
P.R.: You have argued that "the world may become a more dangerous place just when tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union may be easing." What do you see as the major threats to peace and security in the coming decade?
Lieberman: Well, there's still a major threat from the Soviet Union. The Soviets are focusing on trying to rescue their own economy, and are less likely to be involved in regional conflicts, less likely to create security threats for us or our allies in Western Europe. Even if there's a change of leadership, the factors that drew Gorbachev to bring these extraordinary changes to the Soviet Union are likely to remain whoever comes to power there. But there's some uncertainty about exactly what course this second Russian revolution is going to take. And the Soviets are still tremendously well armed. No other nation compares with the Soviet Union in its potential military threat to us, particularly its nuclear threat.
I hope that the START talks are successful and that we can scale down the level of nuclear arms, which have become a waste of critical resources for both sides. Nonetheless, so long as the Soviets possess the nuclear strength that they do, we have to maintain a deterrent capacity.
The new threats are going to be from unstable Third World countries and from terrorists. The proliferation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, together with the capacity to deliver them via ballistic missiles, is a major threat to peace -- especially in the Middle East and Asia. Assuming things continue in a peaceful direction in Eastern Europe, I'm concerned that the Middle East will emerge as the world's tinderbox. I'm also greatly concerned about the link between drugs and terrorism, which poses a direct threat to our nation's interests and our people.
P.R.: How do you respond to the argumet that this proliferation calls for the rapid development and deployment of missile defense systems such as SDI and Israel's Arrow tactical ABM program?
Lieberman: I remain opposed to SDI because it is an enormous expenditure of money for a system that no one has convinced me is technologically feasible. There are elements of what is called SDI that we should continue to support, particularly the early warning systems that will protect us from surprise attacks not only from major powers like the Soviets, but from runaway Third World enemies. But the greatest defense is deterrence -- our capacity to inflict equal and greater punishment on anyone who would attack us, and a clear understanding in the international community that we are prepared to use that capacity. Because of the short warning times they have, countries like Israel may need a missile defense. But I think that their greatest defense -- like ours -- is the understanding that they have a response capacity that should deter any thoughts of first strike by their enemies.
P.R.: Are you disturbed by President Bush's silence on behalf of liberty in Lithuania and China?
Lieberman: Yes, I am. The most electric moment of my 16 months in Washington came during Lech Walesa's speech to the Congress, when he described how the American ideal of freedom had inspired and sustained him and the rest of the Solidarity movement during their darkest days. We're finding the same response in the rest of Eastern Europe and throughout the world. This is our strength, this powerful 200-year-old democratic idea of our Founding Fathers, and it must be the foundation of our foreign policy. Any time we sacrifice principles for what appears to be short-term international political gains, we lose -- if not in the short term, then eventually.
I've been affected a great deal by the failure of western leadership to act in the years that preceded World War II. And I see a shadow of this history in Lithuania today. The specifics are different but we have here a small, relatively powerless nation that has the courage to stand up for freedom against a powerful giant. For us to stand by silently is wrong. It's inconsistent with everything we stand for, and it weakens us. We should be shouting for the Lithuanians and granting them diplomatic recognition immediately. Of course, March 11, when the Lithuanians proclaimed independence, was not a convenient time for Gorbachev. Neither was July 4, 1776, a convenient time for King George.
Incidentally, I don't see that this would jeopardize either our relations with Gorbachev or his own power within the Soviet Union. Everything we know about Gorbachev suggests he is very agile at balancing different forces -- the right wing in his country, the nationalist movements, all the grumbling within the military that might call for being tough on the Lithuanians, his desire for good relations with the U.S., his desire to spend less on arms (which depends on our good will and our willingness to enter arms control agreements), his desire to enjoy better trade relations with the United States. By letting him know, through recognition of the government in Lithuania, just how important we think Baltic independence is, we could affect the way he balances these different political forces. But the main point is that we must uphold principles, not political personalities, in our foreign policy.
P.R.: You are a deeply religious man, and I wondered if you might say a few words about how the values of Orthodox Judaism affect your approach to public policy.
Lieberman: Well, my first obligation as a public servant is to the Constitution, the laws, the oath of office that I took, and the people of Connecticut. But many factors such as my religion have played a part in the development of my world view, my view of human nature. I believe that people have enormous potential for good, that we all are touched by the Divine. But we're all also imperfect, and we have the capacity to do great evil. And part of the answer to that evil, according to my religion, is the role of law as an attempt to create order, to establish standards for behavior, in some senses to express our best aspirations for ourselves and to deter our worst instincts. This is one reason I ended up wanting to be a lawmaker, and why I believe in the rule of law and order.
