Former white house staffers discuss the impact of second terms on president ial leadership and effectiveness. The Panel Suggests that president s often change their focus to Foreign Policy welding news media is already looking ahead to the next president. This is about an hour and 20 minutes. Think you to the foundation. We have had a great partnership. This is a series where we look at leadership not in the abstract, but at a particular institution. We have the majority leader from the senate, senators lott and daschle. We have also looked at congressional leadership and Foreign Policy. We have a panel of people who are extremely knowledgeable who have served with and encountered multiple president s we can talk about today. Let me say a few things quickly and then introduce our panel. We put together a book about the second term of the bush administration. It was called second term blues. That is not to pick on george bush so much as to say second term president s have difficulties. The first term has more promise. There are many opportunities in the second term, but there are often similarities. One is, most every second term president going back 50 or six years, has lost control of congress. There is often a turn in Foreign Policy. There are questions in staffing continuity and change. There are also big changes to shake up the administration and we will hear about all of that today. Let me put a few things on the table and then we will turn to our panelists. We have with us canada who has kenneth who has had a long , career in congress and the ford administration, but for the purposes of this panel we think of them first in Congressional Affairs in the first term of the Reagan Administration and then returning with howard baker to the white house, first as deputy chief of staff and then as chief of staff the second term of the Reagan Administration. I turned to sandy berger, who is the chair of albright storm bridge group, but also had a career in congress and the state department, a candidate in the Clinton Administration for the full eight years, the first term as the Deputy National security adviser in the National Security advisor in the second term, and a friend of bpce, worked with us recently, we are happy to have her back. She is the Washington Bureau chief of usa today. She has covered president s from that perch, but also as a white house correspondent. She covered jimmy carter when she was only in second grade, i believe. [laughter] so we look forward to hearing some of that coverage. I put a couple of general principles of second terms on the table. You came in with howard baker at a time of change and you have also the experience of having known reagan at the beginning. Tell us your broad thoughts about second term president s what should we think about . Ken it is nice to celebrate bipartisanship which is not a four letter word in washington. It is essential to governance in my view. People forget when i came back to the white house, it was the depth of iran contra, when howard and i came. Ronald reagans poll ratings were 37 . It was not viewed as a lameduck but a dead duck. The last two years were going to be floating by and not much would get accomplished. We had lost the senate, which we had held for the first time in 25 years. The first six years of reagan. We had democrats under tip oneill. Ronald reagan decided we were going to demonstrate to the American People that it was absolutely viable to get things done in those last four years. In order to achieve that, reagan believed we needed legislative victories. He was criticized in the first term, and reagans answer was how can i negotiate with the soviets . They keep dying on me. [laughter] until he met with gorbachev, and he walked away at reykjavik, and that set up the arms control negotiations in washington and moscow that led to the inf treaty. But we focused on the big things. With congress, reagan had a reservoir of goodwill, in spite of iran contra, because the American People wanted to believe and trust Ronald Reagan. Some president s think their job is to build consensus in washington. Ronald reagans view was he needed to build consensus in america in order to get washington to act. So, he sold some ideas to the American People. I think it is timely to remember that reagan in the last two years was able to pass the canada freetrade agreement, which now looks easy because it is canada. But yet it was tough as nails. Every trade deal is rough. Welfare reform. The japanese internment debt. All 13 appropriation bills on time. My god. I think it has been done once since, if that. And he got a Supreme Court justice, not only nominated but confirmed through a Democratic Senate by the name of anthony kennedy. Not bad for somebody who was not 37 and left at 68 job approval. We replaced the National Security team with carlucci and a littleknown general at the time, known as colin powell who brought fresh energy and fresh ideas to the white house as Ronald Reagan built those two years. John a general overview from here, but you were working in the Foreign Policy arena both terms. It does not generally require as much congressional action, although im sure you worked with congress. Tell us about the turn in the second term to Foreign Policy and generally what you thought about the second term. Sandy i thought the second term was very robust in terms of Foreign Policy. In some respects, any firstterm president inherits an agenda from his predecessor. As we come in in the first term we have somalia and haiti and bosnia in particular, and we spent a good deal of time in the first term working our way through those issues, through for better or for worse. There were other issues, but it was not our agenda. It was a national agenda, but