THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 25, 1999
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AND OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN
DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP FORUM
THE THIRD WAY: PROGRESSIVE GOVERNANCE FOR
THE 21ST CENTURY
National Press Club Building
Washington. D.C.
5:21 P.M. EDT
MR. FROM: Good afternoon. I'm Al From, President of the Democratic
Leadership Council.
Welcome to this historic forum, entitled "The Third Way: Progressive
Governance for the 21st Century." We are honored today by the presence
of so many international leaders of the Third Way. The Democratic
Leadership Council is an idea action center, dedicated to developing
Third Way philosophy and a Third Way governing agenda. We are gratified
and amazed to see similar themes cropping up all over the democratic
world.
Ten years ago this week, Governor Bill Clinton agreed to become
chairman of the DLC. Many of the new Democrats' themes -- (laughter and
applause) -- many of the new Democrats' themes and ideas developed
during his chairmanship have defined the Third Way in America, and as
President he has put them into action.
Shortly after the 1992 election, we were first visited by a member of
the Shadow Cabinet, Tony Blair, who was beginning his efforts to
modernize the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. How far we've come in
just one decade. Today's event is the latest in a series of
conversations on Third Way politics that began at Chequers in November
1997, and continued last year at the White House and New York
University. Today, three key continental leaders are joining this
global conversation.
And before I talk about what we're going to do today, I want to
recognize the one American who has done more to get this conversation
underway than any other, the First Lady of the United States, Hillary
Rodham Clinton. (Applause.)
This forum comes against the backdrop of NATO's 50th anniversary
celebration. It will focus on new social and political questions posed
by economic change and globalization. Its purpose is to highlight the
common values and priorities that motivate Third Way leaders as they
seek to strike a new balance between the imperatives of economic
dynamism and social justice. Whether they're called New Democratic, New
Labor, or the New Middle, the values, ideas, and approaches to governing
for the Third Way are modernizing center-left politics around the globe.
They are grounded in a public philosophy that embodies fundamental
progressive principles further by innovative ideas and modern means.
The Third Way philosophy can be summarized this way: its first
principle and enduring purpose is equal opportunity for all, special
privilege for none. Its public ethic is mutual responsibility. Its
core value is community. Its outlook is global and its modern means are
fostering private-sector economic growth, today's prerequisite for
opportunity for all, and promoting an empowering government that equips
citizens with the tools they need to get ahead.
To lead our discussion, I'm honored to turn the program over to the
man whose leadership has shaped the Third Way, the President of the
United States. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much. I'd like to begin just by
expressing my profound gratitude to Al From, and to all the people at
the Democratic Leadership Council for having the passion and the
patience to work at this for years and years and years.
I, too, want to thank Hillary and the hearty band within the White
House who keep us focused on the big ideas and values that got us here
in the first place. And I'd like to say a special word of thanks to my
friend and aide, Sidney Blumenthal, for the work that he's done in
trying to put this meeting together.
I would also like to just very briefly say how very much I admire the
people who are here with me at this table today -- how much I have
learned from them, how much I look forward to working with them at every
opportunity. Wim Kok, from the Netherlands, actually was doing all this
before we were. He just didn't know that -- he didn't have anybody like
Al From who could put a good label on it. (Laughter.) But he was doing
it, for years and years and years.
Tony Blair has made me long for a parliamentary system. (Laughter
and applause.) Gerhard Schroeder had to wait even longer than I did --
(laughter) -- and was also a distinguished governor. And Massimo
D'Alema has proved that you -- I think -- I'll make you a prediction
here -- I think he is already proving that even in Italy, where
governments tend to be like the flavor of the month for ice cream, that
the right sort of politics can have a sustained long-term impact on some
of the most wonderful people in the world. So I'm honored to be here
with all of them.
I'd like to thank my friend and ally, Congressman Cal Dooley, who is
out there; the Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater; the Secretary
of the Army, Luis Caldera, who helped me in so many ways. And we're
going to hear afterward from Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend,
former Governor and Democratic Party Chairman Roy Romer; Mayor
Wellington Webb of Denver; and Commissioner Michael Thurman. I thank
them.
All of you know we've just finished a three-day NATO conference,
celebrating the 50th anniversary of NATO, bringing in new members,
celebrating an astonishing partnership with over 40 countries, including
the countries of Southeastern Europe, all except for Serbia, and the
countries of Central Asia in this amazing new group which, itself, is
full of Third Way questions.
At our last luncheon, one of the members made a crack that we had
five members of the last Politburo of the Soviet Union sitting around
our table today. And another one said, yes, and a lot of the rest of us
should have been on the Politburo, but we weren't. (Laughter.) And it
was a picture of how much the world has changed.
What gives rise to this kind of politics, when the old order is
destroyed or when the realities of daily life or popular dreams can no
longer be accommodated by a given set of political arrangements through
a political debate? We see that in Southeastern Europe today, with the
crisis in Kosovo, where the old choices between state stability and
being consumed by ethnic hatreds, and what we're arguing for is a new
integration based on the embrace of difference, not the oppression of
it.
I would like to just pose a couple of questions, and then let our
panelists take off. Your heard Al From say that basically our lodestars
have always been in the United States the concept of opportunity,
responsibility and community. We worked on this for years. We tried to
think of simpler and more complex ways to say what we stand for, but
we've never done any better than that.
So I think I will just leave it there. But let me say, what could
that mean in the present time? What is giving rise to all these
people's elections? Why is this happening everywhere? It's not some
blind coincidence. I believe it is because the social arrangements
which were developed within countries and the international arrangements
among them, which grew up from the Great Depression through the second
world war, and then the Cold War, are no longer adequate to meet the
challenges of the day.
And most of the parties of the right made a living by beating us in
elections by saying how bad we were. And whatever -- we were always for
more government and they were for less of it. And if you thought it
was, by definition, bad, then less is always better than more.
So they had quite a run in the 1980s. And then it became readily
apparent that that didn't really solve any problems. And that they were
serious questions that demanded serious answers. So I will just pose
three, and then let our panelists go in whatever order they would like.
It seems to me that the great question that any political party that
purports to represent ordinary citizens must answer is, how do you make
the most of the economic possibilities of the global information economy
and still preserve the social contract? What can governments do to help
make sure that every responsible citizen has a chance to succeed in the
global economy? And how can we discharge our responsibilities, as the
leaders of wealthy countries, to put a human face on the global economy
so that in other countries, as well, no one who's willing to work is
left behind.
The second question I'd like to ask is, what is the nature of the
social contract now, and how is it different from what it used to be?
What does it mean? Are there entitlements that we should still have?
Beyond entitlements, what are the empowerment issues of the social
contract? What is the role of the private sector and the relationship
of the government to it?
And, finally, what do we mean by the concept of community? Who's in,
who's out? And how can we create a concept of both national and
international community that is a more powerful magnet drawing people
together than the awful magnets pulling them apart, rooted in racial and
ethnic and religious difference throughout the world?
And I will leave with that. It is a cruel irony that in this world
we're entering that we have always celebrated in our dreams as a place
of unbelievable technological explosion, unbelievable scientific
advance, unbelievable advances in health care, and using computer
technology to empower people in small African and Latin American
villages, for example, to learn things -- would be dominated by the most
primitive hatreds in all of human history, those rooted in our basic
fear of people who are different from us. How can we construct a
community in which those forces pulling us together are more powerful
than those tearing us apart?
There are hundreds of questions we debate all the time, but just
about every question we debate falls within one of those three
categories. And so having set it up like that, we have no agenda, and
I'll just turn it over to our friends.
Mr. Blair, would you like to go first?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Thank you, Mr. President, and I think the
first thing I would like to say is how delighted I am to take part in
this event, and to thank Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council
for having hosted it -- and I think, probably on behalf of all the
leaders who attended this summit, to apologize to the people of
Washington for the inconvenience that we've caused them. But it's just
as well we're not running for election here, but -- (laughter.)
I also want to say a word of thanks to the President as well. I
believe what happened over these past few days will in time be seen as
something quite historic. I think we have witnessed a little piece of
history in these last few days. And I don't know about my other
colleagues, but I found, when I was sitting round the table today with
people from all sorts of different countries, who would have considered
themselves in a different world, really, from us, a few years ago, there
was something quite humbling about their desire to be part of our family
-- about their tremendous innocence, in the best sense of the word,
belief in the values of democracy and justice and freedom, and creating
a better society and better world.
I think something happened this weekend that I think was remarkable,
and it wouldn't have happened without the leadership and the vision of
President Bill Clinton. And thank you for that. (Applause.)
On the Third Way, itself -- and as Ger Schroeder was saying to me on
the way in, look, I haven't found the first two ways yet, so you tell me
where the third one is, but -- (laughter) -- on the Third Way, itself, I
think we start from one simple proposition. And I find this when I talk
to people in no matter what part of the world we're in, which is why
this idea of dialogue I think is so important.
