I hope you found places to park in the
ramp to a challenge this evening. I
apologize for any inconvenience. It is my
pleasure on behalf of President Geoffrey
and all my colleagues at Iowa State
University to welcome you to the fourth
annual Manett-Phelps Lecture in
Political Science.
The annual fall lectures focus on
significant developments in
international political economy during
the previous year. The purpose is to
stimulate discussions on how politics
and economics affect one another and how
these issues are transnational in scope.
this annual Manett-Phelps Lecture in
Political Science was established by
ambassador Charles Manett and Kathleen Manett,
both alums Iowa State University
and Thomas Phelps also an alum of Iowa State
and Elizabeth Phelps. Thomas Phelps and
Charles Manett are the founders of the
Manett, Phelps, and Phillips law firm.
Ambassador Manett served as chair of
the Democratic National Committee 1980
to '85, US ambassador to the Dominican
Republic 1999 to 2001, this chair of the
Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992
among many other positions. Ambassador Manett also
served as the first Manett-Phelps
lecturer in 2002. Mr. Phelps is led
Manett, Phelps, and Phillips to national
and international prominence in
providing legal services to financial,
energy, healthcare, entertainment,
telecommunications, technology, retail
manufacturing industries. The Manetts and
Phelps have also made a commitment to
create the Manett-Phelps
endowed chair in international political
economy and the Department of Political
Science. It was their vision as through
their financial support that this
extremely important lecture series is
now housed at Iowa State University. It
doesn't take a reading of the book
"The World is Flat" by Thomas Friedman to
understand the
importance of this
lecture series. Please join me in
acknowledging these four very important
people to Iowa State University.
We have had three outstanding lectures
in this program and this year's lecture
is no exception.
It is my pleasure to introduce
Mike Whiteford, Dean of the College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences,
who will introduce tonight's speaker. Dean Whiteford, 
who earned his PhD from the University of
California Berkeley in 1972 was named
Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences
in 2004. He has had more than 30 years of
experience here at Iowa State University
as a professor of anthropology, as a
department chair, and as an associate
dean of the College of Liberal Arts and
Sciences. It is my pleasure to introduce Mike Whiteford.
*papers rustling*
*applause*
[Whiteford]: Good evening, let me join the
provost in thanking Elizabeth and Tom
Phelps and Kathleen and Charles Manett
for sponsoring this wonderful lecture
series. This is a truly a remarkable
event and we want to make sure that you
know just how much we appreciate both
the support of this event and having you
join us every year to kick it off.
Ladies and gentlemen, tonight we are
honored to have Nebraska's senior US
Senator Chuck Hagel as the fourth annual
Manett-Phelp lecturer in political science.
As you were told moments ago the
Manett-Phelps lecture series focuses
on international issues particularly in
the arena of political economy. As the
chair of the Senate's foreign relations
international economic policy,
export and trade promotion
subcommittee, and the Senate banking
committees - Senator Hagel is an ideal
candidate to deliver this year's address.
Senator, we thank you for taking your
time to visit with us this evening.
A Midwesterner and undoubtedly no
stranger to Iowa, Senator Hagel has deep
Nebraska roots, and as we found out this
evening deep Iowa roots as well,
going back more than four
generations. The senator was born in
North Platte, Nebraska but he spent many
of his formative years on the Nebraska
Iowa frontier. Graduating from the
University of Nebraska Omaha and then
working as a newscaster and talk show
host with radio stations KBON and KLNG
in Omaha, Nebraska. Senator Hagel is
a decorated Vietnam veteran, an
experience one can see from his resume
that has helped shape his own life over
the past three decades. Serving in this
country's military at a time in our
nation's history which was very
important, undoubtedly has given him a
special lens for looking at and
understanding a number of international
issues that the country is facing today.
