By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win….”
— John F. Kennedy, 1962
WHAT WOULD we do if one among the horde of candidates seeking to become president of the United States in 2009 challenged us as a nation to do something hard?
Most Americans alive today can’t remember a president or would-be president doing anything remotely like that. The ones we’re used to are all about what they’re going to do for us, not what we should do for our country. Republicans want to cut our taxes; Democrats want to give us more programs and, to hear them all talk, at no cost to us.
But I believe that if the cause were worthwhile and the proposal made sense, we’d rise to it. Maybe not all of us, but there’s a critical mass out here who would follow someone courageous enough to ask us to do our part.
I, for one, am sick of being treated, by people who seek my vote, as some sort of “gimme-gimme” baby, lacking in any sense of responsibility for the world around me. Those of us who are grownups are used to accepting, in our personal lives, challenges that are by no means easy to meet — going to work day after day, paying our bills, raising children. Why would we not understand a president who said, “Here’s a challenge that concerns us all, and here’s what each of us needs to do to rise to it”?
Young people among us want to pitch in and accomplish difficult things a lot more than we give them credit for. Part of Barack Obama’s appeal among the young is his call to service, his challenge to build a better nation. But unless I’ve missed it, he has not asked us, as a nation, to do anything hard.
Don’t misunderstand me, as did a colleague who wrote:
The feeling I get… is that you’re so frustrated that you just want the government to demand SOME SORT OF SACRIFICE, on something, anything. Whether it’s needed or not. Doesn’t really matter what.
Well, yes and no. Sure, there’s a part of me that just wants to be asked for a change to do something, if only for the novelty: Buy bonds, save scrap metal, whatever.
But there’s more to it than that. The truth is, our country faces a lot of challenges that demand something or other from all of us, but political “leaders” have a pathological fear of pointing it out to us.
Back when JFK challenged us to go to the moon because it was hard, we did it — even though there was no practical reason why we needed to do so. Sure, it gave us the creeps to think of “going to sleep by the light of a communist moon,” but it was a symbolic competition, with only marginal applications to the true, deadly competition of the arms race. We couldn’t stand not to be No. 1.
But today we have very real, very practical challenges that have tangible consequences if we fail to meet them.
Take just one of them: our dependence on foreign oil.
Sen. Joe Biden had a great speech a while back about how President Bush missed the golden opportunity to ask us, on Sept. 12, 2001, to do whatever it took to free us from this devil’s bargain whereby we are funding people who want to destroy us and all that we cherish. And yet, his own energy proposals are a tepid combination of expanding alternative fuels (good news to the farmer) and improving fuel efficiency (let’s put the onus on Detroit).
A broad spectrum of thinkers who are not running for office — from Tom Friedman to Robert Samuelson to Charles Krauthammer — say we must jack up the price of gasoline with a tax increase, to cut demand and fund the search for alternatives. It makes sense. But the next candidate with the guts to ask us to pay more at the pump will be the first.
My friend Samuel Tenenbaum is on a quixotic quest to build support for restoration of the 55-mph speed limit. It would be hard (for me, anyway), but the benefits are undeniable. It would conserve fuel dramatically, starving petrodictators from Hugo Chavez to Vladimir Putin to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It would save thousands of lives now lost to speed on our highways.
Samuel pitches his idea to every candidate he can corner. They smile and move away from him as quickly as possible.
But you know, when I wrote a column a while back proposing the creation of an Energy Party — that would among other things demand that we jack up the gas tax by $2 a gallon (to fund an Apollo-style project on alternatives), institute Samuel’s 55-mph limit, ban SUVs for anyone without a proven “life-or-death need to drive one” and build nuclear power plants as fast as we can — I got a surprising number of positive responses. I think that was less because my respondents thought those were all good ideas. I think they just liked the idea of being asked to do something for a change.
Energy independence is just the start. Add to it the urgent needs to stop global warming, win the war on terror, make health care affordable while at the same time avoiding the coming entitlements train wreck, and you’ve got a list of things that require a lot more audience involvement — and yes, sacrifice — than our current candidates have been willing to ask us for.