it was not an agenda we shaped. I think as you get to a second term you get to shape your own agenda much more clearly. And the second term is very productive for the president. Nato enlargement, the irish peace treaty, camp david. There were a range of very strong Foreign Policy accomplishments during that time. Also in the second term we had a Republican Congress, both sides. Newt gingrich and danny hestert, trent lott in the senate. We worked very well with them. It was not, you will recall, a tumultuous time for the president. There was the impeachment. We were very intent on making it absolutely clear that Foreign Policy was distinguished from what was happening politically. You may remember there was a movie of that time called wag the dog, where a president was in trouble and started a war to deflect attention. I think we establish enough credibility at that point, but no one imagined the National Security foreignpolicy team berger, albright, cohn, would have used Foreign Policy is a smokescreen. In the end, president Clinton Left Office with the highest Approval Rating of any president since harry truman. It was a very productive time and we can talk more about how we worked with a Republican Congress but by and large gingrich was an , internationalist. We battled with him on some things, but he shared an international agenda. Trent was political, but not an obstructionist. We were able to get good deals done with both of them. John we have not talked about bush, who you covered, but also you covered these two administrations. Maybe i could ask you to think back to the beginning of first terms. One thing a lot of second term president s have in common and we are not faulting any particular one, you come off a reelection and you have big plans. I do not know if you want to call it humorous or enthusiasm for a legislative agenda that does not always pan out that way. There are accomplishments, but the idea of the second boost is not always there. Maybe can think about president s that you have covered and how the start of that term did not work out the way they thought. John, first of all i want to say how honored i am to be here with such an illusory as group of people and how glad usa today is to have partnerships with the bipartisan policy center. We think this is very valuable. This is president obama is the fourth of second term president s i have covered, first for newsday and now usa today. Watching this from the outside not the inside, i think president s are shocked by how rapidly attention moves away from them in the second term. They win the second term, which is really an historic and to do. Not that many people in American History have managed to do that, and yet the first two years are much more difficult than the enormous boost they get in the second term and after that second midterm, which is characteristically catastrophic, although not for president clinton who did well in his second midterm, but you know reporters stop coming to the briefings. Attention turns to the next set of president ial contenders. Members of congress are less afraid of president s because they know they will be there and the president will be retiring. It is interesting to see how president s respond to that. I do think it always surprises president s. Suddenly they are less powerful. It requires a different kind of leadership in that situation. That is one reason that president s turn to Foreign Policy, or why president obama is turning to executive orders because it is harder to get things through congress and the second term situation. I think residents also react differently to how ambitious they want to be in the second term, and especially the second two years of the second term. President clinton never wanted to not be president. He wanted to do everything he could do to be president until they dragged him back up for the inauguration of his successor. But i interviewed george w. Bush, and my feeling with him was, he had done what he felt he could do. He was ready to go. You get different feelings from different president s. President reagans revival the last seat of years of his second term, i think, was a surprise to a lot of us and attributable to the new leaders he brought in including ken and howard baker but also a tribute to him. He mustered and was able to get a lot done in the last two years of his tenure. One last comment i would make i think to some degree second term president start to reap whatever they sowed early in their tenure. So that you mentioned your agenda is more your own in the second term and that is true. The beginning of president obamas firstterm was certainly defined by the collapse of the financial system. That was an agenda he had to deal with that dominated at least the first two years of his first term and actually has a legacy he is dealing with even now. But at this point after almost six years in the economy, he owns the economy. This is obamas economy for better or worse. If things go well, he can claim that and if things go badly, he cannot put that on george w. Bush. The extent to which president s build a relationship with reporters, members of Congress Foreign leaders has a lot to do with how much he or she is able to do in this final two years and if the president has failed to build those relationships, i think it matters less when he is the center of all the action. It matters a lot in the last two years of your tenure. John what would you say about the president s you have worked for terms of their legacy . At some point the president thinks, there is limited time left and i want to have some accomplishments. Do you want to elaborate a little bit more on president reagan and the soviet union where obviously there was a very different view of him in the