If you look carefully at our program
you'll see that the center is never at a
loss for things to do. In particular, his
service as a board or advisory committee
member for the Institute of Politics at
Harvard University, he is on the German
Marshall Fund trade and poverty forum, he
has worked for the Eisenhower World
Affairs Institute, and for Bread for the
World, and for the Council on
International Relations, among other
things. All of these boards and
committees are beneficiaries of a
worldview that was taking shape, while a
young soldier, thousands of miles away
from the American heartland, was fighting
for our nation's defense. Senator Hagel
has received countless awards that
reflect a tenacious commitment to
advancing the public good. Among his most
recent accolades are, the 2005 Marlin
Fitzwater Excellence in Public Service
Communication Award, the 2005 Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars
Public Service Award, the
2005 American Association of School
Administrators Champion of Children
Award, a 2004
Edmund S Muskie Distinguished Public
Service Award, the Atlantic Council's
2004 Award for Distinguished
International Leadership. Senator Hagel,
we welcome you this evening to the
campus of Iowa State University and we
look forward to your remark. Thank you. *applause*
Being an old radio man, I don't want to cut out
any radio action. I actually worked for
KRCB in Council Bluffs, Iowa not sure
that has anything to do with tonight, but
nonetheless Dean, thank you. First, let me
thank Iowa State University for
allowing me an opportunity to share some
thoughts with you tonight. My friend
ambassador Chuck Manett, thank you, Tom
Phelps thank you as well for your
sponsorship. What you are doing in
helping prepare our young citizens to
face a new competitive world is
important and both of you have been at
that for many, many years, and I don't
know of anything more important as we
all appreciate than accomplishing that
preparation and helping in that process
for our young people.  I also am grateful
that you have taken an ecumenical
approach to inviting a Republican to
come share the stage with you tonight
and I would look forward to whatever
assessments of my remarks that you would
keep private. It would not,
it would not state those publicly. I want
to also acknowledge our Dean and provost
here tonight for your good work and
efforts and for what you continue to do
for this institution. I'm not
unmindful of the effectiveness of Iowa
State, putting in more parochial terms,
I saw that displayed in two overtimes with
Nebraska Cornhuskers, God was a
Cornhusker that night, but he wasn't last
night, however congratulations by the
way on the Cyclone victory. I also
appreciate my colleagues Senator Harkin
and Grassley in Washington. I have a good
and close relationship with each, they
are effective and I am most grateful
that they would allow me a visa to come
to their state tonight, assuring them
that I should not embarrass either one.
Grassley was particularly concerned
about that. I also want to acknowledge
the dinner tonight which was exquisite
really, obviously the beef was from
Nebraska in my honor thank you, and I
appreciate that not often an unworthy
Cornhusker gets two desserts, Beth - thank you, they gave me two desserts
tonight. So, thank you all for coming and
the students who are here tonight and I
know will have an opportunity to
exchange some thoughts here after my
remarks and I look forward to your
comments, questions, commentary insults,
whatever you'd like to exchange.
Ladies and gentlemen, more than 200 years
ago a group of exceptional individuals
set upon a perilous and uncertain course
in a land that would become the United
States of America. They had a purpose to
their lives and a vision of liberty with
a free sense and that vision included a
life free from tyranny, where industry
not privilege would determine one's
future. These free thinking people were
imbued by a sense of fair play, and
religious and social tolerance. They
possessed the spirit that history had
never before seen. They went about
building a new land of hope and
opportunity. Our founders were imperfect,
slavery and the treatment of Native
Americans were two blights on this new
land and this legacy remains with us
today, but our founders imperfect as they
were, built for this nation the sturdy
foundation for a democratic and vibrant
society that has prospered since its
creation. Today, just as it was over 200
years ago we live at a time of historic
transformation, we are defining our
future. The world is confronted with a
universe of challenges, threats, and
opportunities unlike any we have ever
seen before. In a 21st century global
community, all leaders of all
institutions will be faced with more
uncontrollables than ever before in
their efforts to govern and lead. This
will require a 21st century frame of
reference. The margins of error for
miscalculation will be less than ever
before. The 24-hour news cycle that
dominates our lives and the rate and
intensity of change complicates
leadership, governance, and society. There
is today greater diffusion of economic
power and global access to information,
meaning newfound global economic power
than ever before.
This is a critical time for responsible
governance, this is the time for hard
choices and difficult decisions,
this will require courageous, informed
and wise leadership. Maintaining
America's competitive position in the
global economy demands that we begin to
inventory and address the first-order
challenges in our country such as trade,
energy, deficit, federal spending,
entitlement programs, infrastructure,
education, immigration, and foreign policy.
We are only beginning to understand the
scope and complexity of the threats from
terrorism and Islamic extremism, pandemic
health outbreaks, endemic poverty,
environmental crises, and cycles of
despair. Allies and international
institutions will be essential to our
successful engagement of these threats.
Today, we see some parallels to the
period following World War Two,
now as then the world is in the midst of
adjusting to the new challenges of our
time. After World War Two, the United
States and its allies created
organizations of global benefit and
common purpose such as the United
Nations, the general agreement on tariffs
and trade, NATO, and the World Bank. These
institutions and alliances are as vital
today as when they were formed. They need
constant adjustment and calibration. They
need that adjustment and calibration to
stay relevant to today's world. What
remains unchanged is the critical
importance of these institutions,
alliances, and relationships to achieve
global security, stability, and prosperity.