All countries have different ways of coping with these two basic
problems -- how you get economic prosperity in a world of economic
globalization and massive technological change, number one; and number
two, when societies are changing, families are changing, lifestyles are
changing, the whole way that the people live their life in our society
is changing, and how you provide social stability in these times. I
think those are the two things that confront us always, the whole time
-- how do you provide prosperity in this world of economic change, how
do you provide stability in this world of social change?
Now, the way that I define the Third Way is this, that what I would
call, really, if I could use British or European terms, what I would
call the old left would have almost tried to resist change, would just
have said, we don't like this change. And we became associated with
high taxes, producer interests, big government. In terms of crime, for
example, we were often perceived as simply soft on crime, indifferent to
it, more worried about the rights of those committing crimes than those
people that were victims of it -- and, basically, didn't appear to have
answers to these problems of the future. That was the old left.
The new right that was produced in a sense as a sort of
counter-revolution to that, in the '80s, thought the solution to
everything was just get rid of government, just get it out -- as little
of it as possible, get rid of it all, economics of laissez faire and
socially, often I think indifferent to what was actually breaking apart
the bonds of society.
Now, I think that our whole process, really, for the center and
center-left is a voyage of rediscovery. What is it that we're really,
really about? And I believe what we're really, really about is the
politics of community, summed up as Al From put it -- community,
opportunity, responsibility.
And I think that, then, leads to four different parts from that, that
derive from that basic principle. In other words, it's about
reasserting ourselves as a party of values -- not as a party of fixed
ideological or policy positions, but party values -- and then it's
saying, well, how do you apply those values to these great economic and
social changes.
I think there are four parts, as I say. I think, first of all, in
economic terms, we define the new role for government. And the role for
government is not old-style corporatism or heavy-handed intervention,
it's essentially about government's role in promoting education, skills,
technological advance, small businesses, entrepreneurship -- it's a role
for government, but it's not the role that it used to be. And it's
distinguishable, both from the old politics of heavy-handed intervention
and some of the new right politics, which is laissez-faire.
In social terms, it's about the concept of a modern civic society.
I'll tell you what my generation wants, I believe. We went through a
period in the '60s where, if you like, people just sort of said, well,
you do your own thing. I think want my generation and younger wants --
and I notice this with young people in my society, particularly today --
is they want a society that is free from prejudice, but not free from
rules. So they want to make sure that the sexual and racial equality,
that there isn't discrimination against people -- they don't actually
believe that its tolerable that old ladies are beaten up by young thugs.
So and neither do they believe it's tolerable that someone simply
takes money off the welfare state and feels no sense of responsibility
toward the society in which they live. So I think it's also, then,
secondly, about a civic society based on rights and duties.
Thirdly, if you do believe in active community, you have to redefine
and reinvent government. And this is what this administration here and
Vice President Gore have done an immense amount in really pioneering
work on. But all of us in our different ways are trying to reinvent the
institutions of government. You do things differently, different
mechanisms -- sometimes you use the voluntary sector, there will be
partnerships between public and private sector; decentralized government
will be done in a different way than it was before.
And the fourth area -- which is why I think it's good in a way that
we are having this seminar, even though the whole of this weekend has
been overshadowed by Kosovo -- because I think the fourth principle that
derives from our belief in community, opportunity, responsibility, is a
belief that this applies internationally as well as nationally. And,
therefore, when we say what is happening in Kosovo is utterly
unacceptable and we are not going to tolerate it, we will stand up to
the rights of oppressed people there, that is every bit as much about
our values as it is about strategic interest.
And so, internationally, I think we are people that are outward, not
isolationists. And what I noticed with a lot of the talk on parts of
the right in my country and other countries, is they increasingly
retreat into a sense of national interest that I believe ultimately is
contrary to national interest, because it seeks to shut nations off from
each other in the world at large.
So I think, derived from a rediscovery of our essential values -- the
belief in community, opportunity and responsibility as being the basis
for that -- a derivation from those values in the economic, the social,
the government, and the international sphere, adds up to practical
policies in the end. It's an agenda of values and principles that ends
up with practical policies that make a different to the people whose
lives we're looking after, and trying to help.
And a couple of other things, by way of finishing. The first is that
I think it's really important in this that we understand that the people
at the table are all in government. I mean, Bill, and Massimo and Ger
and I have been in government a little bit shorter, I should say, but
for Wim and Bill -- all of us, we've been doing these things. I mean,
there's actually policy content to this. And the policy content is
driven by these ideas and values, and that is very, very important.
Because in the end what is important also is to give a sense of vision
in which the values, the principles, and the policies form one seamless
line.
And the other final comment is this: It is very important, in my
view, for this whole project of renewal to be a dynamic project. Our
center is a dynamic center. It's not a soggy center. It's not just the
lowest common denominator between left and right. It is a genuine
attempt to address the problems of the future according to the
principles of justice. And I truly believe that it offers a new,
different, radical and better way forward for politics in the 21st
century. (Applause.)
PRIME MINISTER KOK: Thank you. Allow me, please, to join first Tony
when he made his comments on this, this weekend, this NATO summit. The
summit was, of course, overshadowed by what is still happening in
Kosovo. And I think the outcome of the summit is encouraging, in terms
of unity -- and not in an unnatural way -- unity between the member
states of NATO, in spite of the fact that there are, of course, nuances,
because I very much understand the specific position where, for example,
Italy and Greece are located so closely to Serbia and to Kosovo -- that
makes a difference. But there's unity.
And on top of that, we have that very, very remarkable experience of
having such a large family of 19 members and 23 other countries together
around one and the same table. And that shows that in the new century,
NATO will be as necessary as before, but will be a different, new NATO,
based on the same values -- rule of law, justice, against crime, against
inhumanity. We will do it in another way, in accordance with the new
situation. And I'm most happy that we're under your leadership here.
Having said that, I come to the item of today -- as you said
yourself, Bill, we put it into practice without having the label on it,
the Third Way. Sometimes I have the impression that the Third Way is a
very broad Third Avenue, but -- (laughter) -- anyhow, it is symbolic for
renewal.
And I like the approach very much, because -- well, I am Prime
Minister of a relatively small European country, only 16 million people.
An open economy, very dependent on international trade, a high share of
our national income is exported and imported. So we became perhaps
earlier aware of the necessity to change and to adapt some other larger
economies in Europe and outside Europe. And I'm proud to be a citizen
of a country where we have a very high social standard.
I think we belong together with the Scandinavian countries, to the
countries who have the highest level of social benefits, which is good,
but, if you are not very careful, dangerous at the same time. Because
in these modern times, people do not just -- must have the right to be
protected if they need to be protected, in terms of social standards, of
social care; but people also must feel the urgency of responsibility.
Opportunities is one thing, responsibility is the other thing. And
solidarity, in fact, has two aspects. People who cannot take care of
themselves must be protected in a decent way.
But the taxpayer -- that's also the average worker and worker family
-- must know that what he or she is paid is dealt with in an appropriate
way, by those who get the money. So, participation and responsibility
is as important as solidarity. We have -- solidarity is a two-way Third
Way -- a two-way road. (Laughter.)
So what we did, what we had to do is renewing the social system, not
by breaking down these walls of social standards, but by activating
social security policies, bringing people from welfare to work, and
making people responsible for their own decisions, and also being, in
community terms, being straight-forward. Because you have rights, but
also responsibilities.
I'm like Tony Blair, very much in favor of taking change as reality,
because we are living in a world -- an interdependent world, where
change is a must. New technologies are not only a danger for some
people, but offer opportunities and possibilities, and these can be
translated into new possibilities.
What that means to the government must be an empowering government
offering the tools to people on the basis of equal opportunities to make
the best out of their life. But then we must be very keen, of course --
when we use the word community, we must know that there are not only
winners, that too many people also in my country -- and it will not be
different in other European countries or here in the United States --
who will never be the winners because of technological change. Where
empowerment and where the modern possibilities of training and education
are not possible anymore.
So we have only a community if the winners feel responsible for the
losers and make -- give the best possible opportunities for those who
cannot afford to follow the rhythm and the speed of technological change
to have a good living. And this is true for the national case. It is
also true for the international case.
We have, again, in the international world, of course, to stress what
we have to do in terms of giving help and showing solidarity with the
poorer countries. But they must also be in the possibility to do so.
So that relief for the countries in the most miserable financial
situation -- in African countries, for example, is a must. If we don't
do so, give them the possibility to get rid of their debts, because they
pay more money on interest rates because of the debt than they even
earn, then the spiral is going all the time deeper and deeper. That's
also community and that is done in my approach also, part of our
approach.
And my final word is, let's not forget the ecological aspect of what
we are doing, because the quality of our lives, and the quality of our
future, will be based not only on the basis of material progress -- on
profits, or salaries, or whatsoever -- we want to have a world for our
children and our grandchildren that is really worthwhile. And that
means that we must be prepared, in our own economies and altogether --
and quite often it can be better done in the international field than
just nationally -- to pursue policies that are not always popular, but
are necessary to prepare a better world for the next generation.
Thank you. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Gerhard?
CHANCELLOR SCHROEDER: Well, the search for a Third Way has got
historical reasons, or historical origins. People have put the
question, I think even longer than ten years ago -- I mean, some of us
have been working for ten years or more -- but with us, is there an
alternative to neoliberalism on the one hand side, and some kind of
orthodox state socialism on the other hand?
