CRONKITE: Well, we've got a lovely group of
people here, haven't we?
[Laughter.]
KUCINICH: It really is, Walter, and I'd like
to start this program out by making a very personal introduction. Some
of you may know that I had a big change in my life in the last few weeks;
I'd like to introduce my wife Elizabeth.
[Cheers and applause.]
I can assure you that love and peace do go together.
[Laughter.]
Thank you so much for this opportunity to have
this conversation with you about the Department of Peace and so many
of the other issues that are connected to it, which brings people from
all over the United States here. I guess we're going to get into a discussion
in the next hour. And it's going to be an opportunity to answer some
of the questions that many people here have on their minds; not just
about the legislation but about the condition, today, in the world and
whether peace is even possible.
CRONKITE: I think I'm going to be inclined to
turn this around and ask you to explain it to us.
[Laughter.]
KUCINICH: You know, the idea of a Department
of Peace first came to me when I saw the Administration of Bill Clinton
locked into a course of combat against Serbia, which included bombing
the cities in Serbia.
I saw how the tempo of war caused people to
get caught up in war. And I saw how war thinking spread like a virus
through people in the House of Representatives. Individuals who were
otherwise fairly placid, even, would suddenly feel this need to just
go to war.
And
I began to study war. I learned that over 100 million people perished
in the 20th century in wars; most of them
civilians, non-combatants. I began to look at the philosophy behind war
and the world views behind war and the individual views behind war and
got to that question, "Is war inevitable?" And, "If it's
not inevitable can we create structures in our society that can help
us avert conflict before the conflict really starts?"
I looked at this issue of violence, not just
as represented in the macrocosm, which war is, but in the microcosm:
the wars which we fight every day in our own lives, which have a way
of resonating in the society at large and then around the world. So it
really started with a period of reflection, based on my own work in the
House of Representatives, seeing this dynamic of conflict break out internationally
and then going back through and asking a lot of questions.
And it's not the first time that anyone has
ever thought of an idea of a Department of Peace. The one application
we've been talking about tonight is how this particular legislation goes
very deeply into domestic considerations.
CRONKITE: Yes, indeed, it does, and it would
encompass some part, it seems to me, of almost every one of the government
missions we have out there, doing one job or another. This would begin
to bring them all into a conscious effort to improve humanity by achieving
peace, of course, and ending the domestic violence, which takes as many
lives, for heaven's sake, and causes as much disruption to our society
as the international wars, themselves.
KUCINICH:
You're absolutely right about that. As a matter of fact, in looking
at the reason for a Department of Peace,
I started to ask this question: "Is there a need for an organized
effort, nationally, to address the problem of domestic violence?"
Violence against women we know about from emergency
rooms, from domestic violence shelters. But how did we get to become
a society where some men, for example, or young men (you know, there
might be violence of women against men, but mostly we're talking about
domestic violence of men against women) feel it's okay to hit women?
And so you start to get into the attitudes that people have. And the
Department of Peace would address this issue of domestic violence by
going right to the issue of education to begin with; of teaching our
children mutuality, looking at the other person as an aspect of oneself,
so therefore you wouldn't do anything to hurt yourself. It encourages
respect. The idea is that you can teach these principles through education.
In addition to that, there are many programs
which exist at a community level, which need support. Not just domestic
violence shelters, but counseling men as to what they do with these violent
feelings they have; how do they deal with it? There's a friend of mine
- I don't know if BC is here from Vermont, but he's worked in counseling
men with their violence, helping them to resolve some of the issues they've
had that would then impact their families; help their families have better
lives and stronger relationships.
I have felt for a long time, Walter, that these
issues that start in the home help create the preconditions for violence
at large in the society.
CRONKITE: Dennis, what is different from your
concept of that and what the departments of government now, that are
responsible for that sort of thing, are practicing?
KUCINICH:
Let's focus again on the domestic issues - domestic violence, spousal
abuse, child abuse. There are some
programs that exist at various levels of government to address these
types of difficulties and conflicts. There are some programs which exist
at a community level in various communities in which there is support
provided for families who are having difficulties. But there's no overall
charge in a society to say, "Let's make this a cause in our society
to help lift this scourge of domestic violence from the American people."