As Mel Laird, former secretary of defense
under President Nixon, writes and foreign
affairs quote "Our pattern of fighting
our battles alone, or with a marginal
Coalition of the willing,
contributes to the downward spiral and
resources and money." Ironically, Nixon had
the answer back in 1969. At the heart of
the Nixon Doctrine announced that first
year of his presidency,
was the belief that the United States
could not go it alone, as he said in his
foreign policy report to Congress on
February 18th 1970: "the United States
will participate in the defense and
development of allies and friends, but
America cannot and will not conceive all
the plans, designed all the programs,
execute all the decisions, and undertake
all the defenses of the free nations of
the world. We will help where it makes a
real difference and is considered in our
interest. Three decades later, if we have
fallen into a pattern of neglecting our
treaty alliances such as NATO and
endangering the aid we can give our
allies by throwing our resources into
fights that our allies refused to join."
Vietnam was just such a fight, and so was
Iraq. If our treaty alliances were
adequately tended to and shored up, in
here I include the UN. We would not have
so much trouble persuading others to
join us when our cause is just still "As
the only superpower there will be times,
when we must go it alone." These were the
words of former Secretary of Defense Mel
Laird. At the core of America's success,
has been America's economic freedom and
flexibility anchored by the rule of law.
These central elements will remain
indispensable for our future. Economic
power, economic power is the power that
allows a nation options and
opportunities. America needs to prepare
itself for a period of global
uncertainty and complexity. We are
witnessing this reality of this being
played out today with the great
upheavals of American corporate giants
like General Motors, Delphi Corporation,
the major airlines and others. Technology,
productivity, and markets will continue
to drive global economic dislocation. No
nation will be spared from this
phenomena. Americans must welcome this
new global competition, not cower from it.
This global development represents more
opportunities for America's consumers,
businesses, and investors than ever
before. Trade is an essential part of our
prosperity today, and will be even more
so in the future. It has been the engine
of growth, innovation, wealth, and job
creation in the United States and the
world since World War Two. Between 1948
and 2001, world exports rose from 58
billion dollars to almost 6 trillion
dollars, and tariffs fell from an average
of 40 percent to 4 percent. We are
challenged today by a world that is more
competitive than ever before in history.
Consider the fact that just 20 years ago
China, Russia, Eastern Europe, and India
were not even in the global trading
system. Between 1984 and 200,4 American
exports of goods and services rose from
291 billion dollars
to over 1.2 trillion dollars and during
the last twenty years the US has seen
employment rise from around 105 million
workers in 1984, to nearly 140 million
workers today. Free trade agreements such
as NAFTA, CAFTA, and bilateral free trade
agreements with Singapore, Chile, Jordan,
Morocco, and Australia helped keep and
create new opportunities around the
globe. The upcoming Doha round in Hong
Kong this December will be another
important milestone not only in US trade
policy, but world trade policy to
continue the process of greater market
liberalization. America's openness to
foreign direct investment has also been
vital to our economy. The world sees the
US as a stable and profitable place to
invest. In 2004, new foreign investment in
the US was almost 80 billion dollars, up
26 percent from the year before, but
there is a dangerous protectionist
streak growing in both of America's
political parties. This protectionist
streak may jeopardize our
ability to remain competitively engaged
in the world. We cannot let the
challenges of the new global economy
draw us inward in a senseless retreat from
the world. To do so flies in the face of
our own best interest. To retreat behind
a wall of trade protectionism would be
dangerously misguided and disastrous for
America and the world that course has
been tried before with devastating
consequences.
Global competition sharpens and improves
productivity and enhances standards of
living worldwide, increased productivity
and a flexible economy have kept America
the economic envy of the world. The
global economic integration of the past
six decades has also contributed the
world's stability as more people and
more nations have emerged from poverty.
As standards of living rise, people
become more invested in the future of
their countries and in the guarantors of
their future. Human rights, democracy, rule
of law, and transparent governance, but
for many around the world these economic
enhancements have remained out of reach.
Still today, the majority of the world's
seven billion people live in developing
or underdeveloped countries. This
economic fragility remains a key threat
to global stability and the rule of law.
It is in America's interests that
countries such as China, India, Indonesia,
Nigeria, and Ukraine grow and prosper. The
challenge of widening the reach of
economic prosperity will be one of the
great tasks of the 21st century. Energy
and security interests drive global
economics and reflect the
interconnections of a global society.
Energy security, particularly in light of
the recent tightening of world energy
markets, requires greater diversification
of energy sources. This includes bringing
new hydrocarbon reserves to market and
devoting more research and resources to
development of renewable and alternate
sources of energy, as well as expanded
use of nuclear.
America will require a wider and deeper
portfolio of energy sources, as well as a
more efficient use of our energy. A
comprehensive strategic energy policy
must be integrated into America's
foreign policy. To fully seize the
opportunities of today's global economy
and maintain America's competitive
position in the world requires a
national consensus of purpose. Every
generation of Americans has contributed
to making a better world than the one
they inherited. Each successive
generation of Americans has been
bequeathed more opportunities and better
preparation than the past generation.