That is the reason why people have started for a Third Way, because
both of those tracks have been discovered to be misorientations and --
well, misguided ways. People who are dealing with the question of a
Third Way will have to answer the questions as to how one can lead
developed industrial societies, industrial countries, successfully in
the new millennium.
And I think if we're looking for an answer to that question then it
makes sense to deal with the things that already exist in our world.
For example, we've got the Southeast Asian model. Possibly, if you look
to Southeast Asia you can see it most obviously what I mean.
That model is based upon the fact that capital has accumulated in the
hands of only a very few; access to education has been restricted to
very few; and the wide areas and the wide masses of the working populous
have been forced to forego their participation in wealth, education and
affluence through political means.
I would like to say that one of the origins, the root causes for the
Asian crisis is to be found right there. The European model has a
completely different one. After the second world war people tried to
venture upon a path that they called social market economy in Germany
where they tried to emphasize the word "social," and that was not based
upon the wider masses of the population, the worker, foregoing their
just share for prosperity within their society and their just share of
education. But it was based upon participation and involvement of the
working masses.
They were given their fair share of prosperity within their society.
And if you ask yourself what could be the flesh to the bone of the Third
Way, then I think we have to go back to those roots. For me, Third Way
means participation of as many as possible. Participation in the values
that the society holds precious, but also regarding vocation, training,
education, et cetera.
And whenever I am involved in a discussion of the Third Way, then I'm
normally doing it in such a way that I say we need to make sure that as
many people as possible can participate in, can share in the
opportunities, but also responsibilities within the society. And I
think if that is understood, if we are talking about participation and
co-determination within that society -- and I think that holds true for
women as well as for men -- then I think you have found a definition for
the Third Way that ties with itself, within itself. I think you then
only have to go in and determine what does that mean in the individual
detail.
And I would like to respond to a few of the questions that President
Clinton just put, and I'll try to answer them. I, by the way, also
think that the experience with systems that promise to make mankind
happy and lucky have shown that the true magic formula here doesn't
exist, and that in real life one has to go in and run an experiment to
keep the good things and then throw away what's bad. I think trial and
error is an important principle here. It seems to become ever more
important when we see how complex these industrialized societies are
these days.
But let me come back to those questions the President has said, which
economic opportunities are the ones that we can grab; which ones can we
use. I think that is a good question in this context. And I think
there would be a general answer to that question, but it needs
formulating in detail as well. If we tried to provide economic
opportunities for as many people as possible, we need economic growth.
But the question is, what is economic growth within our environment
under our circumstances. My proposition will be that growth in economic
terms is an increase in knowledge and an increase in skills. That is, I
think, what holds true for our society today.
And that leads me to what I think is the crucial question here -- how
can we make sure that we keep all people and all parts of our society up
and running, and keep them involved in the offer of knowledge and
education. Because only if we manage to do so can they partake in the
prosperity thereof as well.
So we need an utmost degree of education and training available to as
many people as possible. But it's not just something that is demanded
by humanity, but it makes economic sense. Because I think if economic
growth and prosperity in the future is more knowledge-based than ever,
and if new products are going to be even more knowledge-based and
skills-based than they ever have been in the past, then I think the
criterion that will decide about the fate of a society, fate of a
country in a positive or negative sense will be exactly that.
The second question that was put to us -- what is, sir, the
relationship between justified demands within a society and the
responsibilities -- I think in market economies today, we do not have a
legal right, but certainly a moral right, an entitlement, I should
rather say, to education and work, a job afterwards. If that holds
true, though, then that should be balanced by the responsibility to then
also do work thereafter. And he also holds the responsibility to
undergo vocational training and make the effort.
You may be too young or you may be too old; in that case, it's up to
your society to look after you and protect you, but it has to be very
obvious. And that is really where our Social Democrats made mistakes in
the past. It has to be obvious. And that is really where democrats
made mistakes in the past. It has to be very obvious that just as Wim
just said, solidarity is a two-way street, it is not a one-way street.
Solidarity means the that person has to do whatever they can for
themselves and their family. And only if they fail or are entirely
unable to do so, only then does solidarity within the society mean that
that society has to look after him and care for him.
I think that the demands that we are faced with from our citizens,
that there are very obvious responsibilities. On the other hand, we
really need to implement that. And I think he who does not comply with
his duties and responsibilities should lose his original entitlement to
the solidarity, namely, the support by the state. I think that is
justice. It is a justified model, because otherwise, the people who
bring the performance, the people who earn the money will finally say
they're no longer ready to support the weak ones.
The third thing we need to do is that we need to come to some
common-sensical ration between private factors on the one hand side and
public factors on the other. And if you look at America -- I think our
European tradition is a little different from yours. Here in the U.S.
it always went without saying that the private sector was the prior one
and it was strong and it was seen positively. And I think if we had a
healthier relationship and in Europe and Germany, between the private
sector and the public sector -- I think if we adopt some of the things
you have done here in America in that field, then we could certainly
gain. And I think possibly in a similar way, Americans could gain from
taking over some of our educational approaches.
And I think the vocational training system, for example, we had in
Germany -- for quite a long time it was debated -- also, in America --
whether some of that should be taken to and be brought to the U.S. I
remember that Mrs. Clinton very much thought about creating a health
sector that wasn't meant to be very similar or the same as in Germany or
in Europe, but to adopt certain components that were already in
existence in Europe.
So I think we can really learn from one another here, and I think as
to this healthy relationship between the private sector and public
sector, Germany can certainly learn a lot from America -- certainly when
it is about the question of the flexibility of the markets. And in the
markets I include the labor market, as well. But if I understand Europe
as one thing, then I think that degree of flexibility is difficult.
Because, I mean, in Europe you have all the different languages. I
mean, you can see my English is just not good enough to get across to
you what I want to say. So that is something that does factually
restrict mobility across Europe. And also the very different state
cultures and traditions are dividing factors to some degree.
But nevertheless, I think the high degree of flexibility that you
have here in America, the flexibility, and the dynamism, of course,
arising from it, and the momentum, is something that we would like to
share with you. I think we do not just need a new relationship between
the private sector and the public sector. But if you want to put it
like that, on the vertical level we need the same things.
Let me explain. Even if there are certain responsibilities that lie
within the responsibility of the state, the state is not necessarily the
same as the field of politics. So if you tell the state that those are
crucial tasks to be looked after the state -- hopefully, less than the
state was supposed to be doing in the past, but still -- then the
question still is on which level of that state are those different tasks
looked into.
In Germany, we've got this principle of subsidiarity. That is, by
the way, something that is also important for Europe. And the principle
behind that term is easy. So everything and anything that can be
decided very close to the people can be decided and should be decided
there. And that makes sense because the closer the decision to the
persons affected by it, the more easy to understand, the more direct,
the more close. And I think the more removed the decision-making body
is, the more difficult to find the legitimation for that decision-making
process, and the more difficult for the people affected to understand
it.
So the principle of subsidiarity means that the tasks that can be
done by a local authority should not be transferred to the next level or
the second next level, but they should have actually been taken on the
local authority level. And there yet again, I think we can learn a lot
from America because this is a very well-developed addition here in this
country.
And I think if we make ourselves aware of the fact that the Third Way
means letting as many people as possible participation in the haves and
in the say within their society, and then break that down on to the
different detailed levels, then I think that the Third Way must never be
understood as a closed circle or as a closed system that we just put on
to our people as if we were putting on a hat, but as a context that
needs to be open, stay open to change.
Because I think the worst thing we could do, that we take our
dynamically changing society, our dynamically changing environment, with
an economy that develops dramatically -- it skyrockets in some areas --
that we apply static systems to it. That was the reason why state
socialism was doomed to fail in the first place, because those two can
never go together.
So if we then understand the Third Way as an open system, then we
also understand that the right tool to develop it further is dialogue
and learning from one another. And that's what we're trying to do here.
(Applause.)
PRESIDENT D'ALEMA: First of all, let me tell you that this meeting
of NATO leaders has been a great success, and this wasn't at all to be
taken for granted. This summit was held during hard times because a war
is a war. It is a burden to bear, even when this war is waged with very
good motivations and with very great belief in these motivations.
We have come out of this summit more united, more determined, and
there are differences, but they are differences in the tones that were
used. But we do have a common strategy, and this strategy aims at
achieving a just peace. We said, and we stated at the summit that we
shall not rest at peace until these people who have been deported and
humiliated go back to their homes. We intend to use both force and
politics to achieve this goal. Then some of us maybe threaten the use
of force more, and others are stressing the use of politics, rather.
But this is not really a division among us.
Italy is right there, very close to the scene -- we're a front-line
country. But Italy is not outside the action that is being carried on.
We have 42 aircraft; we have helicopters engaged; we have 5,000 troops
in Bosnia, Macedonia and Albania; we have 2,000 Italian civilians who
are assisting and providing relief to refugees in Albania; we have ships
doing the work, together with the other forces of the Atlantic Alliance.
