"Rock the Boat": Dan Quayle on Becoming President

by Steven Menashi

The Dartmouth Review: How do you explain the public infatuation with George W. Bush?

Dan Quayle: The Republicans apologizing to his father for not getting him reelected in 1992—it's as simple as that. One day all of us will sober up, and later on they're going to take a good look at everybody, and it will be a very competitive race. That's what it's all about. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a guilt complex.

TDR: On the Democratic side, Bill Bradley has emerged as the sole alternative to Al Gore. On the Republican side, however, the conservative vote is splintered among many different candidates, yourself included. Do you think that, with so many candidates, it is possible to have one conservative alternative to George W. Bush?

Quayle: Yeah, I think that it will come down to myself and George W. If you look at the other conservatives that are running, I'm the only one who has held office. I've been a congressman, senator, vice-president.

I think that thinking people understand that if you're going to seriously contemplate having a serious chance of getting elected President of the United States, that you have to hold some office beforehand, unless you're a war hero, like Eisenhower. We're in a situation today where I'm the one and eventually it will come down to the two of us.

TDR: How does your experience as vice-president qualify you especially to be president?

Quayle: As vice-president, I worked every day with the President of the United States. I know what the job is. I've been there. I've worked in the Oval Office. I've traveled the world. I know what it takes to be president. I know how to do the job. I know that I'm fully prepared on day one to be President of the United States.

TDR: You often talk about reestablishing the Reagan coalition by uniting social and fiscal conservatives. Do you still believe that you are uniquely qualified to do that, and how do you plan to unite the two groups without a Soviet threat anymore?

Quayle: The Reagan coalition has got to be reestablished: the social conservatives, the economic conservatives, and the national defense conservatives. The winning of the Cold War has changed the national defense debate considerably. We're now the only superpower in the world. We have a special responsibility to meet the new challenges today: ballistic missile attack, China—we've got to be much more oriented toward a specific policy than we ever have been before—and the depletion of our armed forces.

Bill Clinton, in the last decade, has essentially cut our armed forces in half. We have half of what we had going into this decade. It's both sad and it's exceedingly dangerous. Morale is low, the retention rate is very low. National defense and foreign policy are key issues. That's part of the Reagan coalition. That's part of the coalition that Reagan put together to win the presidency in 1980 and also 1984.

TDR: So you don't think, as Senator Smith does, that there is a rift between social and fiscal conservatives that can't be reconciled? You think that there is room for common ground in the Republican party?

Quayle: I think that there is room for common ground. I represent both branches—all three branches, in fact. I think I can bring the party together. There may be slight differences, but when you have somebody like myself, who has been in elective office, who worked and came up as a movement conservative, who represented the social conservatives, the economic conservatives, and the national conservatives—that's my constituency, and I can bring it together.

TDR: You campaigned for Christine Whitman for governor of New Jersey, even though you said you disagreed with her stance on partial birth abortion. Would you ever consider choosing Whitman, or someone like her, as vice-president?

Quayle: I want my vice-presidential choice to be conservative. It's got to be someone that will support my agenda, support my ideas, that is fully prepared to be president if something should happen to me, and somebody that would be loyal to the ideas that I'm campaigning on. If they fit that description, then they can be considered.

TDR: You recently delivered a speech to farmers in Iowa concerning the deflation in the price of crops. You said, “Sometimes in Washington the only thing people care about are big banks and making sure monied interests are taken care of.” It was a speech that Bruce Morton on CNN called “Pat Buchanan-like.” Is there an element of economic populism in your agenda?

Quayle: Well, you've got to realize that the farmer is hurting, that there is deflation in our economy. We're so focused on inflation that people are forgetting that you've got deflation in commodities—agriculture commodities, non-agriculture commodities. Rural America is hurting. You look at the challenge we have today, it's deflation.

I think that Greenspan and the Federal Reserve are really missing the big picture. And I don't think that they really do care. They haven't really focused on that. They seem like they really want to protect the big banks, the big guys with big wallets, and that's not the Republican party and it's not America. We've always fought for the little guy. We've always fought for the middle class. And that's my background, that's what I've been fighting for since I got elected to the Congress when I was 29 years old.

TDR: You don't support the flat tax because it “discriminates against the middle class.” Do you think there's an element in the Republican party that's only looking out for wealthy Americans?

Quayle: I think that the establishment and the country club crowd will feel very comfortable with someone who is not going to rock the boat, preserve the status quo, preserve the political culture in Washington, D.C.

I think the American people want a change. I think they want to change presidents. I think they want to change what's been going on the last six or seven years. I want to harness this prosperity, grow the economy even more. There are a lot of things I want to change. I want to change the tax structure, and I don't support this “targeted tax credit” idea that some are talking about because it just makes the tax code more complicated—the lobbyists in Washington have more of an advantage, and the middle class gets screwed.

