This is the second in a two-part series of Michael Bendetson's interview with former Vice President Walter Mondale. The first installment, which appeared in Thursday's issue, focused on Mondale's career as a senator, his vice presidency under Jimmy Carter and his 1984 presidential campaign. Today's focuses on Mondale's views on key political issues such as energy usage and the economy.
Michael Bendetson: As a man who personally held the Senate seat [from 1964-1976], unsuccessfully ran against the incumbent [in the 2002 Senate election] and also is a Minnesota resident, you are in perfect position to provide commentary on the 2008 Minnesota Senate election. At this juncture in time, the people of Minnesota are represented by only one senator. Although the Minnesota Canvassing Board has already certified [an Al] Franken victory, the battle for the Senate has moved into the courtroom. What do you think will be done to resolve this situation? In addition, what do you think should have been done to expedite this process?
Walter Mondale: I do not know how this election will turn out. It is in the middle of what is referred to as "judicial contest" and in the process of looking at 4,000 absentee ballots. I have heard predictions that it will take months to resolve this situation … I do not think that anyone truly knows how long it will take. However, there are a few things we do know. The election was truly phenomenal. There were 3 million ballots cast, and the candidates came within 200 votes of each other. As a result, every ballot had to be recounted. Our mechanisms for counting ballots are very efficient and effective and may be the best system in the country. The reason for the disputes is based principally on absentee ballots. The outcome has to be just. I also hope the process can be expedited because there is a lot of serious business going on in our nation's capital. Minnesota deserves two senators and America deserves 100 senators.
MB: One of the main focuses of the Carter Administration was that of conservation of energy. While various steps such as the creation of the Department of Energy were implemented by President Carter to reduce dependency on foreign oil, the current United States energy policy appears to be nearly unchanged. Why do you feel there has been little movement on this issue? Also, what in your opinion needs to be done to create an energy-independent America?
WM: Energy is one of those tough issues. Almost everything that you can do that would make a significant impact requires you to frontload pain and backload pleasure. This is not always a popular thing to do. We did it. We set up [the Department of Energy], deregulated the price of gas and oil and began the search for all alternative forms of energy. We studied solar, wind, geothermal and many other forms. Most of what we are enjoying now was started under Carter. When we left office, [Americans] were using 2 million gallons of oil less than when we entered office. If they kept those programs in place and built on them, by now we would be in a far better position than we are in now. Reagan and a lot of others felt there was no problem. They were optimistic. [Former President Ronald] Reagan said "There is more oil in Alaska than in the rest of the world combined, including the Middle East." Of course, it was not true, but it made you feel good for a while. As a result of this mentality, we lost a lot of time. Now I am hopeful that under the leadership of President [Barack] Obama, and as Americans see the awful consequences of these energy shortages including terrorism, global warming and a damaged economy, that we will focus more of our attention on energy independence.
MB: Throughout your years as senator, vice president and ambassador, you have done an extensive amount of traveling across the globe promoting American values and ideas. Based on your experiences abroad, why is America detested in so many areas around the globe? In addition, what can be done to improve the global reputation of the United States?
WM: I think the worst thing that happened under our last president was the excess in hubris, displayed with the idea that America can push people around. There was also this extraordinary confidence [that] the military could force other governments and societies to respond to what we wanted. There was a belligerent and pushy way that the [Bush Administration] approached not only our enemies, but also our friends. If you look at the polls and the international surveys, they show that we [America] have really alienated a lot of the world. I think our reputation can improve quickly if we change our approach, as Obama is beginning to do so.
MB: With a Democratic Congress and an enthusiastic public, President Obama has a great window of opportunity to accomplish his proposed legislation. What are the main issues that President Obama should be focusing on?
WM: That is a tough question. I have never seen a new president confront more tough and diverse issues than those that President Obama is forced to deal with. All of these issues are controversial and extremely costly. Right now, we are trying to get a stimulus package that will help pull us out of this deep recession. We have to try to get a better health care system. We need to do a better job in education. We need to do better with alternative energy and global warming. We need to restore America's reputation across the globe. We must find a better solution to dealing with Iran and their nuclear capabilities. There are so many issues that this president and this Congress have to deal with. However, I am optimistic because the American people have spoken and given a mandate to the new president.
--
Michael Bendetson is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
