Leon Panetta is the founder of the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at California State University, Monterey Bay. He served in Congress, as well as White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Secretary of Defense.
Federal Newswire:
How has public policy changed since you were first elected to Congress in 1977?
Leon Panetta:
I often am asked that question, and I say that in my over 50 years of public life, I've seen Washington at its best and Washington at its worst. The good news is I've seen Washington work, both as the Legislative Assistant to a US Senator from California going back to 1966, and then after being elected to Congress in 1976.
The reality was that Republicans and Democrats, even though they had their political differences, worked together in those days. I saw that in the US Senate; a lot of moderate or progressive Republicans working with a lot of Democratic statesmen at the time.
When I was elected in '76, [House Speaker] Tip O'Neill, kind of a Democrat's Democrat from Boston, had a very good relationship with the Republican leader, a guy named Bob Michael from Illinois. Even though they had their political differences and fought each other in the elections, they really believed that it was important for both parties to work together on major legislation.
I use the example in the Reagan Administration of both of them working together to pass Social Security reform, immigration reform, tax reform, and a number of other landmark pieces of legislation.
I think the problem now is that Congress has become very partisan, very divided, and it's much tougher to be able to work together to try to deal with the issues confronting the country. There are a lot of reasons for that.
Part of it is just the money in politics, the gerrymandering with the parties beginning to lose the center and moving to the extremes, the media, and the leadership in the Congress. But the bottom line is that it is much more challenging to be able to look at an issue confronting the country, whether it's immigration, problems within healthcare, or dealing with budget issues.
It's much more difficult for both parties to be able to work together. I'm glad they were able to come to a deal on the debt limit, but they're now back fighting each other over just exactly what that deal represented.
It's much tougher, and I know that firsthand because my son Jimmy was elected to my old district here in Central California. He tries to develop relationships in order to get legislation adopted, but he'll be the first to acknowledge that it is a different situation than when I was in Congress.
Federal Newswire:
Do you think a big problem is that people are unable to admit when they’re wrong?
Leon Panetta:
It is, because the essence of our ability to govern as a democracy [is] built into the Constitution. It was put there by our forefathers, [so you have] the ability to have your differences, different views of issues, but have a dialogue with each other and gradually try to work towards consensus.
That's how you govern in a democracy, and that's the way it’s worked for over 230 years.
The inability of people to be able to trust one another, to be civil with one another, to listen to one another and understand where they're coming from, that's just not as present today. That goes to the heart and soul of the ability to govern.
I often say that in our democracy, we govern either by leadership or by crisis. If leadership is there, both sides are willing to take the risks associated with leadership. You can avoid crises, you can deal with problems. But if that leadership isn't there, then we'll govern by crisis.
I think too often in these last number of years, we've been governing largely by crisis rather than actually dealing with the problems that are involved in the crisis. They basically wind up kicking the can down the road and not really confronting the challenges they have to face, so our democracy has some serious problems right now.
Federal Newswire:
During your terms as Director of the CIA and Secretary of Defense, what were your experiences with adversaries of the United States who worked to create chaos for our country?
Leon Panetta:
Well, you're right on. That's basically where Putin's coming from. Putin's basic goal is to undermine stability in the United States and weaken us. That's his primary goal. It goes back to his KGB days. That's exactly what he's been trying to do. That's why they use cyber to come after our election systems, trying to weaken our election institutions and create chaos.
I don't think we ever ought to underestimate Putin's intent. His basic goal is to undermine the United States. His basic goal is to undermine our democracy.
He marched into Ukraine for no other reason at all but that he did not agree that the people of Ukraine had the right to govern themselves. He goes into a sovereign democracy, attacks it, and is continuing that war against Ukraine.
That represents, in my mind, a very pivotal war for the United States, and I'm glad the United States and our allies are unified. I'm glad we're supporting Ukraine because I believe that this is not just about democracy in Ukraine. What happens in this war in Ukraine will tell us a lot about what happens to democracy in the 21st century.
Federal Newswire:
When you were Chief of Staff for President Clinton, some people claimed the US involvement in Yugoslavia was a NATO encroachment on Russian sovereign territory. Is the current conflict in Ukraine NATO’s fault?
Leon Panetta:
Well, I find it very difficult when it comes to Putin–who clearly has these intentions to undermine democracy–to wind up blaming NATO, which was established by Truman really for the purpose of trying to contain Russia and making sure that Russian communism would not expand in Europe.
NATO is one of the strongest alliances we have, with the fundamental purpose of advancing security and also protecting democratic countries in the process. That's what they're about.