Again, on the issue of gang violence: There
are programs that deal with gang violence, but most of them deal with
intervention through police. How do we get back through the funnel or
the tunnel, so to speak, and look at what the preconditions are which
give rise to gang violence? Why do young people come together in search
of some kind of fellowship, which then leads them to violence?
Violence in the schools: There are many schools
across the country which are looking at conflict resolution programs,
peer mediation. Those programs not only need support, they need to be
spread throughout the country.
So, whether we're looking at domestic violence,
spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools, racial violence,
violence against gays, police-community relations challenges - all of
those represent challenges to our humanity. The Department of Peace would
serve as a powerful tool for providing programs for education and support
for existing community organizations and help to fund the creation of
other community organizations and other programs that would give rise
to a culture which would be more supportive, more humane, more loving,
more compassionate.
CRONKITE: Who are the professionals who would
be doing that type of work?
KUCINICH:
There are plenty of people out there right now. There are people who
spend their lives helping to counsel
families. All too often, the issues relating to families end up in domestic
relations courts; and then they're diverted to counseling. But there
are many people out there who have made their lives work, trying to help
people build better relationships. There are counselors, there are psychologists,
there are clinical practitioners, some are psychiatrists. And there are
people who have actually dedicated their lives to helping people pursue
what Franklin Roosevelt called "the science of human relations."
If you were to look at every area that I've
talked about, there are already people in place. As a matter of fact,
what we could do is build out an infrastructure of people who would dedicate
their careers in service to others, which is really, in a sense, the
highest form of public service because we're not here just for ourselves;
we're here for others.
CRONKITE: Now, what about the international
aspects of it; the attempt to prevent war, to mediate disputes? What
would you offer that isn't already available through our State Department?
KUCINICH: We're living in a time right now when
it seems that so many of our leaders have bought into this idea of the
inevitability of war. Once we assume that war is inevitable, the self-fulfilling
prophecy becomes military action. It seems that so much of our society
right now is organized around the possibility of military action. We
spend over $400 billion a year for the Department of Defense. There's
no other organization in this society which is able to claim those kinds
of resources.
The State Department is charged with supporting
U.S. policy, which may not be to promote peace. Let's take Venezuela,
for example. Is it the policy of the United States to promote peace in
Venezuela? No. So, the State Department wouldn't necessarily be in a
good position to assist; whereas a cabinet-level Department of Peace
(there would have to be a political mandate for a certain amount of independence
as a cabinet secretary from other cabinet secretaries, which does, in
a sense, exist theoretically) would be organizing to look for ways that
conflict percolates and inevitably present a president with a series
of recommendations on how to avoid conflict. And those recommendations
could, in a sense, advance the cause of the State Department to help
work out the differences between nations diplomatically, just as a Department
of Peace could be of benefit to the military in terms of averting conflict.
One story on this: I was in the Balkans about
six years ago and had a chance to visit Sarajevo. I met with one of the
generals there, and he told me that the last thing that he and his soldiers
want to do is fight a war. And I think that's generally true of many
of the professionals in the military. They don't want to have to; they'll
do it if they're told to.
The idea of a Department of Peace is, it takes
us in a new direction, so we don't have to rely on a military option
as either representing a failure of diplomacy or as representing a recitation
of policies that have been devoid of any humanity.
CRONKITE: In both of your approaches to domestic
problems and international problems, what you're actually saying is that
our present system has failed. We have a structure that is supposed to
be handling all these various things that you mentioned; but the structure
does not work under the present guidance, the present organization. Am
I not right?
KUCINICH: Well, there are a number of elements.
You're right about structure being one aspect, but structure is not the
only aspect. Structures can be neutral at times. Those of us who are
elected to carry out public policy are not neutral in our use of structure.
We can choose to use structures of international law, or we can choose
to set them aside.
