Center Releases Global Plum Book and “First Step” Recommendations

By Tom Vogel at 1 February, 2009, 11:00 am

At Final Impact ‘08 Event in DC, Transition Advisors from Previous Administrations Discuss Global Challenges and Opportunities Facing Obama Transition Team

Clinton transition advisor Paul Begala, Bush policy advisor Michael Gerson and moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS’ “The NewsHour” discussed two new reports released by the Center for US Global Engagement at this post-election foreign policy forum. The Center released its Global Plum Book identifying the 100 key leadership positions that will shape the next Administration’s strategy for global development and diplomacy. Accompanying the report are “First Steps” for how the transition team can successfully translate the pledges of Candidate Obama – the most in-depth and far reaching global development platform of any candidate in history – into the policies of President Obama.

These recommendations are supported by a broad bipartisan coalition ready to work with President-elect Obama and his national security and foreign policy teams to strengthen U.S. support for global development and diplomacy.

In addition to the Global Plum Book and “first step” recommendations, you can learn more about the transition process, appointees and potential appointees through these other Center transition resources:

An outline of the transition process and what to expect — historic announcement dates, details on the confirmation process and initial steps President-elect Obama has taken in preparation for the transition

Profiles of the announced appointments, including the recent announcement of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel

Profiles of the top members of the incoming Obama’s national security and foreign policy team

A list and snapshot of potential Secretary of State nominees and potential Secretary of Treasury nominees

TRANSCRIPT:

GEORGE INGRAM: We are pleased to have with us two prominent former presidential advisors from both sides of the aisle, Paul Begala, and Mike Gerson, who have much to share from their own experiences inside presidential transition, and in the early days of a new Administration.

We are honored to have Emmy Award-winning journalist and Presidential debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, to moderate and give his own insights.

Today marks the last public event in Washington of the Center’s Impact ‘08. Impact ‘08 started 2 years ago, with a vision that the next President, when he or she enters the Oval Office, is committed to strengthening the civilian tools of U.S. international affairs, development and diplomacy.

Many of you participated in our kickoff event at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a year and a half ago. Under the leadership of Secretaries Madeleine Albright, and Frank Carlucci, Impact ‘08 has mobilized Americans across the country. Hundreds of business leaders, political activists, community and faith-based leaders, to engage in a conversation on the critical importance for the United States to rebuild our civilian tools of international affairs.

Today we can celebrate. More candidates made more speeches and issued more positions on rebuilding diplomacy and development than in any prior election. Both political parties took a forward-looking position on these issues, and the country has elected a President who is deeply committed to rebuilding our international affairs tools of development and diplomacy.

To begin this morning, we will take a look back at the story of Impact ‘08.
[Video played.]

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I’m very proud to co-chair Impact ‘08 with Secretary Carlucci, and to release today, our statement which is endorsed by such a distinguished bipartisan group of former Cabinet officials, including fellow Secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury and Congressional Leaders.
[Video continued.]

LIZ SCHRAYER: Good morning, everyone. I’m Liz Schrayer, I’m the Executive Director of the Center for U.S. Global Engagement, and I have to say as watching that film, I am thinking through the extraordinary journey that many of us have traveled together, over the last 18 months. With your help, and thousands of leaders throughout the country, we have done just what Secretary Albright had asked us to do, which is to make some righteous noise.

Now, when we kicked off Impact ‘08, there were close to 20 candidates running for the President of the United States, and we have much to be proud of. At the Chamber of Commerce 18 months ago, when Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of Defense Carlucci launched our 21st Century Vision of U.S. Global Leadership, they called on the Presidential candidates elevate invest in non-military tools of engagement. They didn’t say, “We just want to invest in hard power,” and they didn’t talk about, “We just want them to invest in soft power,” but they talked about the need to invest in smart power — the idea of integrating development and diplomacy along with defense.

Although they could not be here, our two national co-chairs were unfortunately out of town today, but they send a hello, and they both were sorry they couldn’t be here. But I want to thank them for their vision and their leadership, because under their leadership is the list that’s on your chair, of over 30 national — well-respected national security and foreign policy experts, 50 military leaders, led by General Zinni, and Admiral Smith — people like General Jim Jones, who has endorsed our message — all came a part of this effort.

We traveled across the country — we followed the candidates to Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. We were in, just the last 2 months, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, hosting dozens of forums, where people brought together — like today — to talk about these very issues.

They put full-page ads out in their local newspapers, calling on the candidates to join us in building a better, safer world. Op-ed papers were filled with articles written by Republicans and Democrats that, frankly, don’t agree with one another on very much, but they agree on this issue.

We saw, most importantly, as you saw in the video — candidate after candidate — Republicans and Democrats — answer this call.

In the last week, I’ve been asked many times, “Was Impact ‘08 successful?” We set out, as George Ingram said, on a non-partisan initiative, to see if the candidate — whomever would be sworn in on January 20th, 2009 — would share that passion and commitment that we all have, to elevate our non-military tools of global engagement.

It is with great pride that you have a sheet in front of you, that talks about some of the commitments made by all of the candidates — including the nominees — and particularly let me address our President-elect, Obama.

He presented the most far-reaching, detailed platform in history to restore America’s global leadership. Commitments such as embracing the Millennium Development goals, calling for increasing the size of foreign service, USAID, and Peace Corps. Supporting modernizing tools of global engagement and foreign assistance, and pledging to double foreign assistance to $50 billion.

On the eve of the election, we congratulated President-elect Obama, and Vice President-elect Biden, and we applaud their vision and commitment for these very issues. Our national network that spans across the country, joins and stands ready to support the work that needs to be done with the new Administration, and the 111th Congress to realize these goals.

Now, our work is not done, and translating campaign pledges to implementing policy is now our mission. As the transition team begins its work at this point, today we are releasing two documents that will be available to you at the conclusion of the program.

Yesterday, the government released its traditional, what’s called, the Plum Book, there was a front-page story in the Washington Post as you may see, that lists the 8,000 or so appointed positions available in the next Administration.

Over the last year, we have been working on our own version of that, that we call the Global Plum Book. It is a list of a hundred of the most influential positions that are appointed by the next Administration, that will influence and shape the issues of global development and diplomacy.

We hope, and believe, and are confident that these positions will be filled by individuals that share the same commitment and passion as the pledges made by, then-candidate, Obama.

The second document is what we call our “first step” recommendations, and they are specific steps that we think the Transition Team — and hope the Transition Team — can use as tools to — how to implement the pledges and the commitments that President-elect Obama has made.

As you all know, a transition team does three things: they deal with people, they deal with policy, priorities, and budget. And in all three areas, we have made recommendations, including on personnel, at Secretary of State who is committed to prioritizing development, a two-tandem leadership for elevating development. A budget preparation that will demonstrate a commitment to increasing our civilian capacity, and a series of specific policy areas that we hope the Transition Team will look at.

Needless to say, the new Administration has before them daunting challenges, never before seen in recent history. It is our hope that the first step recommendations in the Global Plum Book can be used as tools for the Transition Team, to advance the goals of implementing the vision of President-elect Obama, our collective vision, of what it will take to build a better, safer world.