And while you may not feel the same, I’m dying to be asked. Not because it would be easy, and not even because it would be hard, but because these hard things actually need doing.
Related Posts
Are we not challenged (enough) by what it will take to Stay the Course, End the Fighting, Establish Democracy in the Mideast, and Win the Worlwide War on Terror, along with everything else we face here and abroad?
“We choose [TO ACHIEVE ALL OF THE ABOVE] in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because [these goals] will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win….”
— (The language of politics is interchangeable)
Still, like you, I yearn for attainable goals of higher purpose, like a manned mission to Mars, and have started to save my scrap metals accordingly.
Right now, I’d settle for a candidate who would simply speak the truth. As in,”if you want your parents to get social security, it’s going to cost money. If you want to win a war it’s going to cost troops, money, and willingness to scrimp on the home front. Whatever programs, benefits you choose are going to cost money. If you choose to live extravagantly (drive SUV’s, fill your personal swimming pool, keep your house at 74 in the winter and 68 in the summer, etc.)its going to cost money, species, and if your spending funds the terrorists well enough, maybe your life. I would think people could get together about these things, but remember how long conservation efforts lasted after the gas squeeze of the 70’s? We need a national push to find alternative fueling that we can provide ourselves, one that does not destroy the environment, and which can sustain us, because as more and more people move into the 21st century, as third world cultures are starting to do, the more competition there will be for limited supplies. Then too, climate change cannot be turned around immediately. Even if we cut off carbon dioxide emissions today (impossible)it would take years for it to take effect and reduce global warming. The longer we delay, the more unlivable our planet will become. If you aren’t willing to work hard now to change our energy usage, you might want to invest in a ‘stillsuit’ for a “Dune”-like climate.
Our current government is doing an extraordinay job of making us sacrifice. This from Greg Palast:
Greg Palast in Chicago on October 27 at an Event Sponsored by BuzzFlash.com: Toward the end of the Clinton Administration, the Price of a Barrel of Oil was Below $20, Now It Has Reached an All-Time Record of More than $90 a Barrel. As Far as Bush and Cheney are Concerned, Mission Accomplished.
-Greg Palast
Karen, you are correct. Before the government asks me to make one iota of sacrifice in the name of the common good they better damn sure start telling the truth. The current bunch has failed miserably in that important mission.
Hi–
I’ve been lurking for a while, but couldn’t let this pass without comment.
Why in the world does anyone need government to give one a “higher purpose?” What is missing in people’s lives that they await a bureaucrat to give them a higher purpose?
Who gets to decide who has a “life-or-death need to drive [an SUV]”? The same bureaucrat who is dictating someone else’s higher purpose?
Government at all levels are awash in money and still can’t accomplish anything. I’m confident that an enterprising inventor is working away in a garage somewhere and will come up with the solution to oil. The last place it’ll happen is in a politician’s office.
Regarding the $2/gallon tax on gasoline, congratulations on figuring out how to bring third-world hunger to the first world.
Regarding Social Security, it’s a total scam and will collapse within a couple of decades. Anyone in their 30’s silly enough to believe they’re going to get a “check” at 70 is delusional. The most important public service announcement that will never be: “Be prepared to care for yourself the rest of your life.”
One thing is certain: I’m not about to let a bureaucrat or meddling neighbors define for me either my “higher purpose” or what, when, and how far I am allowed drive.
Thanks for the opportunity to write.
Marie Elks
Who said we need government to give us a “higher purpose?”
All I said was that political leaders should ask for our participation in the things that need doing — because they’re not going to get done otherwise. And if the leaders don’t have the guts to ask us to tackle the HARD things, the ones they’re afraid to seek real solutions on, we are going to be in a world of hurt.
