Other transcripts

Transcripts

September 13, 2004

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
· Political Vets;
· Political Art
In-Studio Guests:
· Sheldon Simon, Arizona State University political science professor;
· Marilyn Zeitlin, Director, Arizona State University Art Museum

 

>> Michael Grant:
Tonight on "Horizon," the presidential campaigns haul out the big guns to debate the issue of national security, as veterans line up behind their candidates. And as the election season heats up, the ASU Museum of Art unveils its new controversial exhibit on political satire.

>> Good evening, I'm Michael Grant.
If you have been following the election process recently, you might have come to the conclusion that the U.S. is not so much involved in a war in Iraq as in a war in Vietnam. Mudslinging over the respective military records of President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry has launched a parade of military veterans touting their candidates. Producer Larry Lemmons shows us the veteran passion for politics.

>> General P.X. Kelley:
We've taken the time to be with you for one reason, one reason only, it's a very common purpose. That is the reelection of who we think is the finest commander in chief conceivably in the history of our country and that's George W. Bush.

>> Reporter:
Statements like this would no doubt have Democrats crying Roosevelt or Truman, but here at VFW post 1433 in Glendale, retired General P.X. Kelley is speaking to a receptive crowd. These vets have attended to hear three recipients of the medal of honor announce their support for the president's re-election.

>> Major Gen. Pat Brady:
I would go to the leadership qualities of the two men and the experience that they've had. There is no question about President Bush's experience. He led us in the war on terror for over 3 years. There is no Vice President ever that's had the résumé of Dick Cheney. He defines gravitas.

>> Gen. Merrill McPeak:
Don't think the American people are holding Bush to the same standards. Certainly not deferment Dick Cheney. Certainly not John Ashcroft. Ashcroft is the record holder in the administration as far as I know. He got 7 deferments.

>> Reporter:
The day before, at the State Capitol, former Air Force chief of staff, general Merrill Tony McPeak is outraged by claims of the so called Swift Boat Veterans about John Kerry's Vietnam record.

>> Swift Vet Steve Gardner:
I spent more time on John Kerry's boat than any other crew member. John Kerry hasn't been honest. He's been deceitful. He claims he spent Christmas in 1968 in Cambodia, and that is categorically a lie. Not in December, not in January. We were never in Cambodia on a secret mission, ever. Swift Boat veterans for truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

>> Gen. Merrill Tony McPeak:
When these guys start talking about bravery and patriotism, tough guys who can defend the country, we ought to say "baloney." That's what it is. And that's my answer to the swift boat guys. Baloney, okay? You take baloney and wrap it in a flag it's still baloney, except now you've insulted the flag.

>> Reporter:
McPeak has gained fame from this ad, announcing his support for John Kerry.

>> Gen. Merrill Tony McPeak:
As a fighter pilot I saw my share of combat. Four years ago I endorsed George Bush for president but this year I'm voting for John Kerry. Nothing is more important to me than protecting America. John Kerry has the strength and common sense we need in a commander in chief and something more, a real strategy to make America safer, the Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

>> Reporter:
These volleys, including questions about the president's air National Guard record characterize the increasingly bitter battle for the hearts and minds of voting veterans.

>> Major General Pat Brady:
From a command perspective, I think the most egregious thing -- these are facts, these are not speculations by the swift boat guys and their eyewitness accounts of what he did in combat. It's a fact that he left Vietnam, a command position, because of a technicality. He got three purple hearts, none of which hospitalized him for one minute. He abandoned his band of brothers on a technicality, eight months before his command tour was up. Every commander I have ever known would get out of a hospital bed to go back and be with his commanders. So conduct like that would cause me to seriously question his ability to be a commander in chief.

>> Gen. Merrill Tony McPeak
: I think in the case of the not-so-swift boat veterans what we have to do is say that's lies. It's a pack of lies. We know it's a pack of lies, not one shred of documented evidence has been brought forth to denigrate in any way the service of John Kerry he gave to the country during the Vietnam war. On the other hand, the president's service has got big question marks about it. I don't think that the Kerry campaign has made much of it. I believe that the Kerry campaign, and I'm not speaking for him, but my hunch is, they think the American people have kind of written George Bush off during that period. They gave him a pass, okay, he didn't show up for work. Okay, he did not go to his annual physical. Look, you know how hard it is to miss an annual physical? I took 37 of them.

>> Reporter:
Despite the mud slinging, serious foreign policy and security issues underscore the importance of the election as roughly a thousand military men and women have been killed in Iraq.