In the last few years, we've seen structures
that have been built to help create peace internationally basically dismantled.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia canceled; the Non-Proliferation
Treaty effectively set aside; the Biological Weapons Convention; the
Chemical Weapons Convention; the Small Arms Treaty; the Land Mine Treaty;
the United States accession to the International Criminal Court, the
Kyoto Climate Change Treaty all represented opportunities to participate
with the international community in an architecture of law that would
help create reciprocity and trust building. But those have all been set
aside because there is a philosophy of government emanating from our
highest counsels which says that the U.S. will go it alone; that we will
make our decisions; that we're not part of the world community.
The Department of Peace reflects a different
type of awareness or consciousness, if you will, that the world is interdependent;
the world is interconnected; and that we are not only our brother's keeper,
which is essentially a statement of interdependence, but we are our brother
and sister, which is a statement of interconnection.
[Cheers and applause.]
And
so, this new awareness that we have causes us to look at the insufficiency
of our institutions today; or the lack
of heart; or practical application, meaning the practical aspirations
of people. And it's not only true about peace; as we saw in New Orleans,
it's true about an entire awareness of the purpose of government as enunciated
by the Founders in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States.
When we speak of "We the people," we're still working on perfecting
our union, but we also stated: we are working to promote the general
welfare; not just to provide for the common defense to secure the blessings
of liberty.
So there is a broader, grander purpose to government.
I think what's happening, Walter, is there is an awareness in our society
of the fact that we have to do more; we have to do better. And I think
that's what has probably brought so many people here from around the
country; to say that it's time for a new beginning, it's time to refresh
this democracy.
[Cheers and applause.]
CRONKITE: Absolutely. Absolutely.
KUCINICH:
I would like to ask you something. One of the things that I'm sensing
right now is that the spirit of our
times, what the Germans call "zeitgeist," is beginning to turn
towards this real hunger for peace; and I think we're right at the threshold
of a different type of push for peace.
I started my activism in the '60s, when you
were the anchorperson, and I was wondering: When you saw the changes,
the tidal forces that were developing in the mid-'60s that inevitably
resulted in a demand for the end of the Vietnam War, what did you sense
about the public movements that were happening then, which forced some
changes?
CRONKITE: Well, I think that one of the most
prominent, obvious ones was the race question. The '60s finally brought
us to a little more understanding, at least - not complete, yet, but
more understanding - of the need for equality for all of our people,
regardless of color, race, and so forth. And we actually succeeded in
the '60s, thanks to the fact that a president from the South, (who, for
long in his life, had defended the southern approach to race problems),
became the president of all the people, had a responsibility for all
the people, and was able to turn around completely and work with his
southern colleagues of the past to bring them along. So we got the civil
rights laws that we accomplished in the '60s. It was a great accomplishment
by Lyndon Johnson, led in its original advent upon our calendar by Kennedy,
of course. But then Johnson picked up that problem and solved it.
Now, then, we've got to move on to this question
of peace; in some way to also excite the American people from the top,
which your proposal of a separate Department would certainly begin to
do.
I just have one small quarrel with you, perhaps,
on your plan for this thing. And that is, I have a feeling, Dennis, that
we could do this thing better and more efficiently if, instead of a new
Department, we took over the State Department.
[Laughter, applause, and cheers.]
My feeling is that, actually, we could perform
ideologically better than perhaps the State Department is performing
today, which is not necessarily the fault of the foreign policy people
but of the present administration which dictates to that Department.
Now, that would be a problem with any administration dictating to the
Department of Peace, as well. But with the Department of Peace devoted,
primarily, and brought to the people through Congress, and with the desire
of the people to have that Department out there under its own banner,
I think the strength of the Department would be greater; the popular
support of it would be greater. It would not be confused by the Department
of State's operations, which might, indeed, as far as desire went, be
counter to what we would like to do in the Department of Peace.
So it seems to me that, if we're going this
route - and we ARE going this route; I hope you're going to stay with
this route and that all the people will stay with it -
[Cheers and applause.]
Your presentation, your plan or plot for the
operation, is beautifully contained in the problems that need to be solved.
But I think the more direct approach that we need in order to go after
peace would probably be an emphasis on the elimination of war, rather
than the elimination of these domestic problems, which are so numerous
that they almost defy concentrating on the issue.