The countries that came out of the old Soviet Union, a lot of them made the decision to join NATO. Why? In order to improve their security, and why not? Putin has invaded Ukraine. Putin has threatened to invade other former Soviet republics.
The purpose of NATO is defensive. It's basically saying to Putin, "Don't you dare. Don't you dare," and somebody has got to say that to a tyrant like Putin.
Federal Newswire:
How do you see the conflict in Ukraine ending?
Leon Panetta:
I'll tell you my hopes for how it ends, which is that ultimately Ukraine is strong enough to push the Russians out of the Donbas, and for that matter, out of Crimea. Why? Because the only thing Putin understands is force.
Putin is not going to suddenly try to be rational about this and negotiate some kind of settlement. He's going to try to wear us down. That's his goal. He said it the other day, "Basically, it's about breaking the will of the United States and the Western allies in terms of supporting Ukraine." That's the one thing we cannot afford to do. We can't afford for this war to be prolonged because that'll play exactly into Putin's hand.
So my view is that we, the United States and our NATO allies, need to provide the weapons systems that the Ukrainians need: tanks, ammo, air defense systems. We need to provide whatever it is they need in order to be able to be successful at conducting this offensive that they have now engaged in on a 600-mile war front.
My hope is that they are successful, that they continue to push the Russians back, and that ultimately, Putin has to make a decision whether to withdraw, kind of facing defeat directly and decides to withdraw, or whether he decides to negotiate.
If he decides to negotiate at that point, I think the Ukrainians will have enough leverage to be able to negotiate the right kind of outcome.
Federal Newswire:
What's your appraisal of where things stand between the US and China, the US and Taiwan, and China and Taiwan?
Leon Panetta:
Well, there's no question we're living in a dangerous world, probably more dangerous since World War II with the number of flashpoints that we're dealing with in this world. I think a lot of it has been emphasized because Russia, China, and others sensed weakness in the part of the United States for a period of time.
I think when Putin saw that he could go into Crimea and get no reaction, go into Libya, no reaction, go into Syria, no reaction, and conduct this bold cyber attack on the United States and never pay a price, I think he sensed weakness. I think to some extent, it probably was an incentive for him to go into the Ukraine thinking that we would not respond.
I think China's the same. I think Xi had basically sensed the same weakness on the part of the United States. We pulled out of a treaty that we had negotiated with Asian countries and the trade agreements that we were developing. We have tried to make clear that China ought not to undermine freedom in Hong Kong, and [yet, it] now threatens Taiwan. I think Xi was thinking that–because he thought the United States would not respond–he could try to take advantage of some of these weaknesses.
I think that the war in Ukraine has sent him a signal, an important signal, which is that if he dared to go into Taiwan, the same thing could happen to China. In addition to that, if he's the target of sanctions on his economy, the very economy that he wants to be able to build Chinese power on in the 21st century, the last thing he needs is to have sanctions against his economy. So for that reason, I think Xi's taken a second look.
I do hope that we can develop a dialogue with China. I think that's important to do, but it has to be from strength.
We have to make clear that there are lines that China cannot cross, with regards to Taiwan, the South China Sea, and our ability to be able to maintain forces in the Pacific. We have to be strong.
But at the same time, I think it is important that we be able to establish a dialogue so that there are areas where, hopefully, we can ultimately try to work together. I think, I hope, that is going to be the end result here.
Federal Newswire:
What work are you doing at the Panetta Institute?
Leon Panetta:
Our basic mission at the Panetta Institute is to try to inspire young people to live in public service.
My wife and I believe deeply that public service is a higher calling. When we came back after I was Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton, I sensed that young people were not as excited about getting into public service. I think it's important for young people to understand that they have a duty to their country.
I think that it would be good for this country to establish a national service system that would require all young people to serve for two years in some capacity, whether it's the military, conservation, or education. Whatever that area is, give this country two years of service so that they understand what duty to the country is all about.
Let me tell you why I'm concerned.
We do polls here at the Panetta Institute of college students' attitudes towards our country and political leadership here. The last poll we took came back with a very disturbing result. [For the] first time in 20 years, a majority of young people said that they were not going to have better lives than their parents. That means they don't believe they're going to be able to achieve the American dream.
I'm the son of Italian immigrants. I've lived the American dream. But to have young people be so disenchanted with what's going on that they're saying, "We're not going to be able to enjoy the American dream, we're not going to be able to live that better life," that is a tremendous concern.
What we're trying to do at the Panetta Institute is to develop that new generation of leaders we are going to need in our democracy in order to protect it for the future.