We have been there right from the start and we shall be there to the
end. (Applause.)
This is something that I wanted to say. There's a saying between
Germans and Italians, according to which Germans love Italians and
Italy; whereas Italians respect Germans and Germany. I have answered to
those who reminded me of this expression -- I find the Germans very
lovable. And I do think that Italians must be respected, or must learn
to become respectable. (Laughter and applause.)
This is very important for me. Italy's a serious country when it
takes up an engagement, and a commitment; even when such commitments
have to be taken with a heavy heart, as in this circumstance.
The Third Way, in my opinion, is a major cultural challenge, first of
all. In the course of this century, we have experienced open democratic
societies -- very dynamic ones, very competitive ones. But these
societies also have suffered a sickness -- social injustice. In these
societies, it is easy to race towards success, but at the same time in
these societies, those who do not make it dropped out, and they are left
at the margins.
At the same time we've had other experiences, societies that were
able to develop systems of solidarity and social protection, but through
heavy bureaucratic systems in such a way that these systems have, in
fact, slowed down development, dynamics and the possibility of attaining
success.
The Third Way is the effort to find a meeting point between the
positive aspects of these two major experiences. Is it possible to have
a dynamic economics and the society based on solidarity? I think it is.
But this is a challenge. There is no prescription that you can write
down for this. It is an attempt, an effort that is pursued day after
day. The Third Way is not an ideology. The answers are to be found day
after day and have to be tried and tested. The need for a Third Way is
the result of a crisis of ideologies, not of the victory of ideologies.
So I like to raise this issue also when talking about values and
cultures. The idea of social solidarity in the 20th century all too
often was accompanied by the idea of authoritarianism. And freedom, all
too often, has shown the face of inequality. And the conflict between
these values has left a deep mark on the 20th century. It has even been
an armed conflict, the conflict between solidarity and freedom. If we
intend to open up the way to a new age, we must find a peaceful
coexistence between solidarity and freedom.
I think that this approach to the issue has also got something to do
with the question of the dialogue between Europe and America. America,
after all, has been and is the great dynamic country, being dynamic and
the country of progress. West Europe in different ways has experienced
systems of solidarity through authoritarianism in Eastern Europe and
through democracy in the West, but with some bureaucracy involved in the
West, too.
For geographic reasons maybe, Tony Blair is sort of a bridge between
these two cultures and these two experiences. But I think this is an
important and positive role to play. And I think he is performing this
role, and will perform this role, effectively if he involves the whole
of the European left in this dialogue. This is a problem. This is a
question. I think we Europeans should not be divided. I think we
should move towards this new cultural challenge united.
I'd like to say a few things on the questions that were asked -- I'm
trying to be a bit more precise in my answers, but let me say -- in
order to win this challenge, probably we'll need less national
government, less central government, but greater governance over local
processes. I think the direction of our efforts -- when we talk of
crisis of community, well the crisis is of national communities,
particularly when it is accompanied by an ethnic and religious view of
what the national community is. But our leverage should be local
communities, should be the actual physical community among people. The
living community of people -- because solidarity, as it is developed at
that level is less bureaucratic, less cumbersome.
And we should introduce a notion of a global community, as well.
After all, what have these new friends who have opened up to the
dialogue with the West and with America told us? They have told us that
if we wish to guarantee peace, we should give these people a chance, an
opportunity of development and growth. They have told us that we cannot
be content with just giving opportunities to the individuals who live
within our societies; that is not enough. We have a larger
responsibility there. We must give opportunities to people, and we
should have a global view of responsibility and community.
In the official fora, I expressed no congratulations or words of
thanks to the President of the United States. Maybe that was too
official. I'd like to say a few words here, sincerely speaking, with
great sincerity. In these days, we have been successful because
President Clinton didn't just talk the language of force and
determination, he also has spoken words of hope. And I think we shall
be successful if we keep this hope alive, and if we feed it through
concrete choices.
In a few days, we shall meet in the G-7. We will have to talk about
debt of the poorer countries. Tomorrow, there will be the discussion on
the interim committee of the Monetary Fund. I think the real challenge
of the Third Way is to take action, take decisions, which are difficult.
It was difficult to decide to go and fight for Kosovo. We should show
the same determination when we decide to pardon the debt of the poorest
countries that will never be able to pay back because they're too poor.
We should show the same determination and force in taking the decisions
that are needed to seed hope. And that's what I wanted to say.
Thank you. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I should say that the Prime Minister is a good
friend of the man who is now the most famous Italian in America, Roberto
Benini. And after his performance at the Academy Awards, you have both
affection and respect. (Laughter.)
I would just like to try to comment on a couple of things, to maybe
make the conversation somewhat more specific and sort of segue into the
participation of our other American leaders here.
If you look at this whole Third Way challenge, in America, for the
Democratic Party it meant we had to prove we could manage the economy in
an intelligent way and then deal with the whole question of social
justice. And in our country those questions basically meant three
things. One is what to do about the poor and how to have a welfare
system that empowered people who could take care of themselves, but also
took care of people who could not take care of themselves -- first
question.
The second question, how to deal with the fact that we had phenomenal
economic growth, but increasing inequality. That inequality had been
increasing for quite a long time -- partly because of government
policies, partly because the new economy gives such a wage premium to
education and skills.
And the third question, to my mind, in many ways the most important,
how can this country with all of its phenomenal success and low
unemployment -- the lowest unemployment in 30 years -- and now finally
rising wages again, how can we strike the right balance, a better
balance between work and family -- give families the support they need
to raise their children, take care of their parents, have the time they
need, have the child care, the health care they need, and still maintain
the economic dynamism. What is the right balance?
Now, for Europe, it goes the other way. I wish Prime Minister Jospin
were here from France. Very interesting -- France has had economic
growth averaging over 3 percent for the last three or four years, but
their unemployment rate hasn't gone below 11 percent, I think --
something like that. Any way, still in double digits. And we know from
our own experience that when unemployment -- I mean, when growth can be
sustained above 2.5 percent in an industrial society, normally the
unemployment will go down until it bottoms out at around, at least
around 6 percent -- even without going over 3 percent.
So the European question is, how do you get growth manifested in jobs
and not give up your social solidarity. In America the question is, how
do we keep all this growth -- we love it -- and get a little more
stability for families, and make sure we have done what we should for
the poorest of our communities and our people; and try to make sure that
Americans who do work and carry the load in this country have a chance
to have more of the growth in terms of their personal wealth and
well-being.
So to some extent we are crossing. Now, I mention that to just give
you a couple of specific examples. Gerhard Schroeder mentioned the
German job training system. We sort of copied a lot of elements of that
and tried to amend it for America in setting up our school-to-work
program in 1993, because the Germans do the best job of moving people
from -- who do not go on to university for four years -- moving most
people into the workplace with modern skills so they can claim a higher
wage.
And in our country, we have -- John Sweeney, the head of the American
labor movement -- the labor apprenticeship programs -- a lot of the
labor training programs do a good job of that, but as a society, we
don't do as good a job of that. So we're trying to improve that.
Another interesting example -- how do you deal with the fact that
more and more people are working at home, more and more people are
working in flexible work environments, you're going to have more and
more part-time jobs -- how is that consistent with maintaining a kind of
social safety net. I would argue that the Netherlands have done the
best job of that. Wim Kok's country has the highest percentage of
voluntary part-time workers in all of Europe -- that is they choose to
do so. And they've worked out an agreement, which maybe he would like
to talk about, so that even the part-time workers earn, on a pro-rata
basis, their vacation -- annual vacation, and have retirement and health
care and other things -- they have the social protections, and there it
makes them more willing when necessary to take part-time work. This is
a big deal.
When I became President in America, there were 3 million people
making a living primarily out of their own home, for example. When I
was reelected, there were 12 million. Now there are 20 million, in
only two years. So this economy is going to, if you will, atomize a
lot. It's going to get a lot more diverse, and kaleidoscopic. So we'll
have a lot of challenges to face in having the proper sense of social
safety net.
And then, as I said, the most important thing is getting it right
between work and family, since I think we would all admit that the most
important job of any society is raising children as well as possible --
something we are even more burdened with in the moment, that conviction.
So I just throw those ideas out. These are things that are going on
in other countries, something that we're battling with here constantly.
And I wonder if any of you would like to comment on that.
PRIME MINISTER KOK: Well, perhaps I could say a few words about
responsible choices one has to make, individually and collectively, in
terms of what do we do with our economic growth?
First of all, of course, we have to create economic growth, and be
able to keep that speed of growth on a qualitatively acceptable basis,
as I said before, because the quality of the environment and ecological
aspects are not just somewhere things in the margin, they are part of
the heart of the matter.
But I think responsible choices made by workers and by trade unions
and responsible leadership in companies and enterprises are necessary
elements for good government policies in this respect, because there's
quite of a lot of choice for people to be made between what do we do
with our prosperity. Do we translate growing prosperity into higher
salaries for those who have already the job, the insiders? Or are we
prepared to use part of the growing prosperity for extension of the
number of jobs.