Preparing America's next generation is
critical for America's future. Part of
that preparation is personal
responsibility, education, and social
discipline. To succeed today just as has
always been the case we must prepare,
work hard, be creative and productive, and
invest wisely. The next generation of
Americans has the ability to do more
good for the world than any preceding
generation, but it will have to earn that
success in the challenging and dynamic
environment ahead of us. Americans will
need to ask themselves some tough
questions like what is the role of
government, how much government do they
want, what do they want government to do
for them, how much government are they
willing to pay for, who bears the
responsibility for paying for government?
The President and Congress must set a
fiscal policy commensurate with the
needs of the nation and the
responsibility to tax and spend with a
clear prioritization of resources. The
fiscal year 2005 federal budget deficit
was 312 billion dollars, and in fiscal
year 2004 the federal budget deficit was
420 billion dollars. The Congressional
Budget Office projects that 62 percent
of our 2.6 trillion dollar
fiscal year 2006 budget will be
obligated to mandatory spending. Most of
that amount will go toward paying for
three entitlement programs: Social
Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid, and nearly 208 billion dollars *pause*
208 billion of that mandatory
spending will go toward paying interest
on our national debt, which is now 8
trillion dollars. Our obligations abroad
also come with a high financial cost.
American operations in Iraq today caused
from five to six billion dollars a month,
and monthly cost in Afghanistan are over
1 billion a month. If you include
replacement costs for equipment in
infrastructure, the monthly cost in Iraq
is about eight billion dollars.
The Congressional Research Service has
calculated that America has spent nearly
360 billion dollars
so far in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sustained
deficits erode the
economic fundamentals of a country.
Foreign investors, particularly China and
Japan, have provided a majority of the
capital that continues to finance our
deficits in our national debt.
This continued weakening of our economic
base will have significant economic and
national security implications for our
future. We cannot continue to run up the
national debt and burden future
generations of Americans with huge
government obligations that will impair
their ability to compete and prosper.
This will also limit our foreign policy
options we must make changes in Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, or they
will be unsustainable. Social Security is
the most successful social program in
the history of our country. I know a
little something about that when I was
16 years old my father died, the Social
Security benefits my mother received
were critical in helping her raise four
young boys. I well remember my mother's
relief when that Social Security check
arrived each month. We must remember that
the first obligation of
Social Security just to the most needy
Americans. In 2017, Social Security will
pay out more money than it takes in, by
2041 it will be insolvent.
This is a jarring reality, but it is also
one that can be fixed. I was the first
United States Senator to introduce
comprehensive Social Security reform
legislation this year. The future and
solvency of Social Security need not
happen if leaders have the courage to
address it now.
Medicare and Medicaid are more difficult
problems to solve because they have
become so deeply woven into our
country's healthcare system.
Medicare drives health care today, we
cannot address one piece of this without
addressing the entirety.
That's why along with Democratic
Representative John Tanner from
Tennessee, I introduced a bill this month
to create an independent bipartisan
commission charged with reviewing
America's three major entitlement
programs and making comprehensive
recommendations to Congress to sustain
the solvency and stability of these
programs for the future. Over the next 75
years, these three programs represent a
42 trillion dollar unfunded commitment
and are on a trajectory that cannot be
sustained. Our nation's infrastructure is
another area that requires us to see
beyond the horizon of the immediate to
develop a sound long-term economic
policy for America. We need look no
further than the failures of
infrastructure in New Orleans to
understand the importance and wisdom of
investment in infrastructure. Airports,
highways, bridges, ports, high-speed
Internet, and broadband are the lifeblood
of our economy. Outdated infrastructure
will erode our global competitiveness.
These issues need to be addressed now
and there will be a cost for investing
in them. This summer we passed a
much-needed highway bill. It was filled
with too many special interests projects,
but it also included funding for much
needed infrastructure enhancement. We
also need to think creatively:
infrastructure capital account budgeting.
That is now being used by other
countries such as New Zealand and the
United Kingdom to bring more
accountability to government spending
and investment in their public
infrastructure. We need to explore these
kinds of new initiatives. Today's leaders
need to examine the way we are preparing
our workforce to maintain its
competitiveness. A panel created by the
National Academy of Sciences and the
National Academy of Engineering issued a
report this month that said US science
and mathematics education is lagging and
American students are not being readied
for the gathering storm of foreign
competition. We need to have a serious
national debate about how we prepare for
this growing storm. Recently, Jean Beauty,
a professor at Princeton
University's Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs, a
former chief executive of three
universities, and former president of
Major League Baseball's American League
wrote in the Omaha World-Herald and I
quote: "The United States has a problem of
epic proportions. One that is yet to
register on the national radar screen.