With the Department of Peace as the sole authority
in that area, it would assimilate the present foreign policy things that
the Department of State does. I mean, these visas and passports and international
trade - things of that kind - would still be in the Department of Peace,
but peace would dominate as the word defining our Department that deals
with foreign policy and then deals with all these other domestic things
you've put in it. But particularly in foreign policy.
The
advertising quality of being the Department of Peace would be very
important. With all those mentions of the Department
operating all these various aspects of government in the paper everyday
- "The Department of Peace did this; the Department of Peace did
that" - what we'd be doing is accepting the first lesson of most
public relations and of most advertising: keep telling them the name
of the product. "The product is this; the product is that..."
[Applause.]
Our
product is peace. And every time that name appears in the newspaper
or on the broadcast or Internet, these days,
and around the world - "The United States Department of Peace said
this or that" - peace is being drummed into the people; that this
is our principal motive: peace.
[Applause.]
You
know, I can even see all of our consulates abroad, all of our embassies
abroad - they fly the American flag, of
course, but they also usually fly a flag of the group that they're representing.
I can see every American flag out there accompanied by a flag that says "Peace."
[Cheers and applause.]
Your
concept and dream of a university for training our foreign policy people
and our peace policy and domestic policy people,
our Annapolis, our West Point - I can see all those young people going
through that process and coming out wearing their button; their button
is a uniform; their button says "Peace. Peace. Peace."
And you see those bright young people out there,
working for peace 24 hours a day, presumably; if they're staying with
their job, that is...
[Applause.]
...it would create a momentum, a momentum of
peace.
KUCINICH: The very soulful way that you speak
to the primacy of peace and the potential of it in this government and
in our society is something that every person here takes to heart. And
you're right: the State Department should be the Department of Peace.
In future iterations of the bill, I think that we ought to have more
of an emphasis on the Department of Peace moving into that aspect of
state craft, so that there's not a contradiction, not a push-pull created.
The idea of maintaining a domestic component
is that, in order to gain public support - it's my own opinion after
traveling this country widely and meeting with people of every level
of society - it's important that we demonstrate to people the practicality
of peace in their own lives. I would say that it's easy for me to sit
here and to advocate peace in the world. But the real skills that I've
been able to develop, to advocate that, have come as a result of growing
up the oldest in a family of seven children; have come through marriage;
have come through the kind of daily relationships.
To have the grand sweep of world events within
our grasp, but to do it through actually developing peace-making skills
everywhere. To make peace not only something that's international. That
is America's mission, which is absolutely appropriate, but it's not opposed
to working simultaneously on the domestic issue, which also opens up
the potential of the metaphysics of peace, of each individual contemplating
the role of peace, compassion, kindness in his or her own life.
[Applause.]
I
guess what's being advocated here certainly is a change in the structure
of government and the introduction of a
new Department. But what brought me into this with a passion is the possibility
that this idea serves as a touchstone for all the work that all of us
are involved in to create a more peaceful society - by building a consciousness
for peace, by building a receptivity for peace, by looking at the practical
aspects of peace and the impractical nature of war, by connecting with
everyone around the world and saying, "This is the work of the world."
One
of the things that concerns me - and I'm sure it concerns some of the
people in the audience - is that there's
a kind of hopelessness that emerges from a government which is continually
talking about threats, and Condition Orange, and the idea that somebody's
going to attack us one day; and the next it's like everything is beyond
our control, and we isolate ourselves from the world, and we ask "Is
this what we're going to leave our children with?"
I
just came back from Paris. Elizabeth and I flew in this afternoon from
Paris, where we participated in an international
conference on interdependence. And it was interesting to be in Europe
and to come back to the States and to all of a sudden hit all the security
here. It's a feeling like, "Hey, what's going on in America?"
We have in our bones, in our blood, a sense
of freedom; that was our birthright. And we sense it's being lost with
this drawing of us into war. And in a sense, the quest we have for a
Department of Peace is also an understanding that we are charged with
the responsibility to save this country by transforming it from one dedicated
to war to one that really works for peace in all aspects of our society,
both domestic and abroad. That's what's really at stake, here.