And Marie, I’m sorry, but you just said two untrue things in one sentence that far too many people say without being challenged: “Government at all levels are awash in money and still can’t accomplish anything.” There are plenty of levels and critical programs in government that are badly underfunded, and if government couldn’t accomplish anything, you’d be living in a place that looked a lot like Mogadishu.”
I’m afraid that nihilistic statements such as yours are among the reasons that people who run for office don’t dare get real with us about the challenges before us.
And Karen, you said essentially what I said, just in different words. What bud said was different — just another shot at current leadership. And that’s a non sequitur. Within the context of this column, this president, Clinton, Bush pere, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon have all failed us (and Carter at least tried to level with us about the need to make difficult choices; he just couldn’t sell it).
What we need is a leader like FDR. Or Churchill (who would promise us nothing more than blood, toil, tears and sweat), if I may borrow inspiration from across the pond. Perhaps the times are not yet dire enough for such leaders to arise, but I wish they would anyway.
This coming election isn’t about current leadership. It’s about our choices for the future. And I want to hear a whole lot more leveling — and challenging — from those who would propose to lead us in the future.
If we don’t get together and put some teeth in some conservation measures, we’re all going to be a little thirsty by the by (except of course for the areas where people will be wondering how long they can tread water). Marie, I trust that you will behave responsibly without anyone having to tell you, but there are a lot of people out there who won’t. They’ll claim their SUV is safer (it isn’t; it’s just more likely to kill the person in the other car if the ‘other car’ is smaller; if its up against another ‘safe SUV’ of the same size or bigger, its just as dangerous as any other car only more tippable) and go on consuming more gas and emitting more carbon. I like a green lawn, too, but not at the expense of not having sufficient water to drink. I just hope we don’t kill off so many species of animals (through habitat destruction) that we get one or two that are necessary for our survival (through a web of connections that we can’t even see) or that we don’t have extra species moving in that we might not like (dengue fever, or sleeping sickness, anyone?). We’ve got to get together and moving in the same direction–and preferably not in the direction of the precipice we’ve been rushing toward.
Marie … Sorry. I think I introduced the “higher purpose” statement, and it was intended as a bit of sarcasm, although not completely. Was really trying to say that policing the world to protect against terrorism requires sacrifice just like Brad requested, and achieving that purpose is just as hard as anything Churchill or FDR ever asked of a nation.
If JFK had asked us to fight a war against terrorism, would it have been more “heroic” to Brad than hearing the same from Bush? … Or do we just despise and mistrust Bush so much (for good reason) that nothing he says can be considered worthy of sacrifice?
As for your other observations on government, I agree with you regarding the gas tax and social security. Also agree with Brad that the coming election is about inspired leadership, but I don’t see that happening with any of the leading candidates. They’re all too attached to public approval polling to take a chance on true leadership.
Oh contrar my friend. (i know, it’s speled rong but i’m too lazy to look it up). The next election is most definitely about the current leadership. We’re already sacrificing yet that’s never been explained properly. We’re sacrificing our future by plunging the next generations into a huge pile of debt to fund a war that the president suggested (falsely) was needed to secure our future. We’re sacrificing our middle-class way of life by paying exhorbitant amounts of money for college, gasoline and medical care. The problem is our current leader has not been honest about the sacrifices we’re required to make.
Let’s tweak this discussion a bit. We certainly need a president to articulate the challenges we face as a nation. What we don’t need is a dishonest moran who requires sacrifice from the people without the leadership skills to properly explain why. What we need is a leader like Hillary Clinton who has shown us how we need to adjust our thinking when it comes to hard issues like health care. Her husband certainly did not shirk his duties when it came to asking for sacrifice. He pushed for adjustments to the tax code that required sacrifice in order to balance the budget, thus freeing capital for use in important national projects.
So yes, this election is about the current failed leadership. It’s about honesty and vision and yes, shared sacrifice for legitimate causes. It’s not about phony causes and fear mongering.
Why should they ask us for anything when they can take whatever they want?