P.R.: Judaism requires every individual to set aside a portion of his income for the less fortunate, and it also requires strong moral obligations within the family. How do these principles influence your approach to government help for the needy, and, in particular, to the great conundrum of the modern welfare state -- the needy who have abandoned their own family obligations?
Lieberman: I suppose my feelings about the welfare state were affected as much by experiences in government as by religion. But my religion teaches that you don't stand by while suffering exists, that we have an obligation to those who are genuinely in need. Indeed, one of the highest forms of charity is to create the opportunities for people to better themselves and to take some responsibility for their actions.
My religion also teaches that we are accountable to a higher authority, that we have an obligation to develop our unique human potential to the greatest extent possible, and that the family is the central unit through which we act. Very often, when I think about our great national problems of education and drugs, I am impressed by the great limits to what government can do. So many of the answers really have to come from within the family and from within the self. The government can only do so much about drugs. If people don't learn values, if people don't acquire self-discipline, then they're going to be subject to drug abuse. The same is true of education. There's only so much the government can do if the family is not there to create standards of excellence and the motivation for success.
At this stage of my life, I am looking for fresh models of what government should do. A lot of the old welfare state answers have not worked. In Eastern Europe, which has had an extreme form of the welfare state -- total statism -- the result has been more human suffering, less human accomplishment, and ultimately less human welfare. Our goal should be to bring together our compassion for those who are needy with our understanding that ultimately it is family values and individual motivation that make the most difference in bettering the human condition.
P.R.: How does Judaism affect your approach to abortion and public policy? Would you favor a legal right to choose abortion, while at the same time arguing that in most circumstances of unwanted pregnancy the mother is morally obligated not to abort?
Lieberman: I don't personally believe in abortion. To me it's unacceptable. But I have also come to the conclusion that this value of mine is not shared by millions of other Americans and that, while I might personally argue against abortion, as a lawmaker I cannot impose my personal judgment on others. It wouldn't be appropriate, and it wouldn't be feasible. Some women are going to have abortions regardless of what the law says. Sometimes lawmakers have to show some humility and say that no matter how strongly they feel about an issue, this is beyond the appropriate reach of the law.
While respecting the right of women to choose an abortion, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy -- pre-viability -- government policies can and should be designed to encourage childbirth. This means government support for pregnant women, especially with prenatal and neonatal care, and also encouragement of adoption. I've introduced legislation that would give federal workers the same kind of insurance coverage for adoption costs that we give for childbirth costs. And I've also introduced legislation to devote more research dollars to the development of better birth control methods that would lessen the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore the disturbingly high number of abortions in America each year.
P.R.: Has religion played much of a role in the development of your environmental concerns?
Lieberman: I think so. If you believe in God as Creator of the world, then the natural environment is part of Creation and should be protected and sustained. The Garden of Eden story and its vision of a natural paradise, and the concept of stewardship in Noah's protection of all the other living creatures from the flood, are important and powerful metaphors, parables, and lessons. Obviously, my environmental concerns expanded in different ways through my own personal political experience, but my religious training played a seminal part.
P.R.: Given your concern both for economic growth and for the environment, are there any ways to achieve strict environmental protection at less cost than under current law?
Lieberman: Well, I hope so. One of the great themes of environmental protection in the next decade is going to be pollution prevention based on economic incentives, not just enforcement and regulation. Enforcement and regulation will continue to be needed, to create an incentive for compliance. But enforcement and regulation cannot do it alone, as I learned in my six years as attorney general in Connecticut. Authorities who rely simply on law cannot do all they should to protect the environment because there is never enough time nor money nor personnel to investigate all the cases and enforce all the laws that are being violated.
It is much more effective to build on the environmental ethic that is becoming so widespread in our society, and to encourage self-initiated pollution prevention by individuals and by businesses. An executive from a large corporation recently explained to me why his company was doing so much to reduce pollution. "Our business," he said, "depends on the good will of the community. If we are identified as a polluter, our customers are not going to want to do business with us." This kind of market-driven pollution prevention is going to be a real driving force in the next decade.
We are also beginning to move away from our exclusive reliance on the old command-and-control techniques for environmental protection, and to experiment with some creative and exciting market incentives. That's hopeful, because market incentives are consistent with human nature and they generally work. They also require less bureaucracy. We're trying market incentives in a big way in the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act. I like the concept and hope we can use it more in the years ahead, because it will certainly be less expensive for government and it is also potentially very effective.
P.R.: Do you think the federal government's environmental protection efforts are focused on the most serious threats?