I want to see taxes cut for everyone. I want to see rates lowered. I want to see deductions and special preferences eliminated. That's why my tax cut of 30 percent across the board, eliminating all the preferences and deductions—except for the home mortgage, charitable, state and local taxes, medical or health, and maybe a couple others—is the way to go. It gives you a tax code that you understand, it's fair, it's lower rates. The tax code is an absolute national disgrace.

TDR: In 1992, many people ridiculed you for the speech in which you criticized “Murphy Brown.” But since then, many of the themes you addressed in the speech, like the deterioration of families in the inner-city, have been co-opted by the Clinton administration and by other politicians. Do you feel vindicated after all the criticism you endured for that speech?

Quayle: Absolutely. We've come full corner. No longer is it controversial and there's consensus out there. But now that we've got their attention on focusing on the family, the question is what to do. And this is the problem: many in our party want to expand the welfare state. One of the articles on the front pages of the papers today is that the Republicans and Democrats alike want to bust the spending caps. They think they've got a big surplus out there, and when they've got a big surplus, their first response is to spend it. And the welfare state gets bigger.

We need to let people keep more of their money. Realize that it is our money; it's not the government's money. We've got a real philosophical debate going on. That's why Republicans will rally around someone like myself—someone who's willing to change the political culture, who's willing to take on the establishment, who's willing to change the status quo, and to see real change in America.

TDR: In 1992, Warren Rudman said that the major obstacle you face in becoming president was a poor “perception with which [you are] held by the American people.” Do you see yourself overcoming that perception?

Quayle: We will overcome it. There's no doubt in my mind. We're working hard in New Hampshire and other states. And once people meet me, and get to know me, and when they listen to what I have to say, I think many of them walk away and say, “He's got the right stuff to be president,” despite all the nonsense they've been told over the years by some in the media. Even the media will grudgingly acknowledge that what they said about me initially was just totally fabrication.

TDR: Also in 1992, you said that you were looking forward to the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and that abortion laws should be decided by each state. Do you still believe that?

Quayle: The next president will have the opportunity to appoint three Supreme Court justices. And the key issue right now is whether the ban on partial birth abortion will be held to be constitutional. If it's determined to be unconstitutional—I think an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution, and an erroneous interpretation of what Roe v. Wade is all about—then we've got serious problems, and that's why these Court appointees are so important. We've got to make sure that the ban on partial birth abortion is held constitutional.

TDR: If abortion laws are determined by the states, would you support a state's decision to legalize abortion?

Quayle: That's what I think would be best: let the states make the determination. They're in a better position to do that than the federal government. And there will be different laws in different states. I have no problem with that. That's a situation, I think, in which states' rights ought to reign supreme.

TDR: One of your ideas for education, as you mention in your book, is tenure reform. Does that have implications for higher education?

Quayle: I think that some of the universities ought to take a look at how they can be more efficient, and more effective, and hold down some of the costs. I would encourage university presidents and others to take a good look at tenure. I think they'll find that it's a fairly inefficient way to run things. I've directed my comments at K-12, but I think universities ought to look at tenure as well.

TDR: In your book, you talk about ideological conformity in universities today—you even mention Dartmouth specifically. Is this a significant threat to public discourse?

Quayle: You can talk to conservative intellectuals who can't get jobs at universities because they happen to be conservatives. As I wrote in my book, a friend of mine had a discussion with faculty members at a particular university, and one of his reviewers said, “Why are you even considering coming here? You're way too conservative for us.” In other words, the notice is, “conservatives need not apply.”

We have this wonderful diversified nation. We have this wonderful pluralistic society. And we have a lot of different opinions, but there's only a certain opinion that is allowed on the elite campuses in America.

One of things I'll be promoting if I am elected president, is intellectual diversity. I'll ask the college presidents, and I'll ask the boards of trustees why this is the case, and see if they can't do better.

TDR: Also in universities, there is the phenomenon of regulations on speech and association. Two years ago, Congressman Livingston introduced the “Freedom of Speech and Association on Campus Act,” to withhold federal funds from universities that deny students constitutional rights of free speech and free association. Do you support that? Is regulation of speech in our universities a threat?

Quayle: I don't know specifically what the Livingston bill is all about, but I think speech codes are unconstitutional. You run into problems when you start regulating speech.

Now, if you're talking about civil rights and violations of law, that's a different thing. When it comes to political speech and content, I don't think the Constitution allows for a regulation of speech.

Now, of course you have yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, you've got types of speech that are inciting riots, and things of that sort—you can't do that; those are violations of the law.