We all understand, in this interconnected world, the investment — the small investment — of these programs that we’re talking about, are so critical to keeping Americans safe, saving lives, and restoring America’s image in the world. We look forward to working with you in the next part of the journey, and at the conclusion of today’s program, I’ll share with you some of the exciting programs that we’ll look to do forward.

I now am very excited to turn over what is going to be a magnificent session to two of our Board Members, the Nancy’s.
[Applause.]

NANCY LINDBORG: Good morning, I’m Nancy Lindborg, the President of Mercy Corps, and Co-President of the Center’s sister organization, the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign.

NANCY SCHLEGEL: And I’m Nancy Susan Schlegel, I’m on the Center’s Board.

NANCY LINDBORG: I do like this Nancy Show thing.

I want to just underscore that one of the many strengths of this bizarre, strange bedfellow coalition that the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign represents, is the power of the NGOs and the business community coming together and jointly saying, “It is critically important that we elevate our ability to have effective, civilian-led efforts around the world.”

It is remarkable, as we look at the video, to see the breadth and the depth of the bipartisan support that endorse the Impact ‘08 efforts throughout this campaign — Democrats, Republicans, military, faith-based leaders, leaders throughout New Hampshire, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, many of the key States — it was a truly remarkable display of support for this message, and I think more than anything, it is clear that Americans are ready to engage the world, and that they’re eager to elevate our ability to be the kinds of leaders that we want to be with increased investments in development and diplomacy.

So, I simply add my thanks to all of us who have been a part of this journey, and who have made a great deal of righteous noise.
[Applause.]

NANCY SCHLEGEL: Impact ‘08 was clearly a tremendous success, but the real question is how do we translate those commitments and campaign endorsements into real policy?

To help us understand the impact of the election, and gain a greater insight into the transition and the first 100 days, I am pleased and honored to introduce today’s moderator.

Jim Lehrer, and award-winning journalist, anchor, and author, who’s covered every Presidential election over the past 5 Administrations. He has moderated 10 Presidential debates, including the first of this year’s debate, which focused on foreign policy.

Throughout his 20-year career at PBS, he has become one of the country’s most trusted news sources, as Executive Editor and anchor of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

Please help me extend a warm welcome to Jim Lehrer.
[Applause.]

JIM LEHRER: That is Michael Gerson, not Jim Lehrer, and Paul Begala will be joining him in a moment, and we’re going to chat about some things.

But I just want to first, thank you, to you two Nancy’s.

I’m sure all of you are familiar with the great last line in the 1972 movie, “The Candidate.” Remember that movie? Robert Redford played a candidate for the United States Senate, and he won, despite his inability to articulate why he was running, and other kinds of things. And as the moment of victory came, he turned to his campaign manager, and he said, “What do we do now?”

Well, I hereby welcome you all this morning to the Center for U.S. Global Engagement’s version of “What do we do now?”

We, including not only Barack Obama and the folks who will run the government of the United States with him, but all of us. Because I do not believe that it is an overstatement to suggest that at this moment in our times, everyone in this room, in this country, in this world, has a stake in the answers to the many questions that fall under the umbrella of “What do we do now?”

I also happen to believe that the rain of answers that will come down on the umbrella — keeping my metaphors very much alive — will be blown around by three driving winds. Reality, spirituality, and ideology. I put them in what I consider to be descending order of force, and thus, importance.

I don’t have to tell you what the realities are at the moment domestically, on the economy, healthcare, education, immigration, among many, many others. Globally, also, the economy and finances as well as a war in Iraq that will soon end — but how? And will it really end? A war in Afghanistan that won’t go away, but it must. But when? And how? Threats, real and potential, from Iran and North Korea, from al Qaeda and its remnants and like minds.

After reality comes spirituality — the power of persuasion, of approaches and rhetoric, of appeals for cooperation, togetherness, the common good, mercy for all — no partisanship — the best of what’s in us, rather than what is the worst.

And then in my order of third, and last, place comes ideology. There may be a whole room of people here this morning, including Paul Begala and Michael Gerson who disagree, but from my view of things — polls, anecdotes, reporting — ideology is the least important driving force involved in “What do we do now?”

There are many messages from the outcome of the Presidential election results, I think one of the is clearly — as Sarah Palin might say — most people don’t give a “betcha” if it’s a liberal idea, a conservative idea, right, left or whatever. Just, please get this done! Get that fixed! Take ideas and proposals from the best of all ideologies and thinkers, and for God’s sake, run the government — domestically and overseas — competently, not politically.

If we’re going to leave Iraq, stop the killing in Afghanistan, if we’re going to even start another war, do it, but do it for the right reasons, and do it right, and nobody else should ever have to die because of the incompetence of governing.

One-third of our gross national product goes to taxes — no problem, mostly, for either conservatives, or liberals — if the tax money is well-spent, driven by realities instead of politics, implemented and supervised by well-meaning people, with only results, not axes, to grind, and so it goes.

I can think of no event during the recent election campaign that better illustrates my reality, spirituality and ideology division than the first Presidential debate — the one in Oxford, Mississippi, on September 26th. I was the moderator, I saw it from up-close, but that has nothing to do with my point.

Reality — well, the subject of the debate was to have been foreign policy and national assessment, but what happened? Reality intervened, and more than half of it turned out to be about the financial crisis and the economy.

Spirituality — what began to turn the election for Obama in a major way was not about the words that were spoken by either Obama or McCain that night, it was the manner and style of each — the first time they were seen together on the same stage, and that’s the first time people began to see Barack Obama as being Presidential. More possibly, to some at least, than John McCain.

On ideology — it was clear to all but the severely ideological, in my opinion, that this election between those two men was not ideological. It was totally irrelevant — ideology was totally irrelevant to most voters — to most of the people who watched the debate, and the others who followed. That was my observation at the time, and I believe the polling and other data has borne that out.

Now, it is remotely possible that wiser observers might see this, and everything else I’ve just said, very differently, and it is a possibility that we will now explore with Michael Gerson and Paul Begala.

Gerson and Begala are graduates of the real world. Gerson is a speech writer and staffer in the George W. Bush White House, he’s now a columnist for the Washington Post — I’m not suggesting that he’s no longer in the real world, as a columnist, and I certainly wouldn’t suggest that about Begala.

Begala, from the Clinton White House, now a commentator at CNN, and I welcome both of them here, formally. And I’m going to sit down now, and we’re going to have our discussion.

But let me say this — the discussion’s going to come — just to set a few of the parameters here — our discussion’s going to come in three waves, as guides to and through what we will now — what we do now — exploration. The Transition, Governing the First 100 Days, and Strengthening America’s Role in the World, as is part of your Impact ‘08 program.

And we’ll begin with a discussion among our two wise persons, and then open it up to questions from you all. You’re going to be given — you’ve got a card here where you can write a question, those questions will then be given to me, I will then look at them, choose the ones I want to ask, and then throw away the others.
[Laughter.]

JIM LEHRER: No. But that’s what moderators do. So — anyhow, let’s get started, here.