Lieberman: Not always. About two years ago the staff at EPA did a report called "Unfinished Business" that somebody gave me when I was elected. I was fascinated by it and I go back to it periodically. The EPA ranked environmental threats according to estimates of their danger to human health. Some of the threats where we've committed the most resources, such as toxic wastes, were less dangerous according to this assessment than others, such as lead poisoning, which gets very little in the way of government resources. The greatest threat to human health comes from ground-level ozone, which hopefully we've begun to deal with in the Clean Air legislation. But generally we have to do a better job in relating our commitment of resources, time, and legislation to the most serious threats.
P.R.: You co-sponsored legislation to remove the use of Alar from apples. Does it concern you that many everyday foodstuffs -- such a mushrooms, mustard, table pepper, and bread -- contain naturally occurring chemicals that are more carcinogenic than Alar? Or should different safety standards apply to substances that occur naturally vs. those introduced by humans?
Lieberman: I've heard those arguments. They are intriguing. One response is that there's nothing we can do about natural carcinogens. Nature made them. But there is something we can do about pesticides like Alar that we intentionally put in our food supply. There's a difference between intentionally creating a problem, which is what we are doing with the pesticides, and unavoidably living with a naturally occurring problem that you have to be mindful of.
The second response is that intentionally created problems could become truly dangerous if they are not regulated. Long-term exposure is a real problem that we cannot ignore. Theoretically somebody could put much too much of a harmful pesticide on an apple or some other food, whereas the naturally occurring carcinogens tend to occur in predictable and relatively small amounts over time, with the exception of an occasional poison mushroom. Just for the record, by the way, I'm against poison mushrooms.
P.R.: Over 30 million Americans are without health insurance, and millions of elderly lack the financial wherewithal for long-term health care. You represent a state with some of the leading private insurance expertise in the country. What public policies would better enable private insurance companies to offer affordable medical insurance and insurance for long-term care?
Lieberman: This is one of the biggest challenges we face. Whenever I go to public meetings in Connecticut, I find that people are angrier about health care than about any other issue. The anger is not mainly about health care for those who are uninsured. That is a real problem and I don't mean to diminish it. But the anger I hear most is from people who have insurance and are concerned about rising costs and diminishing coverage, as well as from businesspeople, who complain that health care costs are the fastest escalating costs of doing business.
We haven't figured out a way to put a cap on these rising health costs. We don't have the governmental resources to pick up the whole system and solve everybody's problems; it's great to talk about that kind of dreaming, but it's not going to happen. Nor would it be fair nor reasonable to put a big additional burden on private businesses to pay for the uninsured. So I think we really have to look again for models of public-private cooperation, and two good ideas have come out of the insurance industry.
One is to use life insurance proceeds for medical care for the terminally ill. Believe it or not, there are $ 8.4 trillion in life insurance assets in our country. I've co-sponsored legislation that would enable patients whose doctors certify that they are not going to live more than 12 months longer to tap into their life insurance benefits in the months before they die. We're calling it a life with dignity bill, because the patient will be able to pay his expenses without burdening his family, and he will be able to live out his final months comfortably and with dignity.
A second idea is a demonstration project in Connecticut, which would enable people to buy private insurance to cover long-term care for probably a two-year period, with the government picking up the tab after that. An important aspect of the legislation is to protect a patient's assets from government taking to the extent of his or her insurance. The purpose of this provision is to protect middle-class people, who sometimes have to give up their homes and savings to finance long-term care. You know the story: If you have a lot of money you probably can take care of yourself. If you have very little money the government will take care of you. But under the current system, people in the great group in the middle, the group that's worked hard and saved and built, face poverty, loss of their homes and their savings, when they become sick later in life. The goal of the Connecticut program is to give them the opportunity to protect their assets through private insurance. It's consistent with basic American values of hard work and saving, which are so important for economic growth and economic competitiveness.
P.R.: Republicans have won five straight presidential elections in Connecticut. Yet the governor of Connecticut and both senators are Democrats, three of six congressman are Democrats, and Democrats control the legislature as well as most local offices. The story is similar in other states. Why can't Democrats regain the presidency when they are so successful in state, local, and congressional elections? And conversely, why are Republicans so strong at the presidential level and so weak almost everywhere else?
Lieberman: At the national level the Republicans have spoken to the concerns and expressed the values of a great majority of Americans, and the Democrats have not. But at the state and local levels we've been able to express these values more effectively than have the Republicans.