In my country there has indeed been a remarkable growth of the number
of jobs, also part-time jobs, but different from, I suppose, in the
past. In Germany these part-time jobs are equal. I mean, there are
equal rights for those who have a part-time job compared to those who
have a full-time job. In Germany the system was in the past that those
who have a part-time job got less social security rights, for example;
that makes, of course, quite a difference.
Having said that -- and this is my final remark -- on work and
family, I think people should, of course, take their own responsibility
in making the choice between two earners in households -- men and women
-- man and wife both want to have a job, and they have a choice, of
course, how to deal with raising children.
But it's of key importance that we offer opportunities for workers,
not only for women, but also for men, to have the possibility to combine
working with having enough leisure time for taking care of not only
raising children, but also for those who are sick -- and elderly people,
for example. And there, the word "flexibility" gets quite a new
phenomenon. In the past flexibility, which is a dirty word in the ears
of quite some Europeans, or just an instrument for employers, for
entrepreneurs who -- just to organize work in a flexible way. But the
workers had to wait and see what happened to them.
But flexibility should also be to the benefit of workers, if they
have the free choice to organize leisure time and working time in a way
where they cannot only earn their money, as a worker, but also be
responsible for children and elderly people if they want to take care of
them. And there labor agreements, at least in my country, are becoming
more flexible. And government policies are based on, for example,
fiscal stimulus to those who want to take leave -- people can, for
example, make use of special arrangements organized by government
policies, to make it possible to combine having young children, working
and taking care of the children.
So there a lot can be done in the triangle of clear government
policies, responsible trade unions -- but responsibility does not mean
that you are just weak and soft -- that can only be the case in the case
where also employers and entrepreneurs take their responsibility.
Because in a community-sense approach, everybody must be responsible,
not only the weakest, but also the strongest, who know that it's in
their benefit to work into the direction of a better society.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Anyone else want to talk?
CHANCELLOR SCHROEDER: Just one aspect, if I may, because I think we
might have neglected that aspect of it. I agree fully with what's Wim
Kok said and what the American President said as to the need for
internal reform. I have just realized how difficult that is. I mean,
seen against the background of very specific traditions that my party,
that our society has grown used to, there is one aspect that I believe
to be very important in this respect.
We've been talking about alternatives. And that is the international
aspect of politics, of policies. I am not saying that now with an eye
to the United States of America or the countries represented here. But
when I look to the countries in the Third World and to the newly
industrialized countries that tend to be so much stronger than the
poorest countries in the world, here the international development, the
internationalization, globalization of the economies of the financial
markets create a situation where the political achievements that you
have brought about in your own society is being destroyed by these
developments.
International, financial speculators can destroy an economy. We've
seen that in Asia. And the consequence of what we've seen there was
that the international financial institutions that have to come into
play -- that is to say, the stronger countries have to make their
contribution, which they generally do because it is in their very own
interest -- and that economies are being supported by international
financial institutions who pay for the liberties of the speculators in
the international markets. One of the causes by the crisis, for
example, that has set us back in our economic development.
So the internationalization of economies -- and we should not try to
counter that trend, nor to stop it or to block it, It's something that
develops, information technologies contribute to that -- but this
internationalization, this globalization of the economies, should it not
be followed and accompanied by an internationalization of our policies,
when we look to economic policies, for example.
And I think that it was last, but not least, the American President
-- but it was also others who submitted proposals as to how to cope with
the activities of these speculators and international financial markets
that can destroy the whole economy. As I say, the internationalization
of politics is important and we have to begin not with trying to control
financial markets, but trying to make them more transparent and trying
to coordinate common action on the part of the various governments
concerned and affected.
We have to include the private business community in this endeavor.
Of course they should have their liberties, the freedom of choice and
the freedom to take decisions that they consider right. But we should
bear in mind that our efforts can be destroyed overnight, whereas we are
not able to respond in an appropriate manner.
And that brings us to a somewhat curious situation, a difficult
situation. The people in the countries in which we are in power
politically, they expect of us that we take care of these developments
and these matters. And we, at the same time, are not able to solve them
or to deal with them at the national level. So there is this big gap
between the responsibility that we are burdened with by the people --
especially when it comes to international developments -- and the
objective means and possibilities that we have to act.
So what we need is to counter that, if we want to remain credible in
the policies that we pursue. And that is a very important thing, the
importance of it should not be underestimated. We've decided -- "we,"
the industrialized nations of the world, the G-7, the G-8 -- want to
talk about it in Cologne, and to take decisions in that respect. Of
course, we will not be able to conclude that ban, but at least we want
to make headway here, because I think otherwise we will be in a very
difficult credibility situation, we will not be credible to our very own
people.
And, now, when we think about the instruments at our disposal in the
international and the national arena, then we realize that it is going
to be the quality of political leadership; and the quality of political
leadership will become dependent on the credibility of governments,
dialogue will become a determining factor. And, therefore, politicians
will also have to adapt to the changes in time.
The success of politicians will be measured in their success to
participate in dialogue, their ability to participate in dialogue.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Let me just say very briefly, I think when we
meet in Germany in the next few weeks with the G-8, I hope we will
ratify a number of changes to the global financial system that I believe
will be adopted by the international financial institutions and other
bodies that will avoid having another financial crisis like the one we
saw in Asia that we have all worked so hard to keep from spreading to
Latin America and elsewhere.
And it really is a classic Third Way problem, because what happened
was, in the last 50 years after World War II when the so-called Bretton
Woods instruments were developed, the IMF, the World Bank and others,
designed to promote global trade and global investment, with the
explosion of technology and the explosion of trade, more and more money
had to move around the world.
And then as always happens, there came an independent market in
money, unrelated to the trade and investment. So that now every year,
every day, there will be about $1.5 trillion in trade per day in goods
and services, and the amount of money that moves -- excuse me, $1.5
trillion a day in trade and money, which is roughly 15 times the daily
volume of trade in goods and services. And that's the basic problem.
So we don't have a framework that has the right incentives to keep that
from getting out of hand and collapsing economies, protecting people
from their own foolishness, as well as from the foolishness of
investors.
But I think we can make some changes and keep the growth going, and
get rid of the problems, which is obviously the kind of balance we've
been striving for.
PRESIDENT D'ALEMA: I wanted to go back to the very interesting issue
which concerns the relationship between employment, work on one hand,
family life, spare time and education. I think one of the greatest
social issues in our society, and social problems in our society is how
to reorganize the relationship between work and family life in a freer
way. The relationship between work and time, the time we each use for
our own personal life, for our family life, for the people we love, for
the things we love to do -- our hobbies -- and the time we use for our
education.
In the new -- known for this -- (inaudible) -- social model that
characterizes our present societies, these aspects of our lives should
be organized according to a relationship which is increasingly free.
And we should create opportunities where individuals can, themselves,
take the decision how to organize time and the use of time in their
lives.
If at one point in their lives they wish to stop -- for example, we
have introduced in Italy a piece of legislation -- women or men to take
leave from work for a certain amount of time in the form of parental
leave to look after their children. And this is an entitlement for both
women and men, because up to now in a patriarchal society, such as the
one we live in, the problem of the correct relationship between work and
family has been a burden only on women's shoulders. Either women are
excluded from work or working women are oppressed by the double burden
of work and family and caring. And this is not right.
I think this is a problem, too. We can no longer concede social
issues as though they had no gender attached to them. Because this is a
very selfish way, in our perspective and in the perspective of the
gender which is represented on this side of the table, this is a very
selfish approach to social issues and no longer an adequate one. I am
convinced that we should promote a freer way to organize the use of
time. The time for education need not necessarily occupy the first part
of a person's life. Indeed, technology innovation requires life-long
learning and continuing education and life-long learning and adapting to
new knowledge.
And one more comment on this point: in the culture of individuals is
today the biggest form of social protection you can ever conceive, at a
time of mobility and technology innovation. Ensuring the people are
educated and have skills is the biggest form of social protection you
can ensure in a society. Whoever is highly educated and has high-skills
will spend these assets on the labor market. Those who do not have
these assets will be cut off and excluded. Culture is the most
important form of social inclusion, and I think we should invest in
culture.
And not just technical and vocational skills. Here, the left should
fully recover and revalue the value of the human sciences, of the
fundamental aspects of culture, because technical knowledge and skills
become obsolete -- technology changes. But what really matters is being
able to learn, learning how to learn. And this is the basic cultural
foundation that will help an individual to be able to quickly learn, to
become a learner.
And we have discovered that the educational systems that develop
these fundamental skills are more solid and sustainable and lasting than
the educational systems that push people too early towards technical and
specialized knowledge and learning. I think this is a very big problem
here and a rather new one, compared to the old approach to social
protection measures.
This is one of the key issues that should be developed if a Third Way
culture is to deal with welfare systems and reform.
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: I'll be really brief, because I can see Al
itching to get to the microphone there. There are just two points I
want to make, arising out of this discussion.
The first is that all the problems that we have been discussing, I
think what is different about this political approach is the idea that
these problems can best be addressed and governed through a concept of
active community. And I mean that in this particular sense, that our
position is that enterprise and justice can live together, and that
actually in today's world, they have to. Because economically, we are
in an Information Age where there is a premium on knowledge, and
therefore you have to invest and develop the potential of all the people
to be economically successful. So that is the way that we will succeed
in the future.