>> Gen. Merrill Tony McPeak:
The real question, I think, from a political policy standpoint is, did we need to lose these thousand people? Because if we -- did we need to spend this $200 billion? Or could we have done this in a more thoughtful way? More careful way? A cleverer way, not against -- I'm not against the war in Iraq. I'm not against having Saddam Hussein in prison. That's great. I'm against sloppiness, carelessness in the way we went in. We went in a way to almost ensure that the occupation would be the most difficult possible. And so, the marginal cost there, how many we have lost, the thousand we lost to date versus how many we might have lost. That's what I blame the administration for.

>> Major Gen. Pat Brady:
Anybody who doesn't know that the media is biased and blatantly supporting John Kerry, is absolutely blind or they are a Kerry supporter. I cannot see one bit of difference between the one thousandth soldier who was killed. It could have been my daughter, she was there for a year, and the number one soldier who was killed. You tell me what's the difference, except that 1,000 allows them to make a headline. If we had the support that we had in World War II with the media in this country and all of the people in this country pulled together with the commander in chief once the decision is made, we would be far, far more advanced in our fight against terrorism than we are today.

>> Michael Grant:
To help us get back on track in terms of national security issues, we're joined by ASU political science professor Sheldon Simon. Shel, I would point out you were not the first speaker on that tape. Just so your wife knows. That was a misplaced font. I want to get to some of the national security issues, but to a certain extent -- obviously, Senator Kerry's campaign understands that national security is a critical issue in this campaign, and did they invite a fair measure of this irrelevancy by emphasizing so much his Vietnam war record, the opening of his acceptance speech where he said he was reporting for duty and talking, I think, a grand total of maybe about 20 seconds in that film about his three terms in the United States senate?

>> Sheldon Simon:
I think it was a strategic error on the part of the Kerry campaign, at least as it played out. Nevertheless, I can understand why he emphasized his capability to be commander in chief. I think no other single issue is more important in the voters' minds, judging from surveys, than how the President either the incumbent or his challenger is going to provide leadership in national security and safety for the U.S. homeland. So clearly the commander in chief role is upper most in most voters minds. What Kerry was attempting to do was to demonstrate that he actually had experience under fire. He knew what it was like to send men to their possible deaths. Whereas the president had never had that kind of experience.

>> Michael Grant:
We've had a number of presidents, though, over the years, who have had to make those kinds of decisions and in fact have not been war veterans.

>> Sheldon Simon:
Yes, but usually not when the war was going on. That's the difference.

>> Michael Grant:
How so? I mean, for example, Franklin D. Roosevelt, as far as I know did not have war experience.

>> Sheldon Simon:
No, but he was elected in the 30s, not when there was a war on. He became a war president. When Eisenhower was elected, the Korean war was going on. I am very disappointed that so much of the campaign has gone back to 30 and 40 years ago looking at a war which although important in American history, is essentially irrelevant for the kinds of problems we face today.

>> Michael Grant:
All right. Let's get to the national security issues. It seems to me President Bush's policy is fairly clear, 9/11 changed a lot of things. Typical concepts of nation-state warfare that we have developed over 300, 400 years really do not work very well at this point in time. If you identify a threat remotely that can keep things like 9/11 away from your door step, you go after it remotely. Sound national security position or not in your opinion?

>> Sheldon Simon:
In theory, sound. In actuality, I think the Bush Administration is still operating in the legacy of the cold war mentality. Let me set the challenge particularly with respect to the Middle East and Iraq in context. Not too many people are aware of the fact that Clinton in the 1990s and Bush currently really have the same goals. The goal is regime change in Iraq. The difference was the means. In the 1990s, what the Clinton administration emphasized was economic sanctions, isolation of Iraq, in the hope that there would be an internal revolution that would overthrow Saddam. Obviously that didn't happen.

>> Michael Grant:
Right.

>> Sheldon Simon:
But the idea was that if Saddam was overthrown internally, the prospect of Iraq evolving in a Democratic fashion would be reasonably large and the world community as a whole would support that.

>> Michael Grant:
Well, I think we'd all agree if we could get them to revolt and not send a single American soldier over there, that would be the ideal policy, the problem is, as you pointed out, it didn't seem to be working.

>> Sheldon Simon:
Nevertheless, strategically, Saddam was isolated, deterred, a military threat to no one. In the course of the 1990s, his armed forces had been degraded by 80%. He could have remained isolated and essentially deterred indefinitely.

>> Michael Grant:
Seems to me, though, that this is the different element. It's not so much whether or not Iraq is a military threat, let's, say, in the region, but what it can export in terms of things like 9/11. I think that's the difficult mind shift that we have.

>> Sheldon Simon:
One of the myths that I think have been demonstrated among others is the 9/11 commission, is that Saddam's regime had no significant ties with Islamist terrorists. And you can understand why. Anyone who knows the Baath party it is a socialist party. Osama bin Laden condemned Saddam and Baath party. This was ignored by the administration. So let me try to explain why the administration did what it did. I think it did have a logic.