This is a country that cares about values. To begin with, most people are religious. I don't mean that everybody goes to church or synagogue, but people believe in God. The national Democratic Party in recent years seems to have felt uncomfortable with the religious impulse, while the Republicans have respected the importance of religion and other values and thereby created a link with many people, including a lot of Democrats. A lot of Democrats have left the Democratic Party in national elections because they believe that the Democratic Party has left them.
Another value most Americans hold is that hard work should be rewarded, that this is a country where if you work hard there's no limit to what you can achieve. Too many Americans have come to the conclusion that the national Democratic Party doesn't share that feeling, that it wants to take their hard-earned money and give it to people who are not working hard.
Americans also believe that government has a responsibility for security, both personal security and international security. This carries over to the drug and crime problem. For various reasons, national Democrats have come to be perceived as belonging to a party that is not prepared to use governmental authority to create order and to punish criminals. Americans are frightened about crime, and the Republicans have responded to this fear. Americans are patriotic, and although they don't want us to go recklessly into war, they want a national defense that can protect our interests, our principles, our people. Again the national Democratic Party has come to be seen as belonging to a party that has moved away from these values.
Why have Democrats been so much more successful at the state and local levels? In part, perhaps, questions of values are not as important is state and local elections. But also, state and local Democrats have clearly understood and spoken to the importance of economic opportunity and growth. In Connecticut and many other states, state and local Democrats crossed this line during the early '70s, just at the time when the national party was veering to the left.
Democrats came to an understanding at the state level that it made no sense to try to build popular support by being anti-business, because that policy had no substance, no meaning to people any more. The abuses by business in the early part of this century were no longer real, and we now had labor laws and labor unions to guard against them. What really mattered to people was having a job, and the best thing government could do was to stimulate economic growth -- through tax incentives for business, low-interest loans, a whole range of partnerships with the private sector. Interestingly, state and local Democrats have been in the vanguard of these economic development programs.
A lot of Democrats at the state level have also been tough on crime. Why that hasn't translated to the national level, I don't understand. Some of it may be the greater influence of special interest groups within the Democratic Party at the national level.
Republicans meanwhile haven't been able to translate the Reagan-Bush mandates into gain at the state, local, or congressional level. I'm not sure why -- and of course we could be seeing a national political transition in the next four year -- but it might have something to do with the relative ineffectiveness of Republican state and local party organizations.
P.R.: You haven't explained why the same voters who elect a Republican president vote for Democratic senators and congressmen with different views on foreign and economic policy.
Lieberman: Part of the reason may be the people's inherent wisdom in enjoying the checks and balances of our system of government. They do not want power concentrated in one party. Part may also be the incumbency factor -- in addition to being policymakers, congressman are advocates for their states and perform important services for their constituents. Even if a congressman may be a bit out of tune with constituents' policy views, he is viewed as a friend because he has fought for the state or district and helped constituents with their problems.
P.R.: What are President Bush's greatest strengths and weaknesses?
Lieberman: President Bush brings extraordinary domestic and international experience to the job. I think this gives people a sense of security that things won't get too bad. He deals more effectively with Congress than others have, and as a result he has a lot of potential to get more done.
His weakness in the domestic area is that he touches on all the problems that the polls say are bothering the people -- I'm thinking here of drugs and crime, education, economic competitiveness, the environment -- but he doesn't provide the kind of in-depth programmatic leadership that brings about real progress in these areas.
At the end of last year, I would have said that he was doing very well internationally, because he's skilled, he knows people around the world, he's balanced, and he's willing to use force when necessary, as in Panama. But I've been troubled lately by his inclination to take a conflict-avoiding course at the expense of our principles. My sense of human nature and of history tells me that the business-as-usual policies the Bush administration has taken with respect to China, for example, will be taken as a sign of weakness by the Chinese. I fear the same with the Soviets in his response to Lithuania.
P.R.: As you look to your career in the Senate, who are the great models of effective senators, past or present, who most inspire you?
Lieberman: One of my heroes, who was not a senator, is Teddy Roosevelt. He clearly spoke for a strong America in the world, he was a conservationist, in some senses the original environmentalist, and he was willing to fight for economic competitiveness, for the vitality of the free enterprise system.
I have always admired Harry Truman. I like his strong foreign policy as president. And I also admire his Senate career, where he was a great investigator of government waste and corruption. I hope to get involved in some of that myself.
John F. Kennedy inspired me to go into politics. I was 18 years old when he became president.
Finally, Scoop Jackson is a model because he supported both a strong international presence for the United States and a positive role for the federal government in creating a better economic life at home. What that means today is probably different from what it meant in Scoop Jackson's time, but still he brought together policies that I admire. He stands, I think, for a vision of an America that is strong, prosperous, and caring.