Transition: Paul — who’s going to be the Secretary of State?
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: Who knows? I’m more hard-wired to be a campaign person than a transition person, and the distinction is this: in a campaign, it’s all about screwing your enemies. A transition is about screwing your friends.
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: Because the one person who gets it is going to get that job because of his or her very close personal connection with the President-elect, and manifest qualifications, and the other 100 people who don’t will feel like they got shafted by somebody.

JIM LEHRER: In general, beginning with Paul, seriously, I mean, it’s only been a week, but it really began before, as we all know. How would you measure the quality and purpose, or whatever [indiscernible] that you want to use, of the transition, so far?

PAUL BEGALA: I think so far so good. It’s really, really difficult to go from campaigning to governing. You’re going 100 miles per hour. In a campaign, of course, you comment on everything, every movement of the Dow, every comment of the President, everything your opponent says.

And, in a transition, you know, you’ve got to stop, look and listen. You’ve got to stop that train, and you’ve got to think through, “What do I want to do?” You know, what do we do now? Like you mentioned, in that movie, The Candidate. And I think the President-elect has done a terrific job of that.

Unlike some others, he set this in place pretty early — asked John Podesta, former Clinton Chief-of-Staff to set up a Transition Team that is remarkably broad, and very, very methodical. So, he’s got a, I think, a very well-organized approach to this, and I think it sort of bespeaks the type of President he’s likely to be, the kind of candidate he was. He’s going through this in a very, very rigorous way.

I think there’s a couple of things, though, that are of primary importance. And for me, the first one is the rule that they have now pretty much gotten everybody in this room to memorize, those five words, “One President at a time.” Right? He can not stand there and — like he did just a week ago –
JIM LEHRER: Is that real?

PAUL BEGALA: Yes. It’s why he can’t go to the G-20 meeting.

JIM LEHRER: Does the world expect him to be the President right now?

PAUL BEGALA: It does, but they’re wrong. I agree, but that’s why — the President of the United States convened this G-20 meeting, it was the right thing to do — doesn’t matter what I think, but I think it was — it’s also the right thing to do for the President-elect to not show up, because you don’t want to confuse the world. We have one President at a time, and he needs to have clear reign to do whatever it is he sees in the national interest.

When President Clinton was transitioning in, his predecessor, the only President we have, committed troops to Somalia. It did not matter what Bill Clinton thought about that, he was not the President. He was an interested party, but he was not the President of the United States. President Bush, Senior had the sole authority to do that. I’m not saying this President is planning any foreign interventions, but those kinds of distinctions — you need a combination of a smooth hand-off, but also a clean break.

So, I think that’s the first thing. The second thing that I don’t know there’s been as much success on, is to try to convince all of us in the United States, but also around the world, that we need to take the long view of this. And we can get into this more when you talk about the 100 days, but I hate that whole notion that anything significant is going to happen within 100 days. I think he needs to do as good a job as he can in explaining to people that these are long-term problems, they’re going to take long-term to get out.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel that the beginning, this part has been, Michael?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I do think the purpose of campaigns is to raise expectations, and the purpose of transitions is to lower them, because then you actually have to govern, and I think Paul was just doing some of that.
[Laughter.]
JIM LEHRER: Very effectively, I must say, right.

MICHAEL GERSON: But I also think that the transition so far has been pretty smooth and encouraging. I think the people on the lists that are, at least, discussed — and there are very few people that know the actual lists, but the lists that are discussed are serious professionals, skilled — I mean, everyone except John Kerry, in my view.
[Laughter.]

MICHAEL GERSON: But, you know, it would be absolutely extraordinary to add the pomp of that office to his own pompousness, but –
[Laughter.]
JIM LEHRER: Moving right along –

MICHAEL GERSON: Someone objected –
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: There’s a Kerry supporter running the board, there.

MICHAEL GERSON: But I do think these are strong lists, I think he’s benefiting from a genuinely warm transition. That hasn’t always been historically true. I was looking at David McCullough’s book on Truman the other day, and when Eisenhower came on Inaugural Day to the North Portico of the White House, he would not come in the White House and get coffee with the President. He waited for Truman to come to him.

You can’t even imagine, now, what was happen in the press if something like that were to happen. But this, from all of the evidence, I think, and from people I know at the White House, has been genuinely, not just formally correct, but I think, you know, genuinely kind of warm and welcoming, the outreach.

JIM LEHRER: But, Michael, on the substance, and picking up on something that Paul said, everybody says directly, these are difficult times — a nation at war in a couple of places, we’ve got a huge financial crisis, we’ve got all kinds of global problems, endless problems. Does it make sense for the current — for the existing President of the United States to do something that the incoming President would not agree with at this stage?

MICHAEL GERSON: No, I think they’re being very sensitive about that. I mean, the reality –

JIM LEHRER: We’re talking about major things — I’m not talking about small, I’m talking about big things.

MICHAEL GERSON: No, I agree with that. I mean, I think it was necessary at a key point in the campaign, no matter what the politics was, to stabilize the — attempt to stabilize the credit markets, and then, you know, there are all sorts of outworkings of that now.

But, no I agree. I don’t think there will be, you know, a lot of major initiatives, a lot of — you know, there have been some Executive Orders that I think the new President will overturn when he comes in, just like President Bush did when he was there.

JIM LEHRER: What’s the point for us, as well, having a — and this is a devil’s advocate question — of having a global summit, the President-elect, the man’s going to [indiscernible] there’s going to be people there as stenographers, Madeleine Albright and Jim Leach.

PAUL BEGALA: Yeah, but a little higher class than –

JIM LEHRER: They’re part of the government, and they probably won’t be part of the new government, and why is that a good thing to do?

PAUL BEGALA: But, I think for the reasons that Michael stated a minute ago — is we are in the middle of a crisis. I think, actually, we’re not in the middle, we’re in the beginning of a crisis, I should say. And we can’t just freeze for 77 days, and say, “Well, we’ll have a new President in 7 weeks, or 10 weeks, rather, so let’s let him come in and take care of this.”

There was a good deal of pressure from other world leaders, the Australian press leaked that the Australian PM had asked President Bush to convene the G-20, I’m sure many others around the world have been asking for this, and America is — as Madeleine Albright used to say, and President Clinton used to say — the indispensable nation. We are still the indispensable nation, even in a time of transition. So, I think it’s useful to bring everyone together.
JIM LEHRER: Just to talk, then?

PAUL BEGALA: To talk — you’re not going to get huge actions out of it, but at least to come together, and to talk, and I do think that, you know, people will listen, I think, to — certainly, obviously, what the President says — but to what Madeleine says, as well. How she responds.

JIM LEHRER: You don’t think, Michael, that people at that table from the other countries are going to say, “What is up with this?” I mean, what am I supposed to do? What is George W. Bush going to do, bring back a message to Barack Obama? I mean, what will they — who’s talking –

MICHAEL GERSON: No, I think they probably view it from a different perspective. People in the White House and people in the campaign are taking this crisis day-by-day, and the question is whether it’s a reassuring day, or a disastrous one. And, you know, if that helps reassure markets, if that helps stabilize, you know, the concerns about these things — it’s worth doing.