[Cheers and applause.]
CRONKITE: I don't, for one minute, question
a word you said right there. As a matter of fact, with the response from
this crowd to what you just said, I wouldn't dare do so without the possibility
of being lynched...
[Laughter.]
KUCINICH: It's a peaceful group.
CRONKITE: ...a form of violence that we don't
want even to be discussed. You're absolutely right, of course, in every
aspect. This is what the whole fight is about. This is what we consider
a fight. This is what the discussion is about.
[Laughter.]
KUCINICH:
You know what? That's interesting because those actually are metaphors
in our society. You know, "the
war room," the idea of campaigns being wars, and even our metaphor
for sports - in football there's the long bomb and defense/offense. We
have this military metaphor that's impressed on us so much that even
in casual conversation we get it. So part of the education is looking
at our language.
CRONKITE: True. True. Very good.
[Applause.]
What is quite clear - and would become clear
as you go along with this campaign - is that you are trying, and I consider
myself with you on this in every way...
[Applause.]
KUCINICH: Thank you.
CRONKITE: ...But it is, of course, not only
massive but basic change in our culture, in our entire approach to our
relationships with other human beings. And, indeed, even with the animals,
the birds out there...
[Applause.]
...which is an immense project, of course, as
you obviously understand and recognize. We all do. It's not a matter
of simply getting another Department of government. You're speaking of
an entire philosophical revolution.
[Cheers and applause.]
And as big and as great as that problem is,
we have to start somewhere.
KUCINICH: Absolutely.
CRONKITE: This is a great start; a great start.
[Applause.]
KUCINICH: If I may...You mentioned animals;
and one of the things that occurs to me is that I think the impulse towards
war gains strength every time a child is hit, every time there's a domestic
battery, every time children are shot in a school, every time someone
in a racial minority is grabbed out of a car by policemen and beaten
up. It happens every time a gay person is persecuted or injured. The
impulse towards war is quickened in the attack on the environment, in
our disconnection from nature.
Thomas
Berry in his book called "The Great
Work" spoke of the need for a re-sacralization of nature; to make
nature, once again, sacred in our lives. As we reconnect with nature,
we reconnect with those higher instincts...
[Applause.]
...that
what the poet called "the instinct
within us" reaches, empowers. And in doing so, we bring to our lives
not just the poetry of nature but we find our higher nature, which escapes
this yoke of war.
And
so, again, the broad discussion, which this intentionally seeks to
excite, is one which absolutely does look at every
area of our society; looks at human relations in all of their manifest
ways. And does it, by the way, without judgment, and with compassion.
It does it in a way that is kind, that follows, in a sense, the words
of St. Francis: "Make me a channel of your peace...Where there is
darkness, let me sow light." It promotes forgiveness, it promotes
a kind of a culture where we look at each other in our potential, but
do it in a way that we're not trying to nail each other.
We're looking at, here, a transformation. But,
you know what? I think this country is ready for it, and I think that
people around the world are ready to see America be involved in such
an effort.
[Applause.]
CRONKITE: Absolutely. I don't think there's
any doubt about that in the world. You're on to something that is desperately
needed and where leadership is required. You're offering it to us, now.
Let me ask you, getting down to the dirty work:
How do you see the progress in the Congress with this project?
KUCINICH: Well, it has actually been very exciting
to see the fact that, with this legislation, when we introduce it this
week, there will be over 60 members of the House of Representatives supporting
it. And I think that says something; six-zero!
[Applause.]
Understanding that institutions do not give
way easily for change, when you can see congressmen and women representing
so many different areas of the country being ready to put their names
on legislation that would bring about dramatic change, it says that there's
something happening in America that is somehow below the radar screen
of the media (with the only exception being here...
[Laughter and applause.]
...not surprising...) and that there's a movement
that is just starting to come forward. I sensed this when I was traveling
around the country as a candidate: that, whatever someone's political
party, whatever their economic position, people have a sense that the
entire world is at stake, here. And our democracy is at stake. And they're
really ready to see some transformations occur.