Its impact on our global competitiveness
could be swift and chilling in the years
ahead, if it is not addressed in a
careful and effective manner. Amazingly,
46 percent of the new people who enter
elementary and secondary schools as
teachers in America will leave the
profession within five years, and about
40% of today's teachers, present-day
teachers have more than 20 years of
service - meaning many are in a long gray
line and are eligible to retire." End of
quote.
David Brooks, a nationally syndicated
columnist, recently warned in The New
York Times of the growing societal
divide between those who go to college
and those who do not. Brooks wrote quote
"Only 28% of the American adults in this
country have a college degree, but most
of us in this group find ourselves in
workplaces in social milieus where
almost everybody has been to college. A
social chasm is opening up between those
in educated society and those in non-
educated society, and you are beginning
to see vast behavioral differences
between the two groups." End of quote. I
don't believe that massive federal
involvement in education is the answer.
No Child Left Behind, while
well-intentioned, in my opinion was
fundamentally bad policy. The federal
government is not equipped to manage
education in America, instead of focusing
on slapping federal mandates down on
states - we ought to be focused on
increasing resources, access, and
competition in our schools. The federal
government can start by meeting its
obligation, for example to fully fund its
commitment to the Individuals with
Disabilities Act, IDEA. If the federal
government was meeting its legal
commitment to IDEA, local school
districts would have more far more
resources to spend on their additional
local education priorities. I've worked
very closely with your senator, Senator
Harkin, on this over the years. We need to
prepare our workforce by being honest
and realistic about the issue of
immigration. Few issues in America today,
have been subject to as much overheated
rhetoric and dishonest appeals to
people's worst fears than immigration.
The lawless crossing of our borders is a
national security threat, with which we
must deal. No one can deny that, but that
does not change the fact that there are
10 to 12 million people living and
working in this country illegally, and no
amount of talk show rhetoric and speech
making will make that reality go away. We
can confront this reality by putting in
place a program to identify those who
are here illegally, but are contributing
to our society through work, family, faith,
or any other measure of their industry
and put them on a path to earn legal
status, while isolating those who are not
here to strengthen our country. This
month I introduced for immigration
reform bills that provide a
comprehensive approach to this issue. We
need to deal with the immigration issue
now.
It has immense implications for our
society, our security, and our economy.
There is a vital intangible that has
been an essential building block for
American prosperity and security for
over two centuries, and that is America's
leadership in the world. We have
traditionally used our leadership to
forge consensus on vital international
issues, bringing together allies in
common cause, addressing common
challenges with common responses and we
have done so by building relationships,
alliances, and international
organizations that enhance our ability
to influence and protect our national
interests. These alliances have enhanced
our power, not diminished it. The United
States alone is incapable of confronting
21st century global threats and
challenges, we must not unintentionally
isolate ourselves in the world.
Most recently however, America has been
perceived in the world as having turned
away from its successful post-World War
to multilateral approach. We are
confronted today with the reality that
trust and confidence in the United
States has seriously eroded, and that our
purpose and power are questioned and
even opposed around the world. In the
most recent edition of The New Yorker
magazine, President George HW Bush's
national security adviser general Brent
Scowcroft discusses the state of the
world and the challenges we face. We
would be very wise to listen to General
Scowcroft, he talks about the importance
of quote: "weighing the consequences of
alternative political actions." End of
quote. We have failed to heed
his counsel, our inability to examine the
possible consequences of our actions
before we took them has put us in a
precarious position in the world,
especially in Iraq and the Middle East.
America's decisions and actions
regarding Iraq have isolated and
alienated us from much of the world, but
Iraq held a successful constitutional
referendum on October 15. Iraqi political
parties are now preparing
for parliamentary elections on December
15th, leading to the formation of a
constitutionally based government. The
success of this process will
increasingly diminish the influence of
the United States, ultimately success or
failure in Iraq, will be determined by
Iraqis. We must recognize this dynamic
and seize the opportunity over the
coming months to act decisively to help
strengthen regional and international
support for Iraq. Once an Iraqi elected
government is in place, the United States
along with its allies should propose a
regional security conference on Iraq.
With the endorsement of the United
Nations, creating this regional context
is vital today. There is no mechanism for
regional partners in the Middle East to
develop consensus on building
relationships around common security,
political, and economic interests. The
United States should take a secondary
role and allow Iraq and its neighbors to
lead this effort. Such a conference would
give us another opportunity to help
rebuild an international consensus on
Iraq and address the regional
complexities of the Middle East. More
missed opportunities on Iraq will be
disastrous for the U.S., Iraq, and the
Middle East. As we consider the regional
context of stability and security in
Iraq, there is another issue that we must
deal with: a relationship between the
United States and Iran. The fact that our
two governments cannot or will not sit
down to exchange views must end. There
will be no stability in the Middle East
if Iran is excluded, Iran is a regional
power, it has major influence in Iraq and
throughout the Gulf region. Its support
of terrorist organizations and the
threat it poses to Israel is all the
more reason that the U.S. should should
engage Iran. The United States is capable
of engaging Iran in direct dialogue
without sacrificing any of our interests
or objectives and any lasting solution
to Iran's nuclear weapons program will
require the United States direct
discussions with Iran.