I think that the initial appointments that Obama makes are going to play in that, as well, whether he — you know, he’s not going to gauge in the policy. But whoever he picks for the Secretary of the Treasury is going to be seen as a reassuring pick, or not as a reassuring pick, and you know, I mean, that’s the goal. I think it’s a day-by-day sort of goal.

JIM LEHRER: Let me — I looked at the book that the folks put out, Impact ‘08 people, their Plum Book, 100 jobs in the government that — the new government — that effect things from their perspective. And it occurred to me, and so I’m asking you, Paul, and you, Michael — is when they look at this list, in other words, the Barack Obama Administration, which has the potential for filling these jobs, what are the diversity mandates that are going to be on there, in other words, when they take the final picture of the 100 people in the graduating class, the people who were chosen, what are they going to look like? What are they going to be like? In terms — not just of their expertise, but all of the other things that come out of this election as mandates?

PAUL BEGALA: Well, I think that, you know, again, back in my day, Clinton said he wanted a Cabinet, a government that looked like America, in that diversity. I think President-elect Obama, if anything, is going to even have a broader view of what diversity is, particularly in — on these issues that Impact ‘08 cares about.

We need a bipartisan foreign policy. And a whole lot of Democrats have been very impressed with Secretary Gates, who I saw in the video, there. Despite the fact that, I have to say, as a Texan, that he was the President of Texas A&M University — I went to the University of Texas –
JIM LEHRER: And that’s a huge difference, by the way.
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: A&M is sort of a remedial school, so when you see Gates, you have to talk real slow –
[Laughter.]
JIM LEHRER: Farming school.

PAUL BEGALA: It’s a farm school.

No, but so — I think that in addition to, you know, racial diversity and gender diversity and sort of standard types of diversity, I think I certainly want to see greater diversity of background, you know. This President-elect has been a professor and a politician, essentially. He was a community organizer, much to the disdain of Republicans, but that’s pretty much been his job history. If all we have are professors and politicians in our government, that would be too limiting, right? That’s why it’s really important Impact ‘08 that there generals and admirals –

JIM LEHRER: No matter what their race or what their gender.

PAUL BEGALA: Right. So, in addition to the traditional, sort of demographic diversity, I think you also need this diversity of background, and diversity of ideology, of partisanship, so that there are serious Republicans. And by which, I mean, the Big Four, with respect to President Bush, [indiscernible] as a great man, Secretary of Transportation, the only Democrat in his Administration. That’s not good enough anymore.

President Clinton’s third Defense Secretary, Bill Cohen –
JIM LEHRER: Why does that — why does it matter?

PAUL BEGALA: Because, particularly in national security matters, it’s really helpful to have partisanship stop at the water’s edge.
JIM LEHRER: You agree with that? Just as a principle?

MICHAEL GERSON: I do agree. I mean, if you look at some of the historical precedents, you know, John Kennedy had a Republican Secretary of the Treasury, Dillon. Nixon had the –

PAUL BEGALA: And Defense, McNamara –

MICHAEL GERSON: Right.

PAUL BEGALA: — was a Republican. There used to be a car company called Ford, McNamara ran it –
[Laughter.]
JIM LEHRER: Is that what happened?

MICHAEL GERSON: And, you know, Nixon had John Connelly at Treasury –

PAUL BEGALA: Right.

MICHAEL GERSON: And I think Cohen was a good pick for Bill Clinton. I think that that can be a very important signal.

In Gates’ case, also, though, I would make the case that it’s a reward for excellence. I mean, he’s actually good at — yeah, it’s not just symbolic, he’s actually very good at his job. The kind of transformation that he’s undertaken in the military relates very much to this agenda, I mean, a kind of broader understanding of what the exercise of power means.

There’s very few people in America that have gone before the Congress — few Cabinet Secretaries I’ve ever seen — and urged more money for another department, which he did on State, which I think is very admirable. And they actually, in some ways, share some basic foreign policy views. I think that Gates, if he had his druthers, would be for the engagement — you know, greater engagement with Iran. And that’s very much the agenda of the new President, as well.

JIM LEHRER: He already said on Afghanistan, very similar [indiscernible].

PAUL BEGALA: He also, Secretary Gates, gave a speech — it was kind of at the height of the campaign, I don’t know that very many people noticed it, but it caught my attention, I think it was at the Armory War College, I’m not sure, but it was essentially a really tough speech attacking too much ideology — and not in the political sense.

It was really a shot at Rumsfeld, candidly. Where he said, basically, “Beware of anyone who comes to you with grand, sweeping theories of reinventing the entire world, and particularly in national defense.” It was, to my mind, a very reassuring speech. It showed me that we’re learning from the mistakes. Rather than saying that, “Yes, we’ll fight two wars, but we’ll fight them on the cheap, and very few troops — he went back to the eternal verities of combat, and very much warned these officers not to be taken in by new, grand, sweeping theories.

And I find that reassuring, having been through a couple of cycles in my Party, and watching the other Party, with new theories about how we’re going to create a whole new world.

JIM LEHRER: The other thing about Bob Gates that’s not well known, and is also reassuring to a small, small segment of the population, is that Bob Gates was born at Wesley Hospital in Wichita, Kansas. And so was I.
[Laughter.]
JIM LEHRER: Different rooms. Different decades. But nevertheless.
[Laughter.]

JIM LEHRER: The — let’s go to the — let’s talk about, because what these folks are — they’re here, they’re interested, obviously, in the Plum jobs. And we’re talking reality, here, reality is that Joe Biden is going to be the Vice President, he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — what do you foresee would be a good way to function in foreign policy areas, with a Joe Biden and a Secretary of State, or what kind of Secretary of State, what kind of person — you can fill names in, if you want, or you don’t want to, but what would be the best solution to that problem, as to how to run the Obama foreign policy.

PAUL BEGALA: Well, some of the people close to the President-elect say he was quite taken with Doris Kerns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals. And you may well see a team of rivals.

Now, sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn’t. I mean, those of us who are old enough to remember that Secretary of Defense Weinberger hardly spoke to Secretary of State Schultz. And it went through many Administrations of each Party, where particularly those two titans tended to fight, and it’s a wonderful thing how Gates and Rice have gotten along in these last few years.

But I think you may see that sort of thing, and Biden would be, you know, one of those titans, as well. To have a Vice President with that kind of international experience, should only be a good thing.

I think, and because I guess I’m a prisoner of my own experience being at the White House — it make the National Security Advisor role all the more importantly. She or he has got to be both strong and an honest broker, and that’s hard to be both. Most people who are really strong –
JIM LEHRER: Honest broker between whom and whom?

PAUL BEGALA: All of these power centers, particularly State, Defense, and the Vice President. You know, the President-elect, I am quite sure, did not pick Joe Biden for Delaware’s three electoral votes.
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: It was not a political deal. He wanted someone strong, he wanted someone experienced, and even 10 years ago, I saw Senator Biden get into the President of the United States’ face and say, “Sir, you’re wrong.” And that’s what a President needs.

So, I think it’s wonderful, but it’s going to mean, you have to have real strength at the center, or this thing could just spin out.

JIM LEHRER: How do you — what’s been your experience [indiscernible]?

