The Rolling Stone interviews

by edited by Jann S. Wenner

  What do you mean, “darkness on the Net”?

  Well, I mean, those kids were apparently into some sort of a satanic thing. I worried then—I’m worried now—about the people in our society, particularly children, that just drift off. Maybe one of those kids could have been saved if somebody had been there to help, and then all those other children would still be alive.

  It seems shocking that we didn’t get any major new gun-control legislation in the wake of that event.

  The truth is that when legislation time comes, a lot of the people in Congress are still frightened of the NRA. The NRA is great at terrifying people with inflammatory rhetoric. Did you see the tirade that Charlton Heston carried on against Al Gore and me, saying that we were glad some of these people were killed, because it gave me an excuse to take people’s guns away?

  You got the Brady Bill and a partial assault-weapons ban through Congress in your first term. Why didn’t you seize the opportunity, with this post-Columbine atmosphere? You called a White House conference on violence in movies and video games.

  I thought Congress would be so shocked and the public so galvanized that we would have a window of opportunity.

  So what happened?

  The GOP leadership just delayed until the fever went down. They knew that they couldn’t afford to have their members voting wrong on closing the gun-show loophole or banning the importation of large-capacity ammunition clips—which allows people to get around the assault-weapons ban. We finally got a majority vote for it in the Senate. Al Gore broke the tie. But we couldn’t get a bill out of the conference committee in the House. If we could ever have gotten a clean vote—

  Then you would have won that vote?

  Oh, absolutely. We could win the vote today if we could get a vote. But the leadership in the Republican Party—as long as they’re in the majority in both houses—can control things. You can write the rules so that you can just keep stuff from coming up.

  I’ll remind you that one of the reasons that Democrats are in the minority today is because of the Brady law and the assault-weapons law. There’s not a single hunter that’s missed an hour of hunting, not a single sport shooter has missed an event. They acted like it was the end of the world. But half a million felons, fugitives and stalkers haven’t gotten handguns because of the Brady law.

  How do you feel about the genocide in Rwanda? Is there anything that we could have done to prevent it? Do you feel any responsibility, personally?

  I feel terrible about it. The thing that was shocking about Rwanda was that it happened so fast, and it happened with almost no guns. The idea that 700,000 people could be killed in a hundred days, mostly with machetes, is hard to believe. It was an alien territory; we weren’t familiar. I think and hope that the United States will be much more involved in Africa from now on. If we had done all the things we’ve done since Rwanda in Africa—what would have happened is, the African troops would have moved in, they would have stopped it, and we could have given them the logistical support they needed to stop it.

  Why do you think you were such a lightning rod for partisanship and bitterness and so much hatred during your terms in Washington?

  There were a lot of reasons. Mostly, it’s just because I won. [The Republicans] believed the only reason they lost in 1976 to Jimmy Carter was because of Watergate. They believed that from the time Mr. Nixon won in ’68, they had found a foolproof formula to hold the White House forever. They really believed that America saw Republicans as the guarantor of the country’s superiority in values and prudence in financial matters and that they could always turn Democrats into cardboard cutouts of what they really were. They could sort of caricature them as almost un-American. So I came along, and I had ideas on crime and welfare and economic management and foreign policy that were difficult for them to characterize in that way. And we won. . . . And they were really mad.

  I think, secondly, I was the first baby-boomer president. Not a perfect person—never claimed to be. And I opposed the Vietnam War. I think that made them doubly angry, because they thought I was a cultural alien and I made it anyway.

  So you think the culture wars were very much a part of this atmosphere?

  Mmm-hmm. I also think they were even more angry because I was a white Southern Baptist. They didn’t like losing the White House, and they didn’t like me. They didn’t like what they thought I represented. They had worked very hard to have the old white-male Southern culture dominate the political life of America. And they saw me as an apostate—which I welcome. When I take on the NRA or do something for gay rights, to them, it’s worse if I do it. It’s like a Catholic being pro-choice.

  Were you surprised by the difficulties you had in your own party? Pat Moynihan criticized your health care proposal and your economic plan.

  I didn’t take offense at that. Moynihan believed, first of all—with some justification—that he knew more about most areas of social policy than anybody else did. He felt we were making a political mistake not to do welfare reform first, which turned out to be right. Secondly, he felt that Washington could not absorb, in a two-year period, the economic plan, which he strongly supported. He said, “The system cannot absorb this much change in this short a time.” They thought I was being bullheaded. And I think, in retrospect, they were probably right.