Our military must remain an
indispensable element of our power, but
over reliance on military power and the
use of force will lead to deep problems
for Americans. It is wrong and dangerous
to place upon our military burdens which
it cannot carry in objectives, it cannot
achieve. Without the strongest military
in the world, America cannot remain
secure nor carry out its foreign policy,
but our fundamental strength - America's
fundamental strength - runs deeper than
guns and bombs. The strength of America
comes from its character, as President
Kennedy said and I quote: "I look forward
to a future in which our country will
match its military strength with our
moral restraint, its wealth with our
wisdom, its power with our purpose." End of quote.
So, as America prepares for its place in
the 21st century, we are reminded that we
are more than our military power and
economic might. We are people, rich in
spirit, who have always believed in our
country and its destiny. We are people,
who have been tempered by war
disappointment and tragedy, but never
without hope for a better world and a
better tomorrow. Our country has never
dwelt on the past, nor yearn for a
simpler time or a slower pace. There are
great opportunities before us and great
challenges before we can build a
successful 21st century world on
America's lasting foundational planks of
tolerance and respect for others,
entrepreneurism, and risk-taking courage
and faith in each other. Strong and
imaginative leadership, coherent policies,
and responsible politics, responsible
politics and government will sustain our
great nation. This is not an uncritical
or arrogant America,
this is an honest and invigorated
America. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Senator Hagel, for
that comprehensive assessment of the
domestic and international challenges
that we faced and how you link them
together, which is exactly what the
intent of this lecture series is about.
On behalf of the Department of Political
Science and our sponsors Charles and
Kathleen Manette, and Thomas Tom and
Elizabeth Phelps, I'd like to thank you
for presenting the fourth annual Manett-Phelps lecture in Political Science. We
have certainly started a wonderful
tradition here at Iowa State with these
lectures over the past three years, and I
think that your lecture very very much
continues that excellent tradition. Thank
you very much, thank you very much.
Senator Hagel has agreed to answer a few
questions and I'd like to invite you to
participate, if you have a question for
the Senator - we have a microphone here in
the middle aisle, so I'd invite you to
step up to the microphone and ask your
questions so that all could hear. May I
ask that you keep your questions
succinct, so that we might entertain as
many questions as possible.
The first question please.
Senator Hagel, I'm Jim Hunter [a professor] in the
political science department. I do want
to welcome you to meetings and I'm so
glad that you're here. Let me preface my
question bravely by saying, you referred
to the Iowa State-Nebraska football game.
I'm not so sure, I saw that too,
not so sure that God was on the side of
Nebraska, so much it was half a dozen
convicts - at least they were black and
white striped uniforms. It's a pitiful
excuse in 1994, a great many members of
the Congress changed their parties from
Democratic to Republican, Senator Morse
did so in the 50s and most recently
Senator Jeffords as a switch from
Republican to independent caucusing with
the Democrats. I'm not sure I heard in
your speech tonight anything that marked
you as particularly Republican or
Democratic, could you tell us what you
think from your perspective in the
Senate - are the reasons a person should
be a Republican or a Democrat including
yourself?
[Sen. Hagel] Thank you, first I think
political parties are very important
because they represent an
institutionalizing and crystalizing of a
philosophy about government. You pick
what philosophy you believe in, what you
tend to move toward, and I suspect,
for many people it's developing as they
go along, and that's why you have many
split votes in the Congress that I don't
believe I've ever seen in nine years in
the Senate. One member of the Senate vote
a straight party line on every vote -
maybe there are, you're a political
scientist, you can show me an example, but
I've never seen [one].
But, that the fact is political parties
developed that political philosophy, that
then transcends the politics of the base
philosophy and does what political
parties are intended to do and
that is participate in a political
process that elects leaders to govern.
This business is about governance, and so
whatever your political philosophy is,
that you subscribe to, if you think
whatever party controls the Congress or
the White House is better equipped,
better able, philosophically more
competent, however way you judge it - to
direct our policies and govern our
nation. That's what this is about.
That's what political parties are about,
that's what the political process is
about and it's up to each individual to
choose his or her own party based on the
own philosophy. But, I also think in
political parties that this is a
constant effort that you see in play, and
the Former Chairman of the National
Democratic Party could, and has many
times given lectures on this. As you see
parties evolve, you see parties move in different directions.