MICHAEL GERSON: No, I agree with — my experience was exactly parallel. The role of the NSC is to come up with a process where the President gets that kind of input and gets the information to make his own decision, and it becomes essential when you have disagreements. And, you know, there has to be someone who’s viewed with trust in that system, that they’re going to bring conflicting views to the President.

But the problem with the team of rivals, as you’ve mentioned, if you look at that team of prospective people for the Obama foreign policy team, they’re very strong. I mean, I think they’re serious people. But you don’t get an ideological framework out of that.

There are people on that list that want to normalize relations with Burma, and engage them. There are people who want to confront them further, okay? There are people who strongly, you know, kind of distance themselves from a democracy and a human rights agenda, in a more realistic tradition, there are people who embrace it, and think that the implementation of the Bush Administration has been, you know, flawed, but don’t reject the theory.

And it’s going to be interesting to see how those things turn out, because, you know, in many ways he hasn’t taken positions on a variety of these things.

JIM LEHRER: But if you take the rivals thing, and here again, I don’t want this to come out as a criticism, but just as an observation — the convention wisdom, and you may have a — you were inside, you may have an entirely different view of this — the conventional wisdom was that in the George W. Bush Administration you had a Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense who despised one another, and you had a National Security Advisor who was unable, or unwilling, to resolve the differences. And as a consequence, the Vice President was the one who called more of the shots on foreign policy and national security issues than might have been otherwise.

First of all, is that correct, and if so, is that any kind of pattern that should be followed?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, it’s a complicated topic, but I do think — I think it’s largely correct, except for maybe the last portion. I think sometimes the Vice President’s influence on that process was –
JIM LEHRER: An overstatement?

MICHAEL GERSON: It has been overstated.

You know, I went through, for example, the process of coming up with our approach on Arafat in the Middle East, sitting in those meetings. And you had — it was a high-level debate between Colin Powell, and the Vice President and Condi and you know, intelligence people and others.

But ultimately, it was very much the President who brought an entirely different perspective to that, and it was his own views. I mean, ultimately that’s what happens. The President had a very strong and active role in that policy process, he deserves the credit or blame.

But I agree with you — I think that a strong National Security Advisor — what it really does is make people feel like they were accurately and fully presented in the system –
JIM LEHRER: To the President?

MICHAEL GERSON: — to the President. That they weren’t — you know, that the playing field was fair, and that’s important to get buy-ins and consensus when you move forward, so –

JIM LEHRER: But this is so relevant, because it seems to me, all of you who disagree, say so, that we’re confronted now with a situation, also with a newly elected President, with limited national security and foreign policy experience, Barack Obama, [indiscernible], George W. Bush compensated by selecting a Vice President — very strong Vice President, very strong Secretary of State, very strong Secretary of Defense, and some would argue that that didn’t work out very well.

But, whether it did or did not, is that how — how is Obama going to deal with this? In other words, is going to have — would he be likely, more likely to have a stronger Secretary of State and a weaker National Security Advisor, or a stronger National Security Advisor — remember, Henry Kissinger used to be a National Security Advisor –

PAUL BEGALA: Then he was both.
JIM LEHRER: What?

PAUL BEGALA: Then he was both — both NSA and Secretary of State.

JIM LEHRER: Then he was both, among other things, yeah, right.

But, I mean, in terms of looking at it — but these folks are interested in what the whole world’s interested in — is how Barack Obama is going to weigh these kind of things, when he chooses beyond diversity, beyond all of these other things, experience, he’s got personalities he’s got to deal with, and how does he want the whole thing to work?

PAUL BEGALA: Well, I think this is going to be the question of how much he personally engages. You know, very often — this is oversimplification — but very often first terms are all about domestic and economic issues, and second terms, Presidents learn more, they get kind of their feet under them, and they focus more internationally. This President won’t have a choice, because he’s coming into office with two hot wars going, and other problem spots around the world. In addition to an economic crisis that is as much global as it is domestic. So, he’ll have no choice, he’ll have to engage.

Now, I do think where he is different from some of his predecessors, particularly his immediate predecessor, is I think he has a more fully formed world view. Even though he hasn’t spent a lot of time in formal diplomacy, I can’t remember the last President who lived any considerable part of his life overseas, before ascending to the Presidency. I think JFK was too old, he was in college when his father was at the Court of St. James. Teddy lived in London, but so I’m not quite sure, I don’t know, it’s been a long time, maybe never, that we’ve had a President who had this, sort of, on the ground experience in the world.

And also, as Liz pointed out in her talk, has really put forward a very fully-formed set of ideas and a world view. And if there’s nothing else you take a look at, I guess I would commend you his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative — maybe just because I was there, and McCain gave a terrific speech, as well. And I thought the two of them, I thought, “This is going to last. This will be the blueprint.” Go look at what then-Senator Obama said, he made specific commitments about the Millennium Fund, about doubling the foreign assistance budget, about doubling the Peace Corps, and expanding USAID. So, he has a real sense of what he wants to do on these things.

MICHAEL GERSON: Yeah, he made specific commitments in an unbelievably difficult environment, going forward. You know, you would not necessarily choose the beginnings of a recession to do healthcare, or to do significant environmental, you know, cap-and-trade system or other things — there’s going to be a tremendous conflict of priorities in the early stages, which is maybe the most important portion of the transition, is phasing what you do first.

And I’m afraid, we saw in the campaign, some of the immediate reaction from Biden, and the President-elect, was to back off of some of these international commitments. They’ve said, “Well, it’s going to be slower than we thought.” That’s realism. I don’t deny that they’re facing tough things, but these are a particularly tough set of issues, in a certain way.

The — the polling on international issues, even thought there’s a bipartisan consensus on many of them, is mixed, at best. These things often get up on a back burner, second tier. And, but — in my own view, we can’t afford to do that, in the world that we live in.

And someone there — the important thing is, someone in that small group around the President — there are a half a dozen or a dozen people that make a real difference, the daily difference in a President’s life, and have access to him. There has to be somebody in that system who is a consistent, emotional advocate for these ideals, or –
JIM LEHRER: What kind of person?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well I was just — it could come from a variety of sources. I look at the last Administration, the role that Josh Bolton played in a lot of this, first as Deputy Chief of Staff for policy, where he was very important in the AIDS initiative. Then as OMB, in not blocking funding for a variety of things, now as Chief of Staff, to do this. You know, he’s played an essential role in all of this.

I was with, just a couple of months ago, two people for which I have tremendous respect in Rwanda, was with John Podesta, and Tom Daschle. Both of those men bring this perspective, they would be very strong. I hope — I root for their influence in this kind of position.

JIM LEHRER: Was there a counterpart to that, that put Josh Bolton and these people in the Clinton Administration when you were working there?

PAUL BEGALA: Well, sure, a lot. I mean, I guess, I keep coming back to the National Security Advisor, first in Tony Lake, then in Sandy Berger –
JIM LEHRER: Who?

PAUL BEGALA: Clinton’s two National Security Advisors, first Lake and then Sandy Berger, very — Sandy particularly, very close to the President, but also, I think, a very good, honest broker, trying to push these issues forward, but it’s going to come back to the President, rather than even just the people around him.