  What was your relationship with Newt Gingrich like?

  It depended on which Newt showed up. The good Newt I found engaging and intelligent; we were surprisingly in agreement in the way we viewed the world. We actually had a very cordial relationship. He was very candid with me about his political objectives. And he, in turn, from time to time, would get in trouble with the right wing of his own caucus, because they said I could talk him into too much.

  On the other hand, when he did things like blaming every bad thing that happened in America on Democrats, the 1960s and all that—I thought it was highly destructive.

  How did it make you feel personally?

  At some point, probably around 1996, I got to the point where I no longer had personal feelings about those things—like the White-water investigation and the travel-office investigation. Newt was smart. He knew there was nothing in any of that stuff. It was all politics to him; it was about power. But he really did believe that the object of politics was to destroy your opponent. And he had an enormous amount of success. He won the Congress basically by having a take-no-prisoners, be-against-everything approach. He thought he was leading a revolution, and I was in the way. I thought he was a worthy adversary. I made a lot of errors, and he ran through them.

  In the history books, it will say, of course, that you were the second president ever to be impeached. How does that make you feel? Will it cloud your real accomplishments?

  The history books will also record, I think, that both impeachments were wrong. And that’s why they failed. And I’m just grateful that, unlike Andrew Johnson, I was less embittered by it, and I had more support, from the public and in the Congress, and so I was able to resume my duties and actually get a lot done for the American people in the aftermath.

  Did you ever get so angry during it that you think it clouded your judgment?

  I got angry, but I always was alone with friends who would deflate me. I don’t think it ever clouded my judgment on any official thing. I realized that, when it was all over, I would have the responsibility to work with the Republicans as well as the Democrats.

  One of the things I had to learn—it took me almost my whole first term to learn it—was that, at some point, presidents are not permitted to have personal feelings. When you manifest your anger in public, it should be on behalf of the American people and the values that they believe in. I had very strong personal feelings about it, but I tried never to talk about it.

  Do you think it was in some way a referendum on the nature, morality or character of the American people?

  Not really. People strongly disagreed with what I did. I did, too. I think that they just were able to discrim
inate between a bad personal mistake and the justification for a constitutional crisis.

  As president, you have a relationship with the press that’s unique in the world: You are subject to more criticism, more attention—more everything. What’s your take on the press in America?

  The important thing is to try to hear the criticism. Because it’s not always wrong, sometimes it’s right. They’re doing the best they can in a very new and different environment. I have a lot of sympathy for them. How can presidents hate the press? You can gripe all you want about all the negative coverage you get on the evening news or on the talk shows or being blasted in the newspaper or having them get on something when they’re dead wrong, like White-water—where they’re just dead wrong. But every day they’re writing about all the things that affect the American people in their lives. Anytime you want a microphone to have your say, you’ve got it. So I think to be obsessively negative is a mistake.

  What creature comforts are you going to miss the most about leaving the White House—about not living there?

  What I will miss the most is not the creature comforts. It’s the honor of living in the White House, which I have loved. And, even more than that, I’ll miss the work. It’s the job I’ll miss the most—I actually love doing this job.

  Do you just get off every single day when you get up?

  Every day. Even on the worst day. Even in the worst times of that whole impeachment thing. I just thank God every day I can go to work.

  What have you learned about the American people? You’ve had a unique exposure to them that nobody else has ever had.

  I’ll tell you this: When I leave office on January 20th, I will leave even more idealistic than I was the day I took the oath of office, eight years earlier.

  The American people are fundamentally good, and they almost always get it right, if they have enough time and enough information. But the biggest problem we have in public discourse today is, there’s plenty of information out there, but you don’t know what’s true and what’s not, and it’s hard to access it. It’s all kind of flying at you at once. It’s hard to have time to digest it. But if people have the information, they have time to digest it, they nearly always get it right. And if that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t be around here after 224 years.

  Do you have any special message to young people? Any valedictory thoughts to the kids in school right now as you leave office?

  This is a fascinating time to be alive, but it’s not free of challenges. So I would say to the young people: You’ll probably live in the most prosperous, interesting time in human history. But there are a lot of big challenges out there, and you’ll have to be public citizens as well as private people.

  THE DALAI LAMA

  by Robert Thurman

  May 24, 2001

  Right now, the gap between rich and poor is increasing more and more. At least five hundred new billionaires have come up during the last twenty years.

  Five hundred!