Bill Clinton in 1992 took the
Democratic Party in a bit of a different
direction, than where the Democratic
Party, that had been prior to that, and
you again are the political scientist
here, but what he did is he moved the
Democratic Party back toward the center,
the political center.
In order to focus on governing as well
as just the the raw political reality is
that the extremes rarely get elected and
elections are normally fought in that
vast middle ground of the electorate and
that's where they're normally won in,
that middle ground, but political parties
have arranged and should have a range
within their own philosophical base.
As why I'm a Republican, I didn't believe
that the Republican Party represents
closer to my political philosophy about
government in all areas of government,
and there are times when I think the
question: whether I am in the same party
that I started out being in? I mean if
the fact is that I'm in a republican party
that's had the responsibility of governing
our country the last five years, and we have presided over the
largest building of government in modern
history - the Democrats helped us and
didn't often complain I might note, but
the fact is that was under republican
government. [And] So, you will see as we
move toward 2008, within both parties,
the struggle to take the parties in
different directions. If you look at the
vast group of candidates who've been
mentioned as presidential candidates in
both Democratic and Republican parties,
you'll see some philosophical
differences within those two groups, the
Democrats and the Republicans, and so
leadership always always in the end of
carries the day for any institution and
and I think that's a part of it, but the
base political philosophy of a party as
it shifts and goes back and forth, it's
what you generally looked to. [And] Even
though I have a very strong Republican
support percentage of voting for
Republican issues in the Senate, one of
the highest matter-of-fact of my caucus,
one of the highest and support of
President Bush's initiatives in the
Senate, doesn't mean I agree all the time
with my party on it on specific issues
or my my present, and last thing I would
say is it I have believed that my first
responsibility is to the Constitution
and to this country as an elective
offical, not to my party or not to a
President. I take an oath of office to the
Constitution, as every elected official
does, and there's nothing in that oath
that says I swear allegiance to
the Republican Party or President Bush
or President XYZ, and that's how I do it.
Now doesn't mean I'm right,
didn't anybody else is wrong, but
that's how I have come to be a
Republican. Well I'm a Republican, I'm
disappointed in my party in some areas, I
think we have failed this country in
some areas. I think the Democrats have
provided no alternatives to this country
either in leadership or ideas, and I
think 2008 is going to be a very
important year for this country and I
think both parties will rise to the
occasion, and I think you will find in
2008, a very different kind of
presidential election than we saw last
November for both parties. Thank You
Senator, first of all I want to thank
you for your support of the energy bill
and ethanol - that's a great thing for
this state and second of all, earlier this summer you made some
comments about the Iraq War, there were
aired on Al Jazeera, and I know
you've got a lot of flack from the
right about that, and you know going to
the state of Nebraska, which is you know
pretty red in terms of the 2004
election, how do you balance in terms of
public opinion of your your ideas, your
personal thoughts, with the thoughts of
your constituents and and just kind of
touch on what you think is, you know, how
much role does public opinion play in
foreign policy? Thanks.
[Sen Hagel] Well it's a good question because you
can apply that to every vote we cast. In
the end, each elected official is
responsible for his vote based on the
judgment and the decision that you come
to on an issue. I have said and believe that
there is no more important an issue that an
elected official deals with in the
Congress the United States then the
issue of war. I do not subscribe to some
who believe that war is a political
issue or a politically loyal,
loyalty issue or it's some kind of a litmus
test for your party. If you believe, and
hopefully you are informed enough, to
have an opinion,
and I suspect I may be somewhat
qualified on this, I actually did serve
my country in combat. I actually do know
a little something about war, not theory
of war. I've served on the Foreign
Relations Committee for nine years, on
Intelligence Committee for four years, so
I suspect I'm at least in the universe
of maybe people knowledgeable about war
compared to some. So, I come to the issue
of Iraq or committing young men and
women to their deaths and the
consequences of the war, not on a
political basis or not on a
public-opinion basis or not on what the
polls say or my party thinks, I come to
it on the decision that I have to make
based on what I know, what I believe and
what I feel. Those who say, well you
shouldn't speak out against the war
because it gives aid to the enemy, my
comment on that is: are we really
understanding what we're saying in a
comment like that? Are we saying that the
freest country in the history of the man,
cannot publicly debate the most
important issue that we will ever debate?
Is that what we're saying? That we're not
a strong enough country to deal with
that? That we should be quiet, that we
should cover up? I mean my goodness what
kind of people are we? Questioning a
policy on war has nothing to do with
supporting your troops, and so I think we
have become a little mixed up on this
issue and I'll continue to say
it straight, whatever it takes to be the
best senator I can, and hopefully
contribute to the future of this country
and our national security. I'll continue
to do that and if it means
I'm going against public-opinion or people in Nebraska or my party or my President,
I think thats just part of the responsibility of the job I have.
*applause*
Hello Senator Hagel, welcome to Iowa State University.