And I think that — for people who agree with Impact ’08’s agenda, I think that’s probably a very good thing. I think he’s got this in his bones and understands it, and he has many gifts, but one of the most important is the gift of being able to explain, and to make this case. This is going to be very important. And, you know, don’t sell our country men and women short. I was very worried after 9/11 that support for Israel would collapse, people wrongly would blame American support for Israel, it did not; it went up. And I think now, as a recession hits, a President who can explain these things, can make the case as to why we need to be engage overseas more, why it’s better for us.

But I remember when, in the 70’s, Lloyd Benson, who was a Senator from Texas, and I grew up in a little town where Jim’s dad used to drive the bus through, my old town, to take people to Houston –
JIM LEHRER: Yes, that’s right, that’s right.

PAUL BEGALA: And we had a Senate race, Benson was being challenged by a guy named Jim Collins, from Dallas. And in the 70’s, Benson had –
JIM LEHRER: Yep, yep, very conservative guy.

PAUL BEGALA: Whoa. And Benson had voted for foreign aid to Nicaragua, which was actually a Cold War deal, it was to Samosa, so usually the attack would be from the left, you supporter a right-wing dictator, this came from the ultra right. And I remember the ad, he had a guy in a straw cowboy hat, and he said, “Lloyd Benson voted to send our tax dollars to Nicaragua.” And he pushed the hat back on his head and said, “Where the hell is Nicaragua, anyhow?”
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: I thought that’s what would happen after 9/11, and it didn’t, great credit to President Bush, to Michael and his work, but I think this President can help to boost that support for international aid.

JIM LEHRER: The folks here who are concerned about the ‘08 agenda are — have already expressed to me a concern that, by the time we deal with the things we have to deal with, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea — you go down the list — plus the financial — but then overlay the financial crisis over that, and then you say, “Okay, now, let’s do some, let’s improve and let’s increase foreign assistance and foreign — ” it could get lost in the shuffle. Who’s going to keep — make sure it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle.

MICHAEL GERSON: To some extent, that’s what I was arguing. It takes someone who sits in the meetings, okay? Who says, “This is vital. Vital to your legacy, vital to the kind of moral standing of our country, vital to our national security for a variety of reasons that are a little more long-term than the immediate crisis,” you know, there’s no substitute for that, in my experience — you need someone who will push those things.

I look at — the problem with the NSC is they have crisis upon crisis, every single day –
JIM LEHRER: They’re in the crisis business.

MICHAEL GERSON: Right, they’re in the crisis business. The people who actually deal with these things, it’s actually a fairly small staff, attention is easily diverted, and it, you know, you need — it’s on reason why maybe some structural reform going into this, you know, having someone at the NSC who focuses on these issues, which we don’t really have now. Or focuses on genocide in conflict. Those issues often get pushed aside, there may be institutional ways to raise their prominence in the next Administration.

JIM LEHRER: I think people — in other words, in the Obama Administration — believe in this stuff, and get them jobs, right?

PAUL BEGALA: Yes, and put them places — Michael makes a good point — the White House is, there are some exceptions, like the National Security Council and other, which are statutorily mandated, but the White House is the freest bureaucracy in the Federal government, you can do whatever you want with it. And yet, it tends to grow like a coral reef; we each inherit what the predecessor did, and then maybe add on here and there. There’s nothing in the law that says you have to have a White House Office of Political Affairs, right? Political guys like me like it, but you don’t have to have it.

Impact ‘08 is suggesting just what Michael said, which is a Deputy National Security Advisor for Development, I think it would be a really good idea. There are others at the Center for American Progress that are suggesting — like, Truman created the National Security Council, Clinton created the National Economic Council, there’s now talk of a National Environmental Council, or a National Energy Council, which some of the think-tank folks at the Center for American Progress have proposed.

Those kind of structural things matter a whole lot, Michael’s right. Because then you put someone in there whose whole job it is, is to be concerned about our national security through development, and that’s why I think you all are smart to call it “smart power” not “soft power.” No American wants anything soft, right? We want something smart, and tough and strong.
[Laughter.]

JIM LEHRER: Let me — another thing, of course, that the ‘08 people are concerned about, as any American would be is the image of America abroad. And what can be done by the new President and his Administration, to make people stop hating us. Is there — is just, to be simple about it, but is there a way forward, is there a program to do that? Or is it — does it have to be done by actions? In other words, you resolve this crisis in such a way that doesn’t alienate the rest of the world — you take these steps of — you could be Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, go through the list of things that have to be done — is it about action, or is it about something else?

MICHAEL GERSON: Oh, I think action matters, I think the diplomacy of deeds is quite important. The reality is –
JIM LEHRER: You mean abroad?

MICHAEL GERSON: Right, exactly. The great thing about any new Administration — and it would have been true with either — is that it’s a new beginning, a chance to start again, and chance to, you know, to re-launch an appeal — that’s a great thing about our system, it’s marvelous.

I think, in my view, which is, you know, not shared by everyone from the Administration, but I think it’s going to be real progress to close Guantanamo, which has become a tremendous liability, and would have been done by John McCain –
JIM LEHRER: That’s an action that can be taken –

MICHAEL GERSON: Right, exactly.

PAUL BEGALA: Well, it’ll take some time.

MICHAEL GERSON: Right.
JIM LEHRER: Oh, sure.

MICHAEL GERSON: It’ll take some time because you have to find out where to put people, but people in Kansas don’t really want them, necessarily –

PAUL BEGALA: By the way, I nominate Crawford, Texas –

MICHAEL GERSON: Right.
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: It’s already surrounded by barbed wire –

MICHAEL GERSON: I do think that further engagement which is going to come on environmental issues will help, particularly if we deal with Carpin in a kind of forthright way.

But if you look at the polling, the Pew Global Survey that they do, the most comprehensive polling on this, I mean, there’s some things you can take care of, and there are some things you can’t. I mean, a lot of this resentment for America is concentrated in the Middle East, the kind of — Indonesia, Turkey and other places — and you know, they want us to abandon support of Israel, and they want us to get out of Afghanistan — neither of which is going to happen in the next Administration, and the world will find that out.

You know, and particularly on Afghanistan, I think that President-elect Obama’s commitment is quite strong — it was stronger than McCain’s during the debates. And Pakistan, and some of these other issues.

So, there are some things you can do, some things you can’t.

Now, I would also add there, though, that Africa’s an interesting example of kind of how this agenda can make a difference, in a certain way. If you look at that polling, maybe 7 or 8 of the countries with the best view of America are in Africa, okay? There are a couple, I think two of them, that have a higher view of America than Americans do of America, in the polling.

And I think the new President has a tremendous — his father was Kenyan — this is an extraordinary opportunity to do outreach and continue progress, you know, on a strategically important continent. He will be advised — I wrote this the other day — by some people, “You have to focus on blue-collar, middle class concerns, you have to focus on broad concerns, you can’t be narrow, don’t emphasize your own background,” that’s a total mistake in this circumstance. He has a historic opportunity to address problems of inequality in the United States, race in the United States, but also a kind of enduring relationship with Africa by, in some cases, continuing, I think, Bush initiatives. I mean, aid to Africa has more than tripled in the Bush Administration. The President is very popular in the continent in many places.

