NEWSWEEK: It’s been nearly 140 years since Abraham Lincoln died, but you write that he matters now more than ever. Why?
Mario Cuomo: The clarity of mind and expression that has made Lincoln popular with Democrats and Republicans for all the time since he was martyred in 1865 is desperately needed, and it is available. We appear to lack a large overarching philosophy of government on both the Republican and Democratic sides. On the Democratic side, I believe it is because we haven’t spoken yet in this campaign. Kerry is really waiting until President Bush has finished his sinking process, I think, before he speaks. But we need an overarching description of what we are as a people and what we are striving for, where we are going, and I don’t think we have that.
Walter Cronkite says that your book draws “a devastating comparison between Lincoln’s vision of the American democracy and that of the George W. Bush administration.” Was that your intention?
No. My intention was to get all the intelligence I could from Lincoln, who has always impressed me with his superior intelligence. There has never been an equal. Not [Thomas] Jefferson, not John F. Kennedy. He had the finest mind in political history–certainly among presidents.
What do you think is the most enduring legacy of Lincoln’s tenure?
Lincoln did two easily identifiable things that can fairly be called singularly great accomplishments. One, he preserved the Union so that after the Civil War we were known as the United States of America–one entity. Two, he began the process of ending slavery. But in a broader sense he took the Constitution of the United States, which is glorious in as much as it guarantees us a high degree of liberty but in no way calls upon us to be a caring community–indeed it tolerated slavery and the inferiority of women and many other demeaning things–and he enlarged and uplifted it by virtually importing into it the beautiful aspirations of the Declaration of Independence.
What about Lincoln’s decision to suspend some civil liberties when the Union was crumbling?
I did not like the writ of habeas corpus being suspended. I was not persuaded that that needed to be done. And I particularly regret that this great president should allow himself to be used by lesser people to perform even worse suspensions of our liberties, as in the second world war. And I regret the invitation to people like the current administration, the president and [Attorney General] John Ashcroft, who put their thumb on the scale when weighing between the need for protection against terrorists and our birthright, which is civil liberty.
How have we fallen short in Lincoln’s vision for the future?
There is no vision. Are we a hegemony satisfied with our own power and comfort, which is what he suggested in his campaign of 2000, that he would be? Or are we a nation-builder, though not particularly good at it? What are we as a people? What do we believe in? Do you believe it is reasonable to give a trillion dollars in tax cuts over the next 10 years to fewer than 2 million taxpayers who are the wealthiest in America while at the same time you run great deficits and while education and healthcare and other things–including infrastructure and homeland security–desperately need more investment? Who are we? That is what we are missing and what Lincoln can help us find.
Abraham Lincoln was a founding member of the Republican Party. But you point out that members of both parties have frequently cited him as their inspiration. Why is that?
Because he was wise and he spoke to the ages and he talked about the American experiences being important to the world … And there is no political label that could describe him. He was a Republican who believed in big tax increases and in doing everything for the penniless beggar and the workers, who believed in equality and was willing to fight a war over it. What kind of a Republican was that to believe those liberal things? But I wouldn’t call him a liberal either–I would call him a progressive pragmatist because, so far, that doesn’t have a predictable definition.
You note that Bush and Lincoln had similar starts to their presidencies but took different approaches to their wars: the Civil War and the war on terrorism. How did they diverge?
One of the big differences thereafter is that Lincoln led while Bush was led. It seems to me clear, and I don’t mean to demean President Bush, but he was sold a bill of goods on the war. I’m not saying it means anything beyond that, but he was led. And Lincoln led. When he went to war, he called the shots, he made the policy, he gave the orders on when to go forward and when not to–he made all the hard decisions.
You criticize President Bush for “relying on a presumption of continuance instead of a comprehensive vision” in his bid for re-election, but you also point out that the Democrats have spent most of their energies bashing the president and have yet to deliver their own “complete and persuasive agenda.” Why is that?
It is still fair to say that we, the Democrats, have not yet made our move.