Our political system is set up, in a way, to
try to minimize the possibility of broad changes. But the truth of the
matter is, I think the American people are open. When Jimmy Carter was
elected, he said that, in the wake of Watergate '76, he wanted to see
a government as good as the American people. And I'll tell you something:
I understand, now, what he meant in a way that I couldn't have understood
it, otherwise; because when you go across this country, you find that
there really is an underlying unity in America.
We are told that there isn't. We're told that
we're divided in all these groups and subgroups; left-right, black-white,
and so many other divisions. But I think the fragmented-type thinking,
the dichotomized thinking which that type of analysis represents is giving
way to a more holistic view of America. America as an organic whole.
America is really a beacon of light in this society. And people are sensing
that this is the moment to start to voice their concern about democracy,
their concern about freedom, their concern about peace; because they
realize that people who are dying in wars on the other side of the world,
whether it's in Iraq or in Africa, that that's their brothers and sisters;
that there's a connection, there's more of an awareness.
Now when our government reflects that, then
we'll see transformation take place on an accelerated basis. But it's
happening anyhow. Whether the government gets it or not, the change is
happening already.
[Cheers and applause.]
CRONKITE: What is it going to take to strike
off the shackles of belief that nothing can be done?
KUCINICH: Each individual here.
Robert Kennedy once said something that I never
forgot because it's one of those speeches that just emblazoned in my
mind the purpose of individual action. He was speaking to students in
South Africa in Capetown, who doubted that this white senator from a
wealthy family and a big state had anything to say to them, had any relevance
to their condition of apartheid. When he spoke to them in '68, they were
right in the middle of this awful condition, separate with no hope of
ever breaking out from this two-race, two-class society.
When
he was challenged by them, he said something: He said, "Each time
a man or woman stands up for an ideal, acts to improve the lot of others,
strikes out against injustice; he or she
sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. And crossing each other, in a million
different centers of energy and daring, those ripples create a current
which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
Each person in this room is as a tiny ripple
of hope. Each community you're from, you have a chance to cross with
a million different centers of energy and daring. And so, I believe that,
just with the people in this room and with the people that they're connected
to around the country, it has already started.
People
ask me, "Do you think this will
ever happen?" It will absolutely happen; it's not a question of "if" but "when." It
will. Absolutely.
[Cheers and applause.]
I want to add this: Maybe because I grew up
in the '60s, (and I suppose many of us did, whether we were in the '60s
or not)...
[Laughter.]
...one
of the products of the '60s was a musical that came towards the end
of it called "Hair," which was a
powerful anti-war musical. There was a theme song to it, saying that "this
is the dawning of the age of Aquarius; harmony and understanding; sympathy
and trust abounding."
There was a feeling I had growing up in that
period that, despite the turmoil, there was this bright horizon; that
anything was possible; that we could get through the times and go on
and create peace.
And
in a way, America has been pushed down so hard by fear - paralyzed
by fear - that there's been kind of a draining
of hope. And I'll tell you something, Walter: I still can feel that sense
of what I'll call "positive revolt" that is out there to challenge
the way things are and to say that this is the dawning of a new age.
I think we're there.
[Cheers and applause.]
It's just a question of creating a structure
and to define what it is. To give it definition; that's what we have
to do.
CRONKITE: You know, I sense, also, that there
is a lot more sympathy out there for this proposal. There is a yearning
for this movement. If they don't know the name of it, precisely, or what
it is, still, the movement of people's beliefs and hopes is out there
and needs to be unleashed, which this will help do.
I have a rather practical example of that. I
was in Moscow immediately after World War II; for a couple of years,
I lived there for the United Press. And I became quite friendly with
the staff of the American Embassy there; all professional diplomats.
These were not just hand-piece workers; these were top echelon people
who had been selected from their training program and their previous
work in democracy to work in the Embassy in the Soviet Union.
Our policy at that time, of course, was very
much to somehow or other win out over the Communists. In our entire foreign
policy, in everything we did, we perceived the Communist regime as the
enemy. And we approached them that way and spoke to them that way - part
of our American arrogance that we've shown quite a lot, lately, in our
foreign policy.