But, I think he has an unique opportunity to build on that and create last ties of goodwill that will serve America very, very well in the future.
JIM LEHRER: Do you share that?

PAUL BEGALA: I do, and I think you have to leverage — he is the man, and he is change incarnate. And — his election, it’s not even just him, it’s We the People. The fact that we chose him showed the world, which is very often angry at us because we don’t seem, in their eyes, to live up to our ideals. In this case, I think, most people would say that we did, right? I mean, African-Americans are still a distinct minority in this country, and yet an African-American has ascended to our top job — very unlikely in most of the rest of the world.

I mean, I just — I remember when, many years ago, Dublin, Ireland elected a Jewish man mayor. And Yogi Berra said, “Only in America.”
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: But that’s sort of how we view ourselves, right? And so, here we have in this country which — comparatively small percentage of African-Americans, an African-American President. But then it has to be leveraged. And it’s one of the smaller commitments that Senator Obama made, but it matters, this — he wants a $2 billion educational fund for around the world.

I talked to a journalist from Pakistan the other day who said, “You know, your country’s view spiked way up when President Bush rushed in after the earthquake. And God Bless him, that was America at its best.” By the way, the same thing with the tsunami in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, we rushed in, our President led us, it was a wonderful moment.

But it seems in the eyes — at least of this journalist I talked to — to have dropped off. Meanwhile, the Madrassas are still being built, and they’re being financed by people who hate America, and they’re being taught, they’re teaching their children to hate our country.

Well, it’s not very much money, but if we had that sort of an educational commitment around the world that Senator Obama has talked about, he now has to follow that through. So, it’s not just enough to say, “Oh, we have a new face, and he looks more like the world then the guys you’re used to seeing,” we have to follow up with concrete policies, as well.

JIM LEHRER: All right, let’s take some of these questions, from you all. Some of them are overlapping, but how should the President-elect sell to the public the need for greater investment and poverty alleviation? We’ve kind of touched on that. You think you’d want to add to that?

MICHAEL GERSON: No, I just think you need both elements, I think that there is a moral aspect to American foreign policy, there are many Americans who don’t necessarily think about the broad strategic element, but they view America in a certain way — that we’re a force for moral good in the world. That’s joined left and right, you can build coalitions there, it’s very important to do that.

But then you need to make the case, which I think is a very, very clear one, particularly in the post-9/11 world, that many of the threats to America arise in weak states and ungoverned regions, not in great powers. You know, that’s true not just of terrorism, but of human trafficking, and it’s true of criminal gangs, and drug problems, and refugees, and pandemics, and all of these issues. So, you have to make this tie, as well — both of those elements of the message — the moral and the interest are both necessary, and I think, actually, that Barack Obama is a very fine communicator, and can make that case very strongly.

JIM LEHRER: And the case about it’s in our self-interest, it’s not a do-good thing, in and of — it’s in our self-interest.

MICHAEL GERSON: It’s not an altruistic add-on to American policy, it’s a centerpiece of America’s, you know, security commitment to a more, you know, kind of just and stable world. That’s in our interest, and you know, that case needs to be made.

PAUL BEGALA: But it is both. I mean, one of the lasting contributions that President Bush has made with Michael’s help, is to really engage the faith-based community, particularly conservative Christians who could very easily have listened to a call to “Come home, America,” and to give into — there’s both on the left and the right — there are strong, still, isolationist tendencies. I think it’s a wonderful thing that both of our parties have nominated committed internationalists.

But the President helped to engage the faith-based community in support of foreign assistance, and I think that that can be built on from a center-left President, as well.

MICHAEL GERSON: It’s a fascinating — just one more point — it’s a fascinating, unifying political fact, that the constituency for foreign assistance is not in one party. There’s actually opposition in both parties. If you look at the polling among more blue-collar Democrats, they want first dollar money to go to domestic concerns, healthcare, and a lot of things in many cases.

If you look at more traditional or secular conservatives in the Republican Party, they are the most opposed to foreign assistance, because they don’t think government should have the role.

But, if you look in both communities, religious and moral conservatives, in the Republican Party, are the most open to foreign assistance. The Democrats who support soft power, more college-educated Democrats, they’re very supportive. That alliance is a very important one, in order to make this — to create a constituency for foreign assistance in America, and it’s one I saw at the White House, in one of the most divisive periods in modern history. I found tremendous alliances between religious conservatives and human rights liberals on issues from AIDS to malaria, to conflict in Darfur, to human trafficking — to a variety of issues. And that’s going to be important, I think, for this new Administration to cultivate.

JIM LEHRER: Question here is that with all of the — with the financial — given the financial crisis, is it going to be possible for President Obama to keep his commitment to double foreign assistance by 2012. Where does that fit in to all of the things we’ve talked about?

PAUL BEGALA: The question is, by when? In an odd way — President Reagan once said this when asked about the deficit, he said, “Well, it’s big enough, it can take care of itself.”
[Laughter.]

PAUL BEGALA: And, in an odd way, when President Clinton came into office in the transition, there was a meeting in the Governor’s mansion in Little Rock, where all the propeller heads from Washington came down and said, “Gee, sir, it’s a whole lot bigger than we thought, and it’s a whole lot bigger than we told you, and the deficit is much larger.” And Clinton recalibrated, and he made deficit reduction a much more important part of his economic plan than it had been in his campaign, much to the consternation of some of his political advisors, because deficit reduction is not good politically, it doesn’t sell well, to tell people you’re going to raise their taxes and cut spending.

They’re going to have that same briefing with the President-elect. I don’t believe they’ve had it, yet. But they’re going to say, “I know it’s reported that the deficit is 450 — guess what? It’s 750, going to a trillion.”
JIM LEHRER: Sure.

PAUL BEGALA: And they will have that conversation. But, I think, the better argument, both from conservative and liberal economists seems to be, in the near-term, we still have to inflate it. Because the greatest economic threat Clinton faced was the deficit. Things are so bad now, the good news is, the deficit is about the third or fourth worst economic problem that we face.

And it is — I think — likely that there will be a consensus saying, I know that 750 is big, maybe even a trillion is big, but we have to inflate it to get this thing going again, because actually deflation is a very real threat, here, and it’s much harder to fight than inflation.

JIM LEHRER: It all depends on what you mean by “good news.”

PAUL BEGALA: Right, it’s the least worst — yeah, it’s the least bad news.
JIM LEHRER: The least bad news, right.

There’s a question here that I think you’ve already asked, asked, Michael, about — that you’ve already spoken to, President Bush and the HIV/AIDS, malaria priorities, whether those are likely to continue, there’s no question about that, is there?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I — for one — I’m hopeful about the future, but I’m very glad that the AIDS and malaria reauthorization took place this year. Because moving forward, it might have been a much greater challenge to fund at the levels that they’ve been talking about. And so, I’m glad that happened.

I think there’s a significant consensus on those issues, I don’t think there’s a lot of Congressional controversy. My real concerns are about MCC. One of the biggest development challenges we have is –
JIM LEHRER: The what?