And, socially, because unless people have some part in society, then
this idea of opportunity and responsibility going together just doesn't
work. They need the two things happening, otherwise, it doesn't work.
This whole notion of community, then, breaks apart. So I think that
concept of act of community, based on opportunity/responsibility is
absolutely critical to this.
And in the '80s, all the way through the '80s -- I remember this --
when we allowed, certainly in the British Labour Party, the choice to be
put by the right you either voted for yourself or you voted for everyone
else for a sort of nice society. And we all thought, well, that's a
really great program. Then they'd all go into the polling booth and
they'd go, I think I'll vote for myself. (Laughter.) And of course,
the whole essence of our politics today, this is a foolish choice.
If you live in a community that's broken apart, if you actually don't
have a society in which there is opportunity for everyone, we all lose
as a result of that. A simple thing to say, but it is actually true
today because of the economic social circumstances in which we live. So
that's why I think this new political approach is so important, and
we've got to give real substance to it in the times ahead.
And the second point I want to make was really about what we're doing
here today. And I know it would be nice -- I think on another occasion
we would maybe take questions from everyone and have a real discussion
and all the rest of it. But it is remarkable that all five of us are
here, sitting here discussing these issues. This would not have
happened some years ago. And I think it is mightily long overdue,
because here we are all engaged, all leaders of governments engaged in
this conflict in Kosovo in which we believe and in which we will
persevere -- and, you know, it is easier for us to be solid together if,
at the same time, we are actually discussing ideas that Europe and the
United States of America don't think of themselves in completely
different contexts. But we have, actually, some sharing of common
experiences and common ideas.
And I think one of the best things that can come out of these types
of discussions, and why I think it's good that everyone is here --
because in a sense, I mean, Massimo is right. For us, in a way, it's
perhaps easy -- you know, the British, both in respect of America and in
respect of Europe. Sometimes it's not all as easy for America in
respect to Europe, or for other Europeans in respect to America.
But actually, what we have in common is infinitely more important
than what divides us. And we are, in our own ways, in the European
Union and the United States of America, we are the key to a modern,
free, democratic world, prosperous world. We are the key to that. And
the fact that we're here, I think, is good and it's significant. And
thank you all for coming along. (Applause.)
MR. FROM: Thank you very much, Mr. President. This was just
incredible, I think. But as Prime Minister D'Alema said, for the Third
Way to endure, Third Way ideas must improve the everyday lives of
ordinary people. And that's why for the second part of this forum we've
asked four new Democrat innovators from state and local government in
the United States to frame our discussion with brief presentations about
ideas that have worked in their jurisdictions.
After they've finished, then I'll turn it back over to you, Mr.
President, for a discussion among your colleagues.
First, Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend of Maryland has
pioneered efforts to bring all resources of local communities together
to fight crime and drug abuse. Lieutenant Governor Townsend.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR TOWNSEND: Thank you, Al. And I want to
congratulate you. (Applause.) Al, I want to congratulate you for the
work you've done for more than a decade to bring about the Third Way.
And, obviously, I want to thank President Clinton for his leadership for
the Democratic Party, that has made us such a strong party. Thank you,
Mr. President.
Thank you for that question. Obviously, the issue of crime and
violence has very much been on our minds this weekend -- and it's really
more than an issue, it's been a human tragedy of enormous dimensions.
But what has been hopeful, is American's reaction to that tragedy. I
send my comfort and sorrow to the families of Littleton, Colorado. But
what Americans understand is that we do not want an ideological answer.
They want results. They want to know what can make a difference. How
can we, first, make sure that we don't have guns in the hands of
children. And let me just describe three things that we're doing in
Maryland.
First of all, we believe that kids aren't born bad, violence is a
learned behavior, so that we as adults have a responsibility to teach
kids right from wrong and personal responsibility, a sense of kindness
and generosity and an ability to solve problems without violence, but
through talking and learning and understanding. And we're the first
state to do a statewide character initiative, and we're having good
results.
Two, we want to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of
children, and we're the first state to do a statewide initiative that
targets traffickers in guns, to make sure that we use the same energy
that we'd use to go after illegal drug dealers, to go after illegal drug
-- guns, traffickers.
And, third, we have to child-proof our guns. It is now easier to
shoot a gun than it is to open an aspirin bottle. That is outrageous,
and we want to make sure that we can have child-proof guns in Maryland
next year. But we want to use that same Third Way approach for other
issues.
Let me just give you, quickly, two facts. First of all, 50 percent
of all crime occurs in three percent of our neighborhoods. Second fact,
between 50 and 60 percent of all drug, of all cocaine and heroin use
used in the United States is used by people on parole and probation.
Those facts lead to two things. First of all, we have to target our
high-risk neighborhoods. We've done that through our Hot Spots program
that targets 36 neighborhoods with more government resources -- police,
probation officers, prosecutors -- but in partnership with citizens.
And just as you have said throughout this panel, it is absolutely
imperative that we engage citizens, that we get people to believe that
they can work with the police, that they can identify the drug dealers,
that they can testify in court, that they can join the community watch
groups, that they can volunteer in the after-school programs so that
they have a role.
The results are good. Across the United States we reduced crime 2
percent, in Maryland 7 percent; in our Hot Spots, the highest crime
communities, we've reduced it 12 percent.
Second, the issue of making sure that we're targeting those people
who are most apt to get in trouble through drugs, we've made sure that
everybody on parole and probation is tested twice a week for drugs. If
they test positive there is a series of graduated sanctions, and there
is treatment.
Already we have had results that show up to 80 percent reduction in
drug use. The idea is, you don't deal with these issues ideologically.
You deal with them practically, what gets results. And what's good
about getting results, when you start government, is you encourage a
sense of hope and confidence that government can work, that we can solve
our problems together and that we can initiate a sense of trust in one
another, in ourselves and in what we try to do and accomplish with one
another.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. FROM: Governor Roy Romer, former Governor Roy Romer of Colorado,
has gained a national reputation as an education reformer. Governor
Romer?
GOVERNOR ROMER: Mr. President and fellow heads of state, all of you
emphasized how crucial education is to that opportunity. The economy is
increasingly global, it's changing from an industrial-based to an
information-based economy. Therefore, one of the first steps that we're
doing in Colorado and many other states in this country is to clearly
define what a youngster needs to know and be able to do, setting
standards.
Secondly, we're saying clearly how good is good enough. And in that
endeavor, we are very much partners with you, because we need to not
only arrive at that definition of what you need to know and be able to
do, but we need to benchmark it against the world in which we're
involved.
But it's just not enough to set standards and have accurate
assessments. We need to think clearly in our education reform and we're
doing that in many states in this country, as to how we improve the
learning experience. And, again, we're partners. To be frank, you do a
much better job in 6th, 7th and 8th grade math than we do in this
country. You have defined the curriculum better. And we know that you
perform better as a result of that. We need to learn together how we
can share not just standards and assessments, but how you improve
teacher quality, how you improve the organization of time, how you
improve the curriculum of the schools, how you involve the parents and
the community in that endeavor.
Third, technology is going to blow us away. It is just unbelievable
what kind of new learning experiences we are going to have by virtue of
technology. And that is a global issue. The employers who are going to
hire our children are global in the main way. But the technological
aspects are just simply absolutely fascinating.
The final comment I want to make is this: that when we have new ways
of learning, particularly beyond high school, which are at a distance,
or through a CD-ROM or through interactive computer software, we're
going to have to develop a certification of competency, a process of
certifying skills so that they can be relied upon by an employer, but
also so that any student can say, test me on what it is that I really
know, not where I sat in the classroom or what kind of a brand name of
the school.
And here is a particularly unique thing for the Third Way -- because
if we can establish together truly what it is that person, as an adult,
needs to know and be able to do to be a network engineer; and then we
open up the free market to say, who can best provide that learning
experience, go for it -- that is something that will be absolutely, it
will be opening the opportunity of learning and education opportunity
worldwide. For example, it's unique -- in Europe, you often have an
overcentralized form of administration of education. In our country, we
have an overly dispersed system. And as we work together, we have so
much to gain by continuing this dialogue.
But just let me conclude, four things. One, we need to set standards
and assessments that are really honest, that give people true
opportunity. Secondly, we need to have a way to share better ways of
enabling that learning experience to occur. Third, we ought to take
advantage of the size and the scale of technology. And, fourth, the
certification of competency will free the marketplace to provide
something that we, as a society, do.
Final comment, as the Prime Minister of Italy has said, technical
education is not enough. Culture is tremendously important. I come
from a state that is living through the agony of that imbalance.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. FROM: Mayor Wellington Webb of Denver presides over a city with
an unemployment rate of 3.4 percent, which is virtually unheard-of for a
major city in America. He's going to tell us his secret. Mayor Webb?
MAYOR WEBB: I wish I could box it up. Let me say first that it's a
pleasure to be here. Our philosophic view of governance for our city is
neither left nor right. It's based upon the pragmatism of being able to
govern the people that live in our municipality. And it's based
principally on six principles.