But
in private conversations with these younger members of the foreign
policy establishment, as they represented America
in Moscow, they would say, "You know, I think we could get along
better, we could do better with our future policy with the Russians if
we talk to them of cooperation, instead of as enemies."
That is a little seed of what we're talking
about here. Cooperation. Association. Group help, which you are helping
to form with this organization and with your program. You said it before
this evening - I'm just saying it in another way: the wishes are out
there for peace in all of our affairs, but we have been almost persuaded
that it's not possible; therefore, why mention it? This is what breaks
through that barrier.
I
would like to see that word "peace" out
there, on every bit of literature.
[Applause.]
KUCINICH:
With this proposal, the word would be "practical;" that peace
is practical; to work for peace is practical. And most people will
recognize the issues on a domestic
level.
And it doesn't matter if people agree with every
aspect of this legislation. It's actually called (we've re-titled it)
the Department of Peace and Nonviolence. So we're taking the principles
of Dr. King; of Gandhi; of Christ. This is a spiritual, as well as a
political statement of what our potential is.
So the selling points have to focus on what's
practical. And I think that, Walter, you also pointed out that once you
have selling points, the Department itself becomes, in a sense, an emissary
of peace in restating America's purpose to the world and what America
is about.
CRONKITE: That's right.
KUCINICH:
I'm going to ask you how you would answer the question, "How can
we position the Department of Peace, so it isn't seen as anti-military?"
CRONKITE: Well, I think you have to face that
one head-on.
[Laughter.]
To my mind, we have to continue to emphasize
to the American public and to the world at large that if we can afford
to spend these tens upon hundreds of millions and billions of dollars
in learning how to be more efficient in killing people, we certainly
ought to be able to afford an equal amount of money to try to keep them
alive.
[Cheers and applause.]
KUCINICH:
Here's another question that you might be able to provide some help
on: "How do we get the media's attention
and cooperation in moving the message out?"
CRONKITE: By being successful enough in these
preliminary stages. To begin to antagonize the establishment today.
[Laughter and applause.]
KUCINICH:
The next question comes right into that: "How do we get more young
people involved?"
[Laughter.]
What I have seen, by the way, touring campuses,
is that young Americans are ready. They're ready for this country to
go in a new direction. And they're looking for cues from their parents
and grandparents as to the practicality of big change. But I think there
is a readiness for change that is much more powerful today than it was
ten years ago or even twenty years ago. And so I think young people simply
have to be asked. And they have to be given some guidance as to how you
build a structure out, how you organize.
I would like to point this out, also: One of
the things that I think is important in speaking to the practical aspects
of this is to talk about how we get this done; how do we actually make
it happen? You pointed out that the media will start to get involved
as we advance this. It does start with individual members of Congress.
There's no question about it. But it also starts with building support
in the community, with having a discussion in the community.
There are so many places in America right now
that are waiting for a dialogue. Think of how different America would
have been, Walter, if, right after 9/11, instead of preparing for war
and instead of laying the groundwork for an attack on Iraq, that America
had 10,000 conversations at a community level about what we could do
to avoid future 9/11's; how we could change America - not to justify
9/11 for a heartbeat - how we could change America's role in the world;
to work with other nations; what could we do to find out wherever there
was this feeling of separation; how could we work to heal it...I mean,
it would have been a whole different conversation. And we wouldn't be
in this condition today, where half of the United States still thinks
that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
What I think is that the conversation that we're
capable of holding in our own communities is one that's absolutely critical
now. People are waiting for it. People are waiting to be heard from.
So each one of you, in going back home - and there are many different
communities represented in this room - have the opportunity to start
a dialogue, create a discussion. Say how you feel. Bring others in. Reach
out to people that maybe you've never talked to before.
We need to break down the kind of isolation
which exists, and a campaign for a Department of Peace achieves its finest
expression in reaching out, in dissolving those walls.