>> Michael Grant:
Right.

>> Sheldon Simon:
The logic was -- it has to go back to 1990s, actually the 1980s. If you look at the strategic planners in the Bush Administration today, they all cut their teeth during the Reagan years. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl on the outside, Irving Kristol, and more recently Donald Rumsfeld. They all had a vision. The vision was that democracy, which again is what Clinton was hoping for as well, democracy in the Middle East can be imposed from the outside. That the United States, because it was the strongest armed force in the world, indeed the strongest armed force in the history of the world, with the end of the cold war, no challenger on the horizon would be able to march into Iraq, overthrow Saddam and that result would lead to, in some magical fashion, the creation of a secular liberal democracy.

>> Michael Grant:
Yes, you can send in democracy on a cruise missile. Kerry seems to say we have to bring the same international coalition to bear currently that we had together in the first gulf war. The problem with that seems to be when you have allies like Germany and France and Russia actively refusing, although I think Russia may recently be changing its tune, to participate, sometimes because of their own proprietary and fiscal interests, I don't know that you are going to get that kick started either.

>> Sheldon Simon:
I agree with you but from a slightly different analytical perspective. At this point in time, in other words, you have the legacy of the American involvement under President Bush, that means in effect that no other significant country -- and by "significant" I mean a country with the kind of military force that would make a difference.

>> Michael Grant:
Sure.

>> Sheldon Simon:
-- is prepared to come in. They don't want to put their people in harm's way because of the legacy that has already been built up in Iraq vis-à-vis foreigners. If Bush is reelected he faces that problem. If Kerry is elected, he face it is as well. I think a Kerry elected presidency would have somewhat more international sympathy, but the practical effect on the ground in my view would not be different.

>> Michael Grant:
So does nation security actually not matter in this election?

>> Sheldon Simon:
No, no, it matters --

>> Michael Grant:
Is that the bottom line?

>> Sheldon Simon:
It matters, but the Iraqi situation I think is intractable. I see four options with respect to Iraq, and none of them is attractive in my mind.

>> Michael Grant:
Okay, well, Professor Simon, unfortunately, we are out of time, so we'll have to hold that for next time. I very much appreciate your input.

>> Sheldon Simon:
Thank you, Michael for inviting me.

>> Michael Grant:
Is an art museum obligated to be fair and balanced? That was the question that arose when word got out about the new exhibit at the Arizona State University. It features political works by national and local artists. Concerns arose from university officials not long after July 1st when word circulated of the exhibit. The exhibit reputedly had far more anti-Bush pieces an anti-Kerry or pro war pieces. In fact, university officials were specifically worried they would lose the upcoming October 13 debate if the university exhibit was seen as not being balanced, ultimately some works were dropped and some added prompting First Amendment advocates to weigh in saying the alleged pressure to change the exhibit violated academic freedom. Producer Larry Lemmons takes a look at the exhibit.

>> Reporter:
A strange creature is trying to communicate from inside the belly of a large anthropomorphic bag of mixed media. Paper mache senators are locked in perpetual voting posture. The terminator flexes his animated muscle. These images and more are part of "Democracy in America, political satire then and now"

>> Heather Lineberry:
It's an exhibition of work that explores current and historic as well as different artists, both who have been prominently both historic and currently.

>> Reporter:
The politics of communication is sometimes obvious. Sometimes not. Sometimes the reality is illusion.

>> Heather Lineberry:
This is a piece by Dan Collins, based here in Phoenix. He teaches at ASU, and he's used a digital imaging process to capture the image of our 19th century portrait bust of George Washington that's a classic image of Washington in a toga. So adding prestige to Washington in a way he would never have been agreeable to. And Dan Collins explored that further by creating this manipulated image of Washington. Collins then pulls that image back together to its original from the sculpture using a camera in a live feed and you know, the cord and the TV monitor are all part of the installation.

>> Reporter:
One of the underlying messages of the exhibit is to remind visitors of a power we have as Americans that many of us may take for granted.

>> I'm Heidi HESSA, I'm one of the artists in "democracy of America." I'm an immigrant from Germany. I've lived in the United States for a little over 20 years. And I am -- I began considering becoming a citizen two years ago when Germany started allowing dual citizenship. The relationship of this work to democracy in America is that I started studying the citizenship test which consists of about 100 questions about the basic structure of America, a basic understanding of what America is made of. What I will get from becoming a citizen when I do is I will actually be able to vote, which I'm not at this point…. So I get a button, with a drawing of the statue of liberty, and a long question: According to the Constitution, a person must meet certain requirements in order to be eligible to become president. Name one of the requirements. I'll never be president of the United States because I'm not -- I wasn't born here.