The first is the foundation for our community and our city. The
foundation for that is, one, the fiscal discipline and appropriate
stewardship of the dollars that we govern for the constituents in our
city. The second part of that is to enhance the basic city services
that we provide in a business-like way that the customer is right and
changing the attitudes of public employees to a business-like approach.
Based upon that, we have four pillars that we build our city on. The
first one is public safety. No city can survive if the people that
reside in that city do not feel safe -- they'll move. It's not a gender
issue, a class issue, or it's not a race issue. People are going to
protect their families. The second one is kids in schools, and we
separate that to some degree. Even though mayors that do not have
responsibility for public education, we believe that what happens to the
children in our cities is directly linked to the educations that those
children provide.
In many instances it means that mayors need to involve themselves in
investing in public education and fighting for public education and at
the same time, work with the kids in their municipalities, which in many
cases may mean job opportunities, employment opportunities, career
opportunities.
The third part is -- the third pillar -- what do you do to enhance
the livability of your city, to make it more competitive against other
cities that you compete with for business. We believe it's parks and
open space, cultural activities -- whether it's sports teams, symphony,
ballet or whether it's dance or whatever those amenities are -- to build
upon our ability to enhance the quality of life because we believe
people move to cities and they're taking corporations and businesses
with them, where all they need is a telephone and a computer in order to
operate those businesses out of major cities around the country.
The last point is economic opportunity for all. We believe in order
to enhance that and how we do that, that has worked for us, is business
and labor and government and neighborhood organizations sit down
together and we empower the citizens of our city to help allow them to
make the decisions of what's appropriate for bond issues, for future
programming in our cities. Then they feel empowered because it's not
coming from the top, down. It's the bottom and the top sitting down
together jointly, making decisions that will enhance the community as a
whole.
We believe that that provides a sense of community. We believe
that's one of the reasons that people have moved in our city, mainly
because of the quality of life. Our crime rate has dropped 28 percent
in the last seven years. Our employment has gone down to 3.4 percent.
And our population has grown because we believe, one, people feel safe;
number two, they have amenities to enjoy; and, number three, they feel
their kids will have a quality education; and, four, they have the
ability to live, work and play in the municipality in which they now
live. (Applause.)
MR. FROM: Labor Commissioner Mike Thurman of Georgia developed the
model system for moving welfare recipients into jobs. And Prime
Minister Blair, it's such a model system that New Labour is bringing him
over in a couple of weeks to tell you how he did it. Commissioner
Thurman?
COMMISSIONER THURMAN: I bring you greetings from the great state of
Georgia. And, first, I would like to take this opportunity to thank
President Clinton for his leadership in moving us forward, and
transforming and reforming America's welfare and public assistance
system. Because of the devolution of authority back to states like
Georgia, I'm happy to report today that more than 67,000 families in
Georgia have moved from welfare to employment. (Applause.)
I'm happy to report that because we now have opportunity, authority
to create and design and implement locally driven welfare systems, we've
also saved the taxpayers of Georgia over $250 million in the process.
Much of this money, under the leadership of former Governor Isaiah
Miller and now Governor Barnes, has been reinvested in child care, in
drug rehabilitation training, we now have a statewide system of teen
pregnancy prevention centers.
And we've also innovated a very new process. We understand that
welfare reform is not just about women and children, that males have a
major role to play. And through our Fatherhood Initiative, we've taken
non-supporting fathers, provided them training, provided them with jobs,
taught them the values of responsible parenthood, and 84 percent of
those fathers are now working, supporting their children and
participating in their lives.
I am very delighted to hear these five great leaders say that they
are also concerned, in the midst of a global economy that is growing and
expanding, also concerned about the plight of those who are now left
behind without skills, and in many ways without hope. Ultimately, the
Third Way -- really, our society -- will be judged not by how those at
the top profit; but ultimately we will be judged by the quality of life
of those who struggled at the bottoms of our society. (Applause.)
As President Clinton has said many times, that you repair a leaking
roof not when it's raining, but you must repair it while the sun is
shining. This is the perfect opportunity to provide additional skills
and additional training, to teach the value and the dignity of work, and
to make sure that the millions who are now working poor will have the
skills needed to find jobs that will provide sustainable income for
themselves and their children. I only encourage you to continue to
believe in the Third Way, because the Third Way has proven to be the
right way.
Thank you. (Applause.)
MR. FROM: Mr. President, you've just heard four of the great
innovators at the state and local level in America. I turn it back to
you for the discussion, as you want to take it.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, let me say, first of all, I want to thank
all four of them for speaking here today and for the work they do. And
they're all friends of mine and was sitting here feeling like, sort of
like a proud father or something. I'm so proud of my friendship of many
years with Governor Romer; and Mayor Webb, who did so much to help me
become President; Kathleen Kennedy Townsend -- we're glad your mother is
here -- Ethel, welcome. There is no Lieutenant Governor in America who
has had remotely the impact that she has had on the lives of her
constituents. It's a stunning thing in many ways.
And I think Mr. Thurman can speak for himself. (Laughter.) But I'm
really proud of him, as well. (Applause).
You see -- the reason -- let me just say, one of the reasons that I
so much love the DLC and I was so proud of hearing them talk is that for
most of us, including those of us at this table, the stories you just
heard -- that's why we got in politics. And then when you become the
leader of a country and you're arguing about what's in some bill, or
what is the debate before the Parliament or the Congress -- if you're
not careful, the debate gets very abstract and very frozen and very
wooden, and very meaningless to the people that put you in this position
in the first place.
And the further you get away from your constituency -- and I think
sometimes our friends in the press almost contribute to this in a way,
because they have difficulties, too. You know, they have to write a
complicated subject, and they've got to get a headline out of it. Or
they have to figure out how to take an issue that's going on, and how to
put it into 15 seconds on the evening news.
But what you just heard is the ultimate test of whether ideas and our
values and our work amount to a hill of beans. It's whether it changes
the lives of people in concrete, positive ways. And, so, I just want to
thank them and those whom they represent. And I'd like to give my
fellow panelists here the chance to make any comments or ask any
questions they'd like of those who just spoke.
Tony, do you want to start?
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: First of all, I thought they were wonderful
presentations. Indeed, all I was thinking was I just wanted to know how
to go and register and vote for you. (Laughter.) But I guess that's
not possible.
But you gave, just in short presentations, exactly what it's all
about. And I think there are just two little things I would pick out of
it, in a way.
The first is that you all had a faith that we could actually do
things together and get results. That's quite important, I think,
because that is a big difference -- that is a political point I want to
make, too. That is saying history does not pose problems that humanity
cannot solve. There are things we can solve and we can do things.
That's important.
The second thing which I think is interesting about what the Third
Way is about is that a lot of what you are talking about involves the
element of a contract or a deal between people, and between government
and citizens. In this sense, when you're talking about getting to grips
with crime, you're talking about saying, look, we will give you help to
get out of the position you're in; but it doesn't come without any
responsibility attached to it -- you've got to do things, too. It means
that when we're talking about public services -- and this is something
we're stressing as a government of my country in education and health --
we're putting a big, new investment into education and our national
health service.
But we are demanding fundamental reform and modernization in return.
We are -- it's a quite difficult thing we're doing -- in relation to
teacher contracts, in relation to public service efficiency, and what
we're saying to people is, look, the days when you just thought, well,
in comes the Labour government and here's the pot of money and you go
away and spend it whatever way you want. We need to say what are the
objectives, what are the results we want. We can sit down and work it
out in partnership together, but it requires some give on all sides to
get this thing done properly, because in the end, it's the results that
do matter.
And I think what is interesting in all the four examples, in all the
things that you're doing is this sense that that's what community is
about in the end. It isn't just about giving a whole lot of money to
something; it is about a genuine deal between people, a contract between
people where there is mutual respect and benefit on both sides.
And in a way, what we're trying to do is -- and this is to pick up
the point that the President was making -- about the press. See, I
think the press often -- they can't get a handle on this because they
say, well, look, you're either a liberal or you're a hardliner on law
and order. You're either a taxer-and-spender, or you're a sort of
slasher. You know, everything's got to be --
And, therefore, when people come along and say, well actually, no,
that's not really the context in which we're operating anymore, people
find it difficult to understand. But that is precisely what we're
about. And I think -- you know, the interesting thing about the four
presentations was that they -- quite apart from, it seemed to me, a
fantastic policy agenda -- and, Mr. Thurman, you're not going to be the
only one that's coming over to Britain to tell us all about it -- you
know, quite apart from the fact there is an exciting policy agenda
there, I think there is also a very clear demonstration of the link
between what we're talking about in a general sense, and the practical,
specific measures that can make a difference to people's lives. And I
think that's a really exciting thing.
And in different ways, all these governments -- not running through
all the policy agendas of all of us -- we are trying to do the same type
of thing, in the face of the same problems. You know? And even us --
you know, everyone talks about the European education system, and we've
got great examples of it along this table, in the national governments
-- we've still got to do a lot more to reform our system, make it even
better. You know, there's big change that's necessary all the way
through.