My name is Vansheen Arinde and I'm from India, an international student here.
They are an emerging democratic power. The trend that came up in the 2004 general election,
the election of younger people to the  Parliament and in regards to that, my
question to you is: what advice do you
have for young people who are aspiring
for public office? Say, especially you
know, with their perception of politics regarding
to business.
[Sen. Hagel] Well first I would strongly
encourage any young person out there
today, to seriously consider some measure
of public service. You don't all have to
be president, you don't have to be senator
or governor, but the essence of a
democracy, the essence of who we are, is
individual participation in the process;
and you don't need all to be candidates
to do that, but if you wanted to go
further and you want to add more and
contribute more, think seriously about
that. As to the advice, a couple of very
simple things. 1) Prepare yourself, and you
prepare yourself by being aware of your
surroundings, reading newspapers, knowing
what's going on, understanding issues
reaching beyond maybe where you've ever
reached.
Listening to others, form some philosophy
about government, some philosophy about
something bigger and more important than
your own self-interest, examine yourself
carefully as to why you would like to
run for office. Is it because you're
good-looking and you're charming and
articulate and maybe fun? Well I suppose
that's not the worst reason, but it has
to be better - you want to accomplish
something with it, you want to do
something with it, you want to improve
your surroundings, you want to
improve your country, you want to improve
the lives of people.
Something must be down there deep, there
must be some purpose behind this, and if
you can't find that - don't do it. You're
wasting your time, you're wasting a lot
of people's time. The other thing I would
say is that 2) Do a couple of things in
your life first, everybody does this
differently. Now, I went to the Senate
when I was 50 years old. I had never run
for office before, it doesn't mean that
my way is the best way, we all do it
differently. That means some of the
finest people in government I've ever
known are the ones that got out of
college and ran for office and thirty
years are still there ,and they're just
as vital as that as a new person, but
I think you need to bring something to
the job and I think you, because we all
are products of our environment and our
experiences and who we are, bring some
value added to that job in the Congress.
Whether it's the State House or
wherever it is, and you do that by going
out and doing a couple of things before
you run for office. Again I'm not arguing
against if half of you want to go
run for office when you're out of
college, do it, but I don't think for
yourself and
your country you're giving them,
everybody, the best you got and 
you can do a little more and it gives
you a perspective that that you might
not otherwise have. In the introduction
tonight that the Dean made, you mentioned
my service in Vietnam that has given me
maybe some perspective, didn't mean I'm
right. I've been wrong many times I'll be
wrong a lot more, but it has given me a
perspective and that's just experience.
Everybody in this room has had
experiences and some more than others,
and you base decisions and
judgments and everything on those
experiences, and I would just make
one last point and it ties back a little
bit to one of the other questions about
my comments on Iraq. [And] Again you
encouraged, my friend John McCain, has
always talked about the indispensable
element of anybody's life is courage, and
I think you've got that about right. If
you're not willing to have the courage
to say things that you believe, then
don't do it; and don't ever lose the
courage, don't ever lose it. You know,
I think back more than occasionally and
I stay a touch with a
lot of friends of mine in Vietnam, some
guys have had it pretty rough and never
been able to get put back together, not
albeit not school, but I think about
where were the members of Congress
during Vietnam? Where was any Congressman
or Senator, other than William J
Fulbright, questioning the policy?
So 58,000 dead later, hundred thousands
maimed, and the worst humiliation this
country's ever faced because nobody was
asking any questions. So, have the
courage to follow through. I would just like to say I think you're right
when you say questioning your government is one of the most important things you can do.
Quick question, then a longer question. [Sen Hagel] How many questions you get?
Are you a Manett? Are you related? *laughter*
In the lecture, did you once mention our
import, the size of our imports over the
years? [Sen. Hagel] Current account deficit,  I did not specifically, but that's a
big issue. [Q] I believe our imports have
gone way up, and
are we not running a increasingly
negative balance of trade? [Hagel] Yes, we are.
[Q] What is the effect of free trade on
that? I know I've read Friedman's
column and stuff like his opinions on
this, and he says, much like you said, that
we need to invest on competing
with the world, but I don't see
how are we going to compete with
the rest of the world, when
they'll pay their workers 20 cents an
hour, and you know how can we compete
with them in that respect? Trade wise,
and also our increasing trade deficit
with China, I think that that kind of
hinders us many ways and also I I kind
of don't like that especially because
China
exactly the freest country in the world,
and they they are rising to a position
of power. I remember in high school
reading stuff that they are going to be
the next world power, possibly
surpass us ,and I'm just wondering what
are we going to do about this trade
deficit and can we solve this trade
deficit problem, while maintaining a free
trade status?
[Sen Hagel] Let me stop you there, we're out of time *audio repeats and cuts off*