TDR: Richard Fenno wrote a book about your career in the Senate in which he called you an “operational conservative.” He said you were “motivated more by pragmatic politics rather than principle.” Do you think that's true?

Quayle: Well, it's a combination of the two: to be able to get your philosophical principles into law, you have to go through the legislative process. If you take something through the legislative process, you may not get 100 percent, but if you get 80 percent, or 85 percent, that's certainly better than zero. That's what the political system is all about.

I've always fought for principle. I've always fought for what I believe in. As a matter of fact, his coverage of me was on the Job Training Partnership Act, which is a classic example because we took a government-run program that was just into giving mayors jobs to hire anyone they wanted to—their favorite niece or whatever the case may be—and we turned it into a worthwhile training program where the private sector was in charge and not the politicians.

That's clearly my philosophy: government should be limited and we ought to rely more on the private sector than on some of the politicians. The private sector, when they get involved, has a habit and a tendency to do a lot better job than some of the others. So that's a classic example: my conservatism never took a back seat, but we marched forward and got a consensus, and got it through the Senate 95-0.

TDR: And, in fact, you cosponsored the Job Training Partnership Act with Ted Kennedy.

Quayle: Well, what I did was, it was my subcommittee and I didn't want to work with Metzenbaum, who was the ranking member. So I got Kennedy to support my legislation, and he was helpful. It shows an ability to get things done in a very tough, competitive political environment.

You know, speeches are one thing, but you've got to have action. It's fine to be able to go out there and talk about all these things, but if you can't produce results, what good is it? It's not very good: you don't even shape the agenda, you don't even shape the political debate. So I've proven that I'm able to get legislation through. I did it. I know how it works.

TDR: A few months back, National Review wrote that you “wouldn't be too timid to raise issues—such as race and the environment, two Gore vulnerabilities—that frighten more establishmentarian Republicans.” In Texas, I remember, there was a movement like Proposition 209 and George Bush never commented on it. Are you outspoken on racial preferences and Affirmative Action?

Quayle: Absolutely. Discrimination is wrong. Quotas are wrong. Special preferences because of one's skin color are wrong and I think most Americans agree with me. But when you take an absolute position like that it could be a bit controversial.

The pollsters and the focus groups and all the pundits want to take a safe course of action: don't have any controversy, don't have any debate, just show up and kiss babies and have a photo opportunity and try to win without standing for anything. I don't think that's a way to win an election. I think message triumphs over money. I think issues triumph over glitz. The American people, particularly folks here in New Hampshire, take ideas and issues very seriously.

TDR: Is Al Gore especially vulnerable on issues like racial preferences and the environment?

Quayle: Well, Al Gore is an extremist when it comes to the environment. Read his book, Earth in the Balance. It is extreme propaganda on the environment. And he believes in world government. He wants the international world bureaucrats to come in and start regulating the use of our land. His approach to things will set this country back, not forward, when it comes to preserving and protecting the environment.

TDR: You said recently, “If I get elected president, by the completion of my first term I am very confident that Saddam Hussein will be gone.” Why?

Quayle: There's a way to get change in Iraq. The people of Iraq want to get rid of him. What you need to do is support the opposition and make sure that they know that there's an avenue of support. If that happens, then I think that Saddam Hussein will be gone.

TDR: And you think that the Clinton administration has been particularly weak at handling the situation in the Middle East?

Quayle: They don't know what to do in foreign policy. They haven't a clue. Madeleine Albright is one of the more incompetent secretaries of state we've ever had. Bill Clinton is not focused on international affairs except when he thinks it helps his polling numbers.

Yugoslavia, getting involved in that civil war, was a mistake. He doesn't know what to do in China. Here he is excusing communism and ignoring the freedom and liberty and free enterprise system of Taiwan. We won the Cold War, we defeated the Soviet Union on an intellectual basis, and you've got a President of the United States excusing communism.

TDR: When President Bush led the coalition into Iraq, even though he always maintained that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, he sought congressional approval beforehand. Now some are critical of Clinton for not seeking congressional approval for the action in Yugoslavia. What's your opinion on that controversy?

Quayle: He didn't have to get congressional approval. If Congress doesn't like what he did, cut off the money. The War Powers Act is void as far as I'm concerned. I never liked it in the first place.

TDR: Do you have any particular message that would resonate with college students?

Quayle: The message of hope, the message of trust, to reject cynicism and be optimistic, to reject the doubt, to become very positive, because I think we are a nation of optimists.

Bill Clinton has basically clouded the culture with all his shenanigans and outright lying to the American people. And my message to the young folks is that Bill Clinton is an aberration, that he is an exception to the rule, and I really feel that young people need to get involved and help us take care of this great country that we've inherited from our parents and grandparents.