  Yes, up from twelve in 1982, and now almost six hundred. But out of those, more than one hundred have come up in Asia. Though we think of Asia as poor, there are billionaires in Asia, and at the same time so many poor people in the West—so it’s more like a worldwide system of rich and poor that has gone beyond East and West. You have said that the communists failed miserably in their attempt to force the rich people to share.

  Yes.

  So then what is the alternative in trying to get a better balance?

  People have to decide on their own that it is good to share what they have, at least to some degree. I think that this can only happen through education, through increasing their awareness. In the long run, when there is one rich family surrounded by poor people, mentally they will not be happy. Their children will always receive some harassment from the poor community, so physically also they will constantly feel some sort of fear or threat. So in the long run, not only will they be morally unhappy but also they will be practically unhappy.

  Then, you can think in terms of the murder rate or senseless violence in the community; in some cases an overly polarized economy can become one cause of a civil war. When there is too much of a gap, some agitators can easily organize the poor people, as they can claim to be fighting for equality or for justice. So therefore, if we return to an ever more huge gap, then due to such conditions within societies, many troubles are bound to come. That being the case, in the long run it is in the interest of the richer people themselves to make sure that there is a less-extreme gap between themselves and the poor around them. In this way, they will realize their enlightened self-interest in sharing.

  Then also they can think more carefully about their own lifestyle. For example, except for the fact that richer people can think, “I am really rich!”—except for being able to hold this concept in their thoughts, I doubt if there is that much difference in the actual quality of their living, if they become more mindful of its actual details.

  Except, as you already mentioned, on the physical level.

  Even on the physical level, how much can anyone put into one stomach? Except perhaps you, as your belly seems quite expansive [laughs]! That being so, really, even in the practical, material facts of living, there’s not that much special about being really rich. For example, you can drink a lot of wine or liquor, some really expensive kind, or you can eat very costly food. But if it is too rich, or if you eat too much, it will hurt your health. Then some people who don’t work physically fear they are getting too unhealthy, so then they expend a tremendous amount of sweat doing strenuous exercises. Like me, I don’t get out to walk very much, so I have to ride on my exercise bike every day! When you think about it, there isn’t that much to it, is there?

  As you say.

  But in the thinking “I am rich, really rich!”—just the excitement of that concept gives a little energy. But this is really very little of a benefit, for some sort of self-image. Just for this, is it worth it to engage in all the stress of amassing huge wealth? Within one’s family there will be unhappiness, within society there will be so many people feeling jealousy and malice and wishing you ill. And you will feel anxiety about that. And so one develops a more clear awareness of the realities of the state of extreme wealth.

  On the other hand, if they instead think, “I’m so rich. If I help these poor ones in front of me, if I help their health, if I help them develop skills and good qualities, then these poorer people will really like me. Even though I’m rich, they will really feel friendly toward me.” That way, the rich person will find real happiness, don’t you think so? For example, if there is some tragedy in the thoughtless rich family, then the ordinary people might actually enjoy it. But in the opposite case, if something tragic happens to the generous rich family, then everyone is genuinely sorry. So if you get richer and richer and still share nothing, and the people around you really dislike you, how can you feel good?

  Fundamentally, we are social animals, so when the surrounding people become more genuinely friendly, we feel more mutual trust and we are much, much happier. So the rich should make a conscious decision, on their own volition, to make their contribution, share the wealth that has come to them from their past good karma. When they increase their awareness of others’ perspectives, they will naturally realize, “Helping others more, they will be happy, and then I will be happy myself!” That’s what I am thinking.

  Now for a really simple question: What is the essence of Buddhism?

  Respect all forms of life, and then compassion and affection toward all sentient beings, with the understanding that everything is interdependent—so my happiness and suffering, my well-being, very much have to do with others’.

  What prevents people from understanding this?

  When people think it’s all about doing tantric visualizations and rituals.

  When I talk about the Buddhist dharma, I’m not talking about just chanting and rituals. If it’s thought to be a philosophy, it’s not that, either. The dharma,
it’s just the mind. I’m afraid that among the Tibetans, the Chinese and also some Westerners—the new Buddhists—in many cases they consider the practice of Buddhism is simply to recite something and perform some ritual, putting false expectations on the esoteric magic of tantra: “Oh, if I do this, I may get something amazing!” So they neglect the basic instruments that actually transform our mind. These instruments are the altruistic spirit of enlightenment [bodhichitta], the transcendent attitude, renunciation, the realization of impermanence, the wisdom of selflessness. People who think they have a magic gimmick neglect these things. So their inner world, their inner reality, remains very raw.