>> Heather Lineberry:
Artists throughout history, and particularly in the contemporary setting have worked in a variety of different ways to talk about political issues. Sometimes very figurative almost hyper realistic. Sometimes more caricature like, and often even veering into the abstract.

>> Reporter:
Even if this were not a political season, these works would still speak to an individual in an intellectual way, but because politics is now pervasive, there is a visceral quality to much of the work that taps into the emotion that is have historically guided the American voter.

>> Heather Lineberry: Artists are creatures of the world to begin with. They are living in the world just as we are, and they are re
sponding. And this museum in particular has had a history of exploring art in society, art and political issues, art and ideas. We are connected to a university and it makes sense for us to explore the interdisciplinary ways that artists have worked.

>> Michael Grant:
Joining me now to set the record straight about how the exhibit came about, what prompted the change is the ASU art museum director Marilyn Zeitlin. Thanks for joining us. Nice ketchup bottle. You and I were guessing about qualifications for president while the package was running. Well, what about it? Was there pressure from the ASU administration to change the exhibit?

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
There was pressure from the new times.

>> Michael Grant:
How so?

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
The new times through subterfuge gained access to information long before it was ready to go out. We began the process of putting the show together in February with a deadline of June for artists to tell us what they were thinking they would put in the show. A lot happened between February and June. For one thing, all of the Abu Ghraib photographs became visible. The war in Iraq was going in a worse and worse way.

>> Michael Grant:
Yeah.

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
So many of the artists changed their work, but in very early June, a writer from the New Times went to one of our curators and said I understand you are doing an exhibition of your own work and it will be sponsored by the Republican party.

>> Michael Grant:
And by "your own work"?

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
He is a curator, not an artist.

>> Michael Grant:
I see.

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
He said no, no, no, let me tell you what we are really doing. These are a few of the pieces we're going to be showing, but it was by no means a complete list because we had from June until the end of August to continue to work on the exhibition which we were doing. The writer took that work, that small amount of information, went to Michael Crow's office and said Bush bashing, Bush bashing! And Michael Crow, since he's the president said wait, what's going on here. And he queried Robert Wills, Dean of the Herberger College of Fine Arts to whom I report, and Bob said what are you working on? And once I made it clear that there were -- we were setting contemporary political satire in the context of historical work, drawn from our own collection, and creating an exhibition that would have a variety of points of view, the Dean said go ahead.

>> Michael Grant:
So was one of the problems here picking the wrong pieces as illustrations to give to the New Times reporter that this is the kind of thing that we're going to be doing?

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
It was almost a random selection. And some of those pieces -- most of them are in the finished exhibition. So it was a subterfuge --

>> Michael Grant:

It gave a skewed view of what the larger exhibit --

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
Right. And then he sounded a false alarm. Michael Crow wanted to know what was going on. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, if I were in his position, I certainly wouldn't say oh, yeah, let them do whatever they want. But once we had made it clear what our intentions were, which are educational, not partisanship, we went ahead with the project.

>> Michael Grant:
So absolutely no one from the administration, including but not limited to President Crow came and said, well, listen that one has got to go and I think you need three more of these pro-administration pieces or whatever the case may be?

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
You know, Bob Wills does not have any aspirations as far as I know, to be a curator. He has lots of other things to do. He trusts me. I've been working here for 12 years and making exhibitions. I think he wanted to be sure that something wasn't atypical in that regard, but once he was assured that it was moving forward, it moved forward. There's one --

>> Michael Grant:
Specifically did the subject of losing the debate in October ever come up? That was one of the allegations.

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
I don't know.

>> Michael Grant:
A concern about losing the Tempe debate.

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
That was never discussed with me.

>> Michael Grant:
It's a multimedia kind of display.

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
Yeah.

>> Michael Grant:
And it also has a fair measure of historical pieces?

>> Marilyn Zeitlin:
We have a very important print collection and within the whole print collection we have great strength in political graphics, something we are going to further strengthen. We own the archive of Sue Coe's graphic work. An outspoken political artist. She has three pieces in the exhibition. We have Mexican graphics from the Tiar Graphic de Popular, we have two pieces. They are anti-Nazi. We have Cuban graphics, and we have lots of other examples of graphic work back to Daumier, Thomas Nast, William Hogarth. Those are all there and form a bridge between the present and the past.

>> Michael Grant:
Marilyn Zeitlin, thank you for joining us. We appreciate the input on what happened and what did not.

>> Reporter:
Should Internet access at public libraries allow adults to view any content they wish? Or should libraries install software filters that make pornography off limits? The City of Phoenix decided on the latter and faces a lawsuit by the ACLU. The controversy Tuesday at 7:00 on "Horizon."

>> Michael Grant:
Wednesday we'll take a closer look at proposition 400. Thank you very much for joining us on this Monday evening. I'm Michael Grant. I hope you have a great one. Good night.

 

Back to the top