|
|
June 7, 2002/Sivan 27 5762, Vol. 54, No. 38
Lieberman strives for 'moral clarity'
BARRY COHEN
Editor
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) shares words of encouragement at an Arizona Democratic Party reception on May 30. Looking on are State Democratic Party Chairman Jim Pederson, left, and Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Az. Dist. 2).
Photo by Barry Cohen
|
A man who came within a few hundred votes of becoming a U.S. vice president remains in the political spotlight.
On a visit to Arizona May 30, U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) split his time between Tucson and the Valley.
In the Valley, he took part in a reception at the Arizona Democratic headquarters, read to a classroom of fourth graders at Pastor Elementary School in Phoenix, and visited with the local chapter of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
In Tucson, he wasn't able to deliver a fund-raising speech at the Arizona Inn because the hotel received a bomb threat, according to a Tucson police spokeswoman.
What follows are excerpts of a Jewish News interview with Lieberman.
Q: After almost 15 years in the U.S. Senate, what makes you want to wake up in the morning and go to work?
A: As a senator, I get to deal with and try to make better a host of very real human situations dealing with international security, national economic growth, quality of education, protection of the environment and health care. ... It states the obvious, but I'm really glad I ran for the Senate again because, though I was thrilled with the opportunity to run and the possibility of being vice president, I was in no way tired of being a senator.
Q: Judaism, as you know, has a long-standing prophetic tradition. The Torah paints the picture of prophets pleading not only with those in power, but with the common man and woman, to improve their society. As a participant in the government of the world's only remaining superpower, when are you a politician, and when do you play the role of prophet?
A: The job of a senator ... is not just to legislate in particular areas, (it's) to use the visibility and position we have to speak with people. To listen, but also to speak - and to try to set an example, hopefully a good one, in our own behavior, but also not to hesitate to be an advocate for better values and a better country.
An example is Hollywood and the entertainment industry. I have great concerns with the amount of violence and sex and the affect it has on kids.
(But) because I believe in the first amendment and freedom of speech, almost none of what I've done in that area has been legislative. It's been more advocacy, and to a great extent, to embarrass or to argue for the leaders of the entertainment industry to give us better entertainment.
I think one of the most important roles a public official has in this country is to speak to our national values - the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that are declared as the purpose of the American government.
Though I hesitate to say "prophetic," there definitely is, in a more conventional political setting, an "advocacy" or a "values role," to talk about values, because they matter so much to our country.
Q: In that light, what role does faith play in uniting the American people?
A: My own feeling is that faith has actually been a source in our country of unity, rather than division.
There has been a constant tug and feeling our way to balance the bedrock American principle of separation of church and state with allowing ourselves as individuals and as communities to derive benefit from faith. ...
We as a party do not need to be nervous about people of faith. We ought to welcome people of faith, of all ideological persuasions.
(Religious faith) does not relate only to the right. It also brings a lot of people to the center from the left.
Q: You argue that President George Bush's "No Child Left Behind" Act is insufficiently funded. What are you doing to ensure the proper education of America's children?
A: It's a progressive piece of legislation - the most significant reform in the relationship between the federal government and local public schools since 1965.
A month after he signed the law, President Bush under funded it by $6 billion (less) than was promised in the legislation.
This is creating greater pressures on our schools to perform and educate our kids - which is appropriate - (but) without giving them sufficient resources to make it happen.
That's a real priority for me in the (legislative) session - to try to increase funding for education, to get as close as possible to the standards set in the "No Child Left Behind" Act.
Q: On your Web page, you stress the importance of "moral clarity" in fighting the war against terror.
How can the United States maintain moral clarity and pursue a war against terror and remain an honest broker in the region, all at the same time?
A: I first used the notion of moral clarity ... after Sept. 11, describing President Bush's response and initiation of the war on terror.
I did say a month or so ago that I thought the president was compromising his moral clarity in the war by demanding that Israel not defend itself against the terrorists, which is exactly of course what we are doing against those who struck us on Sept. 11.
(But) by and large the administration has been supportive of Israel - not to be against the Palestinians - but to be supportive of Israel as victims and targets in the war on terrorism.
I do think in the Middle East, generally, we have actually set our principles aside in our dealings with allies such as Saudi Arabia and other governments who don't give their citizens human rights. (They) also have allowed their schools to be taken over by extremist groups who are teaching anti-American and anti-Western, not to mention anti-Israel, hatred.
So I think the morally clear position has to be, post Sept. 11, when we've seen the consequences of allowing that to happen, to insist as the price of our alliance with countries like Saudi Arabia that they stop that ambivalence, that tolerance of hatred, and that they thereby become full allies with us in the war against terror.
I think this is a time, because we're strong, to be also clear in our principles.
The closer we are to that "moral clarity" when we combine it with our military and economic strength, the better the world will be, and the better and more peaceful the Middle East will be.
Q: Will this also be easier if we become less dependent on foreign sources of fuel, such as Saudi Arabian oil?
A: No matter how strong we are militarily and economically, so long as we're dependent on oil, which means being dependent on foreign oil, it means ... we lose our strength.
I think one of the best things we can do in the war on terrorism is to call on the American people to conserve (and) to give them incentives to buy more fuel efficient cars and more energy efficient appliances ... or get an alternative energy source for ... houses or businesses.
Q: How do you plan on helping bring this about?
A: I think we need to pursue it first by having actual federal grants ... for research and development by companies and to new alternative energy sources, and then tax credits to make the purchase of fuel-efficient or new energy vehicles or appliances more economically attractive.
We need to make it so that technology is at a point where these alternative energy systems are price competitive.
|