If you want something from a politician, all you have to do is contribute enough money to his campaign… especially to the campaign of an incumbent who has little chance of being voted out…. you know, like Lindsey Graham’s donations from payday lenders? You don’t think that $25K was given without any expectation of a favorable outcome?
Wake up, Brad… it’s all about money… you want desperately to believe that the hallowed halls of Congress are full of Mr. Smiths. They aren’t. To think that they are anything but power hungry opportunists only looking out for themselves is a quaint view… seriously wrong, but quaint.
I hate to say this, bud, but if Hillary would have the guts to dump Bill, I’d be more inclined to believe she has the conviction and courage to lead. Her hubbie may not have shirked his fiscal duties, but his morality and honesty scores are on a par with Bush. If she doesn’t have the guts to stand up to him, why should we believe she’ll stand up for us? Hell, she wants to make him our ambassador to the world. And, please, don’t give me that crap about her courageous commitment to the sacred bonds of marriage. Divorce is bad campaign politics, plain and simple. She would have been single years ago if it wasn’t political suicide.
Good Morning, All–
Thanks for your responses. Unfortunately I’m not going to to be able to respond in depth until Thursday evening (God willing!) so if this thread is still up, I will address your points then.
To Marie E:
If we are so “awash in money,” then why do we currently have the largest federal deficit in history?
>> Divorce is bad campaign politics, plain
>> and simple.
Really? You ought to let Rudy (twice), McCain, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan know about that.
It’s only the Democrat candidates who seem to be able to stay married.
Good comment Doug. Hillary’s decision to remain married is a very personal one. No matter what she does it will be perceived as politically motived. Why do the Republican candidates continue to get a free pass on the family values issues?
I didn’t know they did (get a free pass). I thought everybody was ragging them about it.
Apparently, nobody’s ragging them as much as Giuliani’s latest wife is ragging him…
… and Doug, didn’t you mean, “only the DemocratIC candidates”…?
… just as bud no doubt meant "au contraire."
Sorry. I’m just in that mode today… I don’t even talk Paris talk.
Doug, It’s not a partisan issue, for me at least, nor am I an advocate of divorce, or a Republican. I just share the opinion of many that Hillary would be stronger and more credible without Bill. He had strengths, but honesty was not among them, not even truthiness. … Bill lied to us (and her) repeatedly, with a straight face, defied prosecutors and judges, debated the meaning of “is”, faced impeachment. That put Bush in a position to campaign for “honesty” and “truth,” without having to reveal much of anything about his character. Now that we know Bush, we don’t trust him either.
Which means … we should trust Bill again? Or respect Hillary for giving him another shot (at the White House)?
Sorry. Feels more like the old Bob Segar song:
I used her, she used me
But neither one cared
We were gettin’ our share
Workin’ on our night moves
Ironic.This post started with a quote from JFK.
Let’s hear some pious ramblings about HIS personal life.
Time loves a hero.
Here’s an example of Rudy’s “leadership” – following the Democratic debate, his paid hack mouthpiece had the following to say:
New York City – The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee released the following statement from Communications Director Katie Levinson:
“As the pundits work to figure out who won the debate tonight, it’s pretty clear Rudy Giuliani was the real winner. It is increasingly apparent Rudy is the one the Democrats are most worried about running against in the general election.
“Senator Biden’s comments were of particular interest. The good Senator is quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him. For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does he isn’t prone to ripping off the text from others. And, Senator Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run anything. Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run anything but his mouth.
“Such a desperate attack from Senator Biden is to be expected considering I – Katie Levinson – have a better chance of becoming President than he does.”
—
Brad, is there any way you can support such a nasty candidate as Rudy? Especially when he attacks your man Joe Biden?
Joe did have the best line of the debate from what I saw – he said (paraphrasing) that when Rudy talks, every sentence consists of a noun, a verb, and 9/11.
Ouch! So true… I think Joe was making his case for a VP slot with Hilary tonight. He’d bring some balance to the ticket — too bad he’s an Senator from a tiny Eastern state. Barack would bring a whole different dynamic to Hilary’s ticket.