Why is that?
I am not sure. I have a number of guesses. It may just be a matter of timing. When you see your adversary sinking slowly, you don’t engage him in a way that may lift him up … The Democrats are putting together the economic case, but on war and terrorism we have more to say, and I am sure we will say it. I don’t think Democrats can win the race by making it Bush against Bush, and Bush loses. In the end, no matter how low Bush sinks [in the polls], people will look then at Kerry and say: I am dissatisfied with the president, now you show me while you will do better. And I believe he will answer that question and do so convincingly. And when he does, that will be the end of the race and the end of Bush.
That’s your prediction: Kerry wins?
That is my prediction.
What would you like to hear Kerry say?
Let me say something I said in a speech a week or so. This may sound harsh but listen to it all: I am John Kerry and you don’t know me as well as I wish you did by this time. I am like you and most of us Americans. I love my country for all it has done for me and my family, and it’s done more for me and my family than for most Americans, frankly. And I love this country so much that I volunteered to risk my life in a war, and I did and won medals–I’m not sure I deserved them, but I won them–and that proved my willingness to risk my life. But I did something much more important than risk my life. I volunteered to kill for my country and did so, more than once, and I came back with a terrible detestation of what I had to do for my country in a war that I wasn’t sure we ever should have been in. And I promised myself that for the rest of my life I would do everything I can to see that only if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that we must go back into the business of killing and being killed will I cooperate with a war. That’s why I am so unhappy with the decision I was conned into making, and many Americans were conned into making, on the war in Iraq. And that is why I am committed to getting back to the war against terrorism, which we left behind us in Afghanistan while we went to Iraq, finishing the effort in Iraq, keeping our casualties down as much possible, getting the rest of the world involved [in Iraq]–as we pleaded with the president to do in the first place–devoting our efforts to catching Osama bin Laden, devoting our efforts to a greater threat than even Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ever were, and that is the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of those who could go mad at any moment, a struggle we should be much more vitally engaged in than we are at the moment. I want the American people to understand that I know the needs for violence and for military action, and I know it as well as most people alive today. I also know that very few wars have ever been won with military might alone. The peace cannot be kept with military might alone anymore than you can stop crime in your communities with just police, prisons and executions … [changes tone] So, that would be the beginning of it.
That’s quite a start. Are you planning another political run?
No ma’am.
You’re done with politics?
It’s not because I wouldn’t love to be in public service, I really would, but because my son, Andrew, has begun his political career and it’s more worthwhile for me to help him that to try doing it myself because you can’t do two [campaigns] at the same time, and it’s better for him to do it than me because he has everything I ever had and more: he’s taller, better looking, smarter, younger….
Well, he’s definitely younger.
You had to say definitely, didn’t you? [Laughs]
Your name has come up as a vice presidential candidate on the Kerry ticket. Would you accept the nomination if he asked you?
No way. I am just not right for it. There are excellent choices out there. It is an embarrassment of riches, frankly. There are a lot of really good choices and I don’t envy Senator Kerry the job he has of picking one of many. I know this violates traditional political tactics, but I’d love to start hearing names for Kerry’s cabinet. It would be such a wonderful array of talent.
Who would you like to see named?
You could make Wesley Clark your vice president or secretary of Defense. Sen. Joe Biden for secretary of State. Senator Edwards or [Rep. Richard] Gephardt have come up as vice president … And there are women of all kinds, like [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi from California. He has wonderful surrogates, too. I’m delighted they’re using Dennis Kucinich more, and Carol Moseley Braun and Howard Dean and John Edwards.
What about Ralph Nader? Do you think his bid will hurt Senator Kerry?
Kucinich is a good antidote to Nader. I would put him forward more. I think Kerry has also been very wise and prudent in the way he treated Nader. And the response from Nader is heartening. It’s obvious he likes and respects Kerry and he made it clear he prefers Kerry to Bush, which I am not sure he did with Al Gore in 2000. That’s a good sign.