MICHAEL GERSON: Development challenges that we have, is that it’s much easier to sell internally and externally, disease programs, because you get immediate results. You know, I was in Rwanda recently, they’ve had a 2/3rds result — reduction — in death from Malaria among children in 2 years. Okay? Just an extraordinary change. That is politically sustainable.

When you invest, like, with the MCC, in long-term economic growth, infrastructure, legal changes, rights of women, all of those sort of things, it takes 10 or 20 years to see results, and it’s a much tougher sell in the long term.

So, MCC in my view, is absolutely essential in that kind of investment, working with partners to get long-term economic growth, but it’s going to be a tougher battle in the next Administration.

JIM LEHRER: In the closing minutes, here, somebody asked this question earlier, I will just cover it with you, Paul, and go back to [indiscernible] on this, we — it’s the question about optimism. We said, we are talking, as is everybody in every other room in the world, talking about all of the problems we’ve got. And I mean, big things, [indiscernible], those of us who were born in Wichita or grew up in Texas, those who have worked in the White House, in a White House or whatever — everybody’s worried about terrible, terrible things, and financial crisis and the overlay on it. And yet we have a new President. Yet we have a new spirit and people with new involvement, and all kinds of people in our process have never been there before.

There are people in the streets, all over the world saying, “Rah, rah, rah, America is just this — ” whatever. Is the optimism — can the optimism, the spirit of optimism be the — a moving force in and of itself, or is it always going to have to be the specifics of HIV, Iraq, Iran, where we talk to this guy, where we do this and that, or at we at a point in our lives where we have a little extra something going for us, or do you have — what do you think?

PAUL BEGALA: I think when you see great leaders, in our culture, certainly, they’re always optimistic. And you need the combination, you know, I think, of course FDR and the history books came to power in the midst of — the beginning of the Great Depression, and his slogan was, “Happy days are here again!” And we didn’t really pull out of that Depression for 13 years. And yet he sustained us. He had lots of policy proposals, some of which got shot down by the Supreme Court, but he kept trying and trying, but he also kept believing, and kept us believing.

Same thing with Ronald Reagan — I didn’t support his policy agenda, but I loved his optimism, he was a classic American. He came to power at a very bad time for our country, of strong sense across the country that the previous President had failed. And there was all kinds of talk that maybe we should have, divide the job up, maybe one 6-year term, it’s just too big for anybody to handle. And he made us believe in ourselves again. And even he said, as he left office, that that was probably the most important thing.

I’ve worked for Bill Clinton, he was an endless optimist, he was very much, I think, in that mode.

So, I do think that it is, I guess General Powell would call it a force multiplier, that sense of American optimism, and I think that is very deep in the bones of Senator Obama, and it is instructive — even in a terrible time, we almost always elect the more optimistic candidate.

Anxiety often leads to anger, but it –

JIM LEHRER: Do you think that’s part of the American spirit?

PAUL BEGALA: I do.
JIM LEHRER: That causes us to do that?

PAUL BEGALA: I do. Why did my party reject John Edwards? Hillary’s very much more popular, so was Senator Obama, but Edwards was closer to describing how real people in my Party felt, and yet we didn’t like that anger. Democrats, Americans don’t elect the angry man. And I think –
JIM LEHRER: They never have, have they?

PAUL BEGALA: I can’t think of a time — Nixon’s pretty angry, but, you know, that’s the exception –

JIM LEHRER: Well, look at George W. Bush, George W. Bush was elected because he was considered optimistic, right?

MICHAEL GERSON: And, you know, I have some policy concerns about the next Administration, but this is a moment where there reason for optimism, in this country.

I mean, I went back before I worked on the President’s first inaugural, and read all of the inaugurals in American history. And the story of America is this conflict about race and opportunity. I mean, it’s true of, you know, the debates of the founding that run up to the Civil War, the Civil War reconstruction, civil rights — all this, is America going to be true to its highest ideals in every circumstance, or not?

And they — the reality is, we’re going to see a President take an oath of Office on the West Front of the Capital, yards from where there were slave pens in the 19th Century. We’re going to have a man who sleeps in a building that was built, in part, by slave labor. And that is one of the great, shining moments in the history of our country, no matter what the current circumstances are. Everybody should take pride in that, no matter what happens.

So, you know, that shows we’re the country we want to be in a lot of ways.

And so, for me, the new President begins with a tremendous advantage. You know, his winning that office is a great moment in our history.

JIM LEHRER: Show of hands, in this group, how many of you share that feeling? No matter your politics.

PAUL BEGALA: That’s remarkable.

JIM LEHRER: It is. It is. Because I have a hunch, if we’d been here — never mind, never mind.
[Laughter.]

JIM LEHRER: It is — what I find, and I speak only for myself as an observer, as an observer, not as a pundit, because I’m not a pundit, you all are pundits, but the fact to hear you say this, Michael. And not just you, both others who are on the “losing party” in an election, and you on the winning party, almost using the same words.

Did you all notice — did you notice the thing I noticed? As they were answering these questions? They used almost the same words. It’s the thought, you know, and the divisions that you have to have to have a meaningful election, you have to make choices — this person versus this person, this person believes this, this person believes that. The divisions are why you have elections. You wouldn’t have to have them if everybody agreed on them.

But those who are the most divided have now, at this particular moment, for a whole set of circumstances that have to do with bad news, because a lot of people would argue, a lot of pundits included, that Barack Obama with all of his this and that and whatever, would never have been elected had there not been a financial crisis.

So, it was bad news that helped spur a lot of this stuff. But I must say, listening to these two wonderful people, and wise people with experience and ideas, and be with you who share the optimism, it’s been terrific, thank you all very much.
[Applause.]

LIZ SCHRAYER: In closing today, I have three quick points. First and foremost, that round of applause — what a treat, all of us, who were willing to battle the traffic and the rain to hear the three of you share your views, that you are all spectacular.
[Applause.]

LIZ SCHRAYER: Second, and very important, I stand up here for the last 18 months representing Impact ‘08, but I am really not the star of Impact ‘08. The people who greet you in the hall, who run around and put the stage together, who do our communications policy, field and program work, led by our magnificent managing director of Impact ‘08, Carolyn Reynolds, really deserve a round of applause, thank you.
[Applause.]

LIZ SCHRAYER: And last but not least, is where we go next. Impact ‘08 may end in the next few months, but our journey, as I said, is not done. Translating these campaign promises, and the network of activists and leaders that we have built throughout the country is just the beginning to make sure that the policies and ideas that were created and articulated in this campaign are carried forward.

Over the next few weeks and months ahead, the Center for U.S. Global Engagement will be talking about our next initiatives, that will take the same network, and work particularly with the Congressional policy leaders, to make sure they, too, join on our vision.

When we started this effort, I turned to all of you and asked you to join our journey. Our impact and success of this last 18 months is not determined by what we have already done. It will be determined by what we do together.

So, I invite you to join in the next journey, and as I said when we launched just 18 months ago, and together, if we join together, we can build that better, safer world, and literally change the world to be better for our children and their children.