early part, someone who was tough on the soviet union and an opportunity to have better relations and deals with mikhail gorbachev. Tell us, what do you think the president thought about the way he laid the groundwork for that or whether he was thinking about the longerterm legacy of his presidency in working with the soviets. Ken Ronald Reagan was not focused on legacy. He was focused on immediate accomplishments. He respected gorbachev, but he knew he was speaking from a position of strength. As a soviet leaders said to me it was more fun to me when we were the only ones in the arms race. Reagans firstterm was ultimately about building up to ultimately build down. I think one of the turning points was reykjavik, where he walked away from the deal because it was too grand and too much and gorbachev all of a sudden realized this was not somebody to be tinkered with and he came to the reality that we would have to work out and imf treaty in inf treaty. Reagan was very focused on was on results. You know, jim baker, myself, others, were accused of being the pragmatists in the white house, those who would not let reagan be reagan. The reality is, Ronald Reagan was the ultimate pragmatist. Tip oneill used to say, i dont like compromising with reagan because every time i do, reagan gets 80 of what he wants, and reagan would say to jim and howard myself and others, i will take 80 every time. I come back the next year and theres the additional 20 . That is what governing is all about. They can go get 70 , but if you are a good salesman like clinton was or reagan was, you make it look like 80 and then you still come back for the additional 20 . An instructive story for you. At Governors Island in the new york harbor there is a famous picture now of reagan, gorbachev, and George Herbert walker bush with the statue of liberty behind them. This was one of the only times they let me play advance man. I knew the photo i wanted. Because i grew up in new york city. Gorbachev came to the u. N. To speak and we met with him and we brought with us president elect George Herbert walker bush for a ceremonial passing of the torch. Gorbachev began the lunch by explaining that he was not sure whether perestroika and glasnost would succeed. That the bureaucracy and the military were blocking him at turn. Every turn. He turned to president reagan across the table there were seven russians and seven americans and said what what advice do you have, mr. President . And reagan, like almost an older brother, said, the bureaucracy is the same the world over. The only way you can accomplish anything is to have the people on your side. Less money for missiles and more money for transportation and housing and clothing. Less money for defense and more money for some of the consumer goods that you need in the then soviet union. You realized at that very moment, looking into gorbachevs eyes that he knew either way he turned, his days were numbered and the soviet unions days were numbered because either he alienated the bureaucracy in the military or he alienated the russian people. That is what you talk about, accomplishments and working things out and relationships. John i think ken rightly rejected the word legacy and i understand. Reagan built up america and would not just a deal for the sake of getting the deal. It was not as though he was doing this but i want to ask sandy a similar question, maybe not using the word legacy. The limited time the president has left, trying to figure out what the priorities of the president are, what is possible to accomplish . What was president clinton thinking the last couple of years . Sandy it really drives me crazy when i hear the Administration Talk about the legacy issue. Let it be written, the stories are afterthefact, looking back on what you have accomplished. You dont write your legacy. People who come after you write your legacy. Susan writes your legacy. Historians write your legacy. You focus on getting things done. And you know, it if you get a lot of things done you 11 good legacy and if you do not get a lot of things done, you wont. Once you start thinking in terms of legacy, you stop thinking in terms of getting things done. I just want to do my general screed about the word legacy. [laughter] sandy president clinton came into office at a pivotal moment. We had come off of a war and the time immediately after that was the postwar george h w bush, and that was dealing with the aftermath of the collapse of the soviet union, reunification of germany, how the countries former soviet Union Countries in Eastern Europe were going to get stability. Clinton comes into office in the postcold war period, and the question is how does the United States adapt and lead in an increasingly globalized world . That was very much the centerpiece of president clintons thinking. How do we integrate the world globally with trade . How do we create peace in various parts of the world where there was trouble. How do we bring china into the system. How do we increase nato by bringing in former soviet countries into nato, bringing nato stronger. And then there were new Global Threats looking at terrorism. Looking at al qaeda and bin laden. And obviously the middle east. The overall frame i would bring to this, to the presidency is moving beyond the cold war, to recognize how america leads in the much more globalized world. John i can make the mistake three times. You may be the writer of these things but the urine the put yourself in the position. Youre covering a president who has limited time. What is the president thinking and some examples from coverage of how you think that has played out . Susan i understand how people in the white house think it is not wise to think about your legacy. It is impossible to c