On the recordNovember 9, 1994
Well, I think it is--the causes are many and complex, partly because of the real feelings people have about where they are in their own lives and what they saw here in Washington and how it was presented to them for a good long period of time, partly because of the enormous expenditure of funds for negative ads of all kinds. And I think campaign finance reform would help some. But let me say that there were pockets in this country, there were elections in this country where people won by being more positive and less negative, but they could only do it if the voters felt that they were part of a process. If you ask me for one of the mistakes that I think that I have made since I've been here, I have spent so much time trying to pass bills through Congress that I haven't spent as much time as I was able to spend when I was running for President making sure that the people understood, were in on, and felt a part of the process by which we make decisions. And I believe that, again I will say, as much as the specific decisions that were made, it was the alienation people feel from the Government and the process. Let me just give you another example. If you look at North Dakota, where Senator Conrad and Congressman Pomeroy were elected in a State where I lost by a large margin in 1992, and yet they supported these programs, these initiatives, and the economic plan, I asked myself: Did that happen in part because it's a small enough State where people can talk together, they can work together, they are less easily moved by the negative ads? What can I do to use modern technology better, to work with the Republicans in Congress and the Democrats to involve the American people in this as we go along? What responsibility is there? In other words, the President can work 60, 70 hours a week and lose his voice several times and pass a bunch of bills, and if people don't feel that they're a part of it, then so what if I'm signing another piece of paper up here. If you look at--Governor Romer in Colorado has some very interesting thoughts about this and has worked very hard on this. But I think this is something that I'm going to have to really ask others about and get some advice about, because one of the things I prided the 1992 campaign on--and I give credit to the other candidates as well--but for all of the attacks and the criticisms in `92, the fact that there were some negative ads back and forth, the truth is we had a big turnout based largely on hope. We had three debates, one of which people were involved in, ordinary citizens. We had countless town meetings, two of the candidates did. We had other things that constantly made the American people feel that they had some say up here. And I think that--to go back to Brit's question--I think that part of it is they think that we get up here and we just get up every day and, even if we're working hard, we just are going this way, when they may want to go this way. And it just doesn't mean anything to them. They worry then about having a Government that is more of a burden than a support. And it's something we have to find a way to crack. It's not a simple issue. I'll take one more. Go ahead. Democratic Party's Future
Source
govinfo.gov