Plus all the electoral votes in Illinois.
It’s pretty simple – if the Republicans cannot find a candidate who can win Florida and Ohio, they cannot win… even if they do, it’s going to be a longshot.
Hi All—
Sorry it’s taken so long—what a week!
Can anyone point me to a format code list for this forum? I don’t like my posts to be so messy–makes it difficult to read.
Hi Al Palmer—
************************************
If we are so “awash in money,” then why do we currently have the largest federal deficit in history?
************************************
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2007/03March/0307FederalBudget.pdf
Pg 10
FY Estimates (Billions of dollars)
2006 2007 2008
National Defense 532.8 579.1 617.2
Current Transfer Payments 1,543.2 1,655.1 1,718.4
To Persons 1,148.2 1,241.5 1,299.9
Soc. Sec. 536.1 567.7 593.0
Medicare 372.3 427.2 450.8
Unemployment benefits 31.1 31.7 33.9
Railroad retirement. 9.4 9.7 10.0
Food stamps 30.2 30.5 32.0
Supplemental security income . 35.5 38.2 39.9
Earned income & other tax credits 51.7 51.5 52.0
Grants-in-aid to state and local governments.
Income support, social security and welfare 252.1 261.4 268.1
Please see the above-referenced pdf for a no-nonsense, raw number explanation of why we have a deficit–because we’re spending DOUBLE the national defense budget on people who won’t take care of themselves. That’s a huge chuck of money.
Then there’s the additional $261 BILLION sent to states for “current transfer payments to persons.”
Pretty much explains it to me.
Karen McLeod:
****************************
If we don’t get together and put some teeth in some conservation measures, we’re all going to be a little thirsty by the by (except of course for the areas where people will be wondering how long they can tread water). Marie, I trust that you will behave responsibly without anyone having to tell you, but there are a lot of people out there who won’t.
***********************
That depends on how one defines “responsibly.” I’m not about to let the fad of the year dictate how I live.
*********************************
They’ll claim their SUV is safer (it isn’t; it’s just more likely to kill the person in the other car if the ‘other car’ is smaller; if its up against another ‘safe SUV’ of the same size or bigger, its just as dangerous as any other car only more tippable) and go on consuming more gas and emitting more carbon.
******************
Carbon is no more a pollutant than oxygen. I vaguely remember when the government mandated catalytic converters—said that the converters would turn that awful sulfur into harmless CO2. My, how times have changed.
**************************
I like a green lawn, too, but not at the expense of not having sufficient water to drink. I just hope we don’t kill off so many species of animals (through habitat destruction) that we get one or two that are necessary for our survival (through a web of connections that we can’t even see) or that we don’t have extra species moving in that we might not like (dengue fever, or sleeping sickness, anyone?). We’ve got to get together and moving in the same direction–and preferably not in the direction of the precipice we’ve been rushing toward.
*****************************
I’m not the least bit concerned about habitat destruction or the yellow-whatever-critter vanishing. That’s been the natural history of the planet since its inception, and that’s just the way it is. Mammoths, anyone?
When I was a kid in Colorado, I went fossil hunting with my dad. We found fossils of ancient mollusks, ferns—all kinds of things that certainly don’t exist in Colorado today. And there weren’t any SUVs around to ruin anything.
Gordon Hirsch—
************************
Marie … Sorry. I think I introduced the “higher purpose” statement, and it was intended as a bit of sarcasm, although not completely. Was really trying to say that policing the world to protect against terrorism requires sacrifice just like Brad requested, and achieving that purpose is just as hard as anything Churchill or FDR ever asked of a nation.
**************************
Thank heavens! I knew I saw that somewhere, and when I went back to find it I was a bit stunned. Nice to know I’m not loosing all my marbles.
I’m good with sacrificing for national security. I’m not so good with sacrificing to pay for anyone’s second retirement home, or the bum who won’t work and care for their kids, etc.
Thanks again for your patience.