CRONKITE:
Absolutely. Absolutely. Let's get that word "peace" - Department
of Peace - out there as constantly as you can do so. And this organization
and you people are on the leading
edge of that campaign. And obviously, as with any campaign, the enlistment
of like-minded individuals - devoted individuals - to a process or a
cause is the only way that you're ever going to put it together. You
people are on the edge of that. And not only your organization, but through
your organization the word spreads out among the people, so it becomes
a more popular thing to be counted as one of the pilgrims, trying to
lead us to this promised land of peace.
[Applause.]
KUCINICH:
There was a question from the audience, "How
do you feel the tragic Katrina aftermath has influenced the public's
understanding of the violent nature of our society?"
There
are a couple of different points, here. There is this question - it's
not a question about the weather, by the
way; it might be a question about global climate change, but it's not
a question about the weather - about the role of government in people's
lives and whether government has the ability to address people's practical
aspirations; for peace, for physical security, for shelter, for food,
for clothing, for education, for health care. And I think one of the
things that Katrina has done is that it has shaken the American people's
confidence in their government's ability to deliver in times of need.
And secondly, it has helped, once again, to spark these debates that
are going on all around the country about the fact that government ought
to have a real, tangible role in people's lives. Not as some projected
specter but as something that reflects the soul of the statement "We
the people." That's us; the government is us.
I think there's a desire at this point, in this
aftermath of Katrina, for people to want to see government at work helping
rescue people, helping rebuild their lives, helping to protect public
health, helping on flood control, helping to rebuild the infrastructure,
helping to create health systems that serve all the people, helping to
give people a better chance at an education; helping, helping, helping.
I
think a beneficent role of government is anticipated right now in the
same way, frankly, that it was anticipated when Franklin
Roosevelt became president in 1932. I think America is at another moment
of change, in the sense that, because of the violence we saw against
the people of the Gulf Coast, not being left for themselves in many ways,
people are starting to say, "You know, we're not going to let this
happen again. We see a higher purpose for the United States of America,
and we're going to do something about it, in seeing that change happen." And
that same movement is the movement that will create a Department of Peace.
[Applause.]
CRONKITE: Of course, Dennis, you've moved directly,
right now, to what you've known all along: This is primarily a political
issue. It's a political issue. Whatever party you represent - I'm not
saying whatever party YOU represent; I happen to know what party you
represent -
[Laughter.]
KUCINICH: Sometimes I represent it.
[Laughter and applause.]
CRONKITE:
I said to him before we came out on the platform, here; I made a suggestion
to him as to how we could really
move this thing forward. And he didn't accept it, immediately, except
with a rather grim expression. I said, "The way to move this thing
forward is to elect him president."
[Cheers and applause.]
KUCINICH: Thank you, and it's not appropriate
for me to interrupt at this point, but I'm going to.
[Laughter.]
CRONKITE: Well I'm going to interrupt you.
KUCINICH: That was the same thing that people
said about you, and it wasn't too many years ago.
[Cheers and applause.]
CRONKITE: But Dennis, I think that this movement,
you've got to do some policing: I saw two people who didn't stand up
a moment ago.
[Laughter.]
KUCINICH: They work for me.
[Laughter.]
They know better.
Well, I think we're about to bring this discussion
to a conclusion. And I want to say a few words and would ask Walter to
conclude.
But I want to begin by thanking each and every
one of you who made a commitment of time and effort and who, over the
last few years, has made major commitments to move this idea along to
where we could bring so many people together for a week of activity.
To show us the power of our own citizenship, the potency of our own desires,
to make the thought become a reality.
So you are all as co-creators. You are all taking
that fire of democracy and lighting the lamps throughout Capitol Hill.
And that light will soon light the path for this nation and the world.
Thank you so much for what you're doing. Thank
you.
[Applause.]
CRONKITE: I can only close this (since, apparently,
you're putting me in that position of closing it) by endorsing this movement,
of course, and Dennis's thoughtfulness, his philosophic approach, his
sincerity, and his courage in moving forward with this movement.
I am not a registered Democrat nor a Republican.
I am a registered Independent.
[Cheers and applause.]
I happen to be a registered liberal Independent.
[Laughter and applause.]
But let's move on.
KUCINICH: Thank you, Walter.
CRONKITE: Well done; beautiful. Thank you all.
Thank you all.