So, anyway, I thought it was a fantastic presentation. And I think
it's exactly the right balance between, if you like, the values, but
also the serious practical measures that you're taking. And if this is
what the Democratic Leadership Council has brought about, well, you can
be pretty proud of yourselves, too. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Anybody else want to talk?
PRIME MINISTER KOK: Well, perhaps a few words. The presentations we
just got make clear what you can realize when you work with people, for
people. And this is also true for the field of crime, because there is
a lot of similarity between what we heard and what we experience at
home, also in my country. And it's very important to strike a balance
between prevention on one hand, providing better social conditions,
better housing, job opportunities, get people out of the misery of not
being able to participate; but at the same time, of course, also
repression -- let people know that what is not allowed is not going to
be tolerated, because if we are going to be too soft, we will never have
a result.
And then, I think, what you heard is that we are not dealing with the
problems in ideological terms, but in practical terms -- work for
practical results. In the field of technology, all oriented on
participation. And I was struck by what was said earlier this
afternoon, a dialogue -- that's, indeed, a necessity for politicians, to
have the dialogue with the citizens, the dialogue with the electorate;
but also create a framework of consensus.
I mean, we in the Netherlands, we are a little bit known about our
so-called Polder Model. And of course we should not exaggerate that.
That means that we have a kind of consensus society where we try at the
community level, also at the national level -- we are not that large, so
we can do it easily -- try to at least to convince each other and take
common responsibility, take a community approach, even at the national
level.
And my final point is that for some goals and targets you want to
realize, the level of the federal states, or the level of the central
government is far too high. And the presentations we got illustrate how
much practical results, how many (inaudible) you can get at the local
level. And sometimes even lower than the local level. But for other
purposes, the national government, even the national government of a
big, almost a continent like the United States, is not powerful enough.
And there we have to shoulder together in order to tackle a number of
common problems we have all over the world, and that brings us together
also around this table, between the U.S. and Europe.
Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I just want to comment on one thing, because a
lot of you talked about at what level something should be done. We're
having a hugh Third Way debate here in this country that has many
different manifestations related to how the federal government should
give money to local governments in various areas. And it's very
interesting. By and large, the Republicans will say -- and they really
believe this -- that since we can't run law enforcement, for example, we
should just set aside how much money we want to give and give it to
local government and say, go enforce the law -- they'll lower crime.
And the old motto would have been we would have passed a law which would
have had 15 different programs, each with a different subcommittee
chairman's name on it and said, go spend the money in this way.
Now, what I'm trying to do is to say, okay, we shouldn't tell you how
to do things, but you have told us what works. Therefore, we should
stop giving money for things that don't work and start giving money for
things that do. So we say, if community police works, that's what we
should do. If Kathleen's program works on testing parolees -- which, by
the way, I'm trying to get enough money out of Congress to do that
nationwide, just what she said, she's proved it's worked, right? So we
don't tell them whether they should contract with people to do the drug
testing or what they should do or exactly how they should do it. But I
think we should say, look, in Maryland, this works, therefore, we'll
give you the money if you do this. But we're not going to just give you
the money, and you decide whether you want to waste it or not.
And that's the debate we're having. You know, because we're not
trying to micromanage local government; but we are trying to take things
that work and say, okay, if they work in Denver, or if they work in
Georgia, if they work someplace else, we need to stop funding things
that don't work, start funding things that do -- but we're not going to
tell you how to do it, you figure out how -- but this is a thing that
works, and so do it.
And it's a big debate. And I urge you all to watch it this year.
It'll play itself out in three or four different areas. And we may not
win them all. But I think it's a very important debate to have, because
it will be about the nature of the federal responsibility in a lot of
areas in the years ahead.
Would anyone else like to talk before we adjourn? Gerhard, do you
want to say anything else? Massimo?
CHANCELLOR SCHROEDER: Perhaps just briefly to comment on the four
contributions. We've seen four examples, examples for the principle of
subsidiarity. We listened to the Mayor, to the representative of the
Governor, who explained at what level things can be decided, what can be
decided at the local level. And he said that what can be decided at
that level ought to be decided at that level. Because we take it that
it is easier to find out what people find beneficial and what not if you
stay close to the people and listen to them. That is what we understand
by the principle of subsidiarity and we've had, we've listened to very
good examples in that respect.
Of course, politicians can set a framework. The national government
can set a framework. But if the citizens then don't have the right to
film that framework in a responsible manner, to commit themselves -- and
that is what we mean when we speak about community, not only to be
interested in your very own person, in your very own interest, but to
work for the community and its interest. And if we don't do that then
all our political initiatives will be useless; because there has to be a
kind of (inaudible) network of relations between the framework setting
politicians at the federal or national level and those factors at the
local level in the sense of community and community spirit.
And I think we've listened to very good examples, excellent examples
of both of the points that I made. And those who act as citizens in
that sense of the word can only be recommended, I believe.
PRESIDENT D'ALEMA: -- is that the answers that we are providing are
very similar. The answers we're thinking about are very similar. We
have similar experiences, too, that are moving along the same lines in
cultural terms.
Let me just make an example. We have introduced reform in the
educational system in Italy based on the principle of the autonomy of
school institutions; namely, you have national curricula -- this is our
public education system. But the management of the individual school is
no longer something for the national government and the national public
administration to deal with, put it in the hands of the community
represented by teachers, students, pupils and their families.
What is the basic idea behind this? The idea is that whatever is
government-owned is considered belonging to nobody. In Latin we say
"Res nullo est"-- it doesn't belong to anyone. But we want to get
people used to think that whatever belongs to the state is theirs. We
have to put it in their own hands for them to feel it belongs to them.
You have to give them responsibilities. And I'm sure our schools will
operate better and there will be a certain degree of competition among
schools -- the desire to make my school work better than that of the
other neighborhood next door -- and this will improve the quality of the
system, we hope.
Of course, we could tell a lot of stories here and we could tell
about a lot of different experiences --there's no time for that. Why
don't we promote direct communication at this level, among these
experiences at the community level; so we four here belong to a
movement. We meet occasionally, don't we, among ourselves, in other
fora. And this movement is a movement that, for example, has promoted a
very beautiful conference of mayors, mayors belonging to the socialist
international from all over the world. We hosted it in Italy -- of
local authorities. And we had a beautiful discussion among local
authorities from mayors from Latin American, from Europe, from many
continents. Now, I wonder, shouldn't we create a form of communication
with these extraordinary experiences you are telling us about, find
direct form of communications between the experience we four belong to,
the movement we four belong to, and your great experience.
There's a big problem here that would have to be discussed elsewhere.
It concerns the words we use. There are words that in your civilization
and your history sound difficult to understand or to accept. For
example, we belong to the socialist international, and I'm aware that
this word is somewhat sensitive here. And I can see that we have
avoided pronouncing this word here. But we should prevail over this
fear of words, because when we move from the words to the actual facts
and the actual experiences, we discover that these experiences are much
closer and more similar than they expected to be, and we should find a
form of communication among these experiences that would make us all
richer. That's all I have to say. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you. Yes, I'm not sure I would even have
you here, Massimo, if I were running for reelection. (Laughter.)
No, no. I'll tell you a serious story. Hillary and I went to Italy
over a decade ago, and we were in northern Italy, and I met these
Italian Communists who were anti-Soviet Union, pro-NATO, and pro-free
enterprise. And I thought to myself, I've got to be very careful about
what words mean, anymore. It was amazing. (Laughter.)
Let me introduce three more people who came here, and are just as
tired as our panelists are, and they sat through this whole thing. I'd
like to thank Cherie Blair, Rita Kok, and Doris Schroeder Kopf for being
here. Thank you all three for coming, and being a part of this.
(Applause.)
And let me say, I'm sure you all know that this was a very difficult,
but profoundly important, three-day meeting we had of NATO. And all
these leaders, I think, must be quite exhausted. We have worked very
hard and tried to do the right thing on every front. But they cared
enough about these ideas and the worldwide movement to try to achieve
what we have worked on and believe in, in common, that they came here to
be with us. And I think we owe them all a very great debt of gratitude
and we thank them. (Applause).
MR. FROM: Thank you all. Thank you, President Clinton, Prime
Minister Blair, Prime Minister D'Alema, Prime Minister Kok, Chancellor
Schroeder for this unbelievably -- just unbelievable session. Our
guarantee to you is that we're not going to let the momentum you created
tonight die.
I'm pleased to be able to report that the DLC's affiliated think
tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, and the Smith Institute of
London will launch a series of Third Way conversations to be held over
the next year in the U.S. and in Europe.
This is a joint venture that will aim at getting a lot of the
intellectual firepower involved in this conversation. And we're
undertaking it because, as Prime Minister Blair told us at the first
meeting at Chequers, we cannot be satisfied by winning political power,
alone; we also need to win the battle of ideas. In the Information Age,
more than ever, ideas will drive our politics. Ideas move nations. Men
and women armed with good ideas can change the course of history. And I
believe we've made a bit of history tonight.
Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
END 7:24 P.M. EDT