Kucinich: 'Anger' doesn't work
Originally published in the Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News
Kucinich: 'Anger' doesn’t work
By BENJAMIN KEPPLE
Union Leader Staff
MANCHESTER — U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, one of nine Democrats running for the party’s Presidential nomination, warned yesterday that Democrats must take responsibility for the tone of their rhetoric.
Kucinich, who made his remarks yesterday morning in an interview with The Union Leader, also addressed the war on Iraq, trade policy and foreign relations. But he cautioned about the consequences of drumming up fury while politicking.
“We as Democrats must take care that the tenor of the debate doesn’t become so inflamed that it turns people off. We have to be very careful about that,” Kucinich said. “I think voters are becoming increasingly sensitized to that, which is why . . . we have to be careful about anger.
“Anger is not sustainable. You have to really provide people with hope. There is no crossover from anger to hope,” Kucinich said, saying a short time later, “This is where I think Democrats make a mistake — in just trying to tap anger. Where does it go? What do you stand for beyond that?”
Kucinich’s remarks came at the end of an hour-long interview with senior editors at the newspaper. The soft-spoken Kucinich, who is ranked near the bottom of the nine-candidate field in Granite State polls, is noted for his opposition to multilateral trade agreements and the U.S.-led war against Iraq. Yesterday, he spoke about both issues in depth.
“We have a right to defend ourselves, but we surely must know the difference between defense and offense. We went on the offensive in Iraq,” Kucinich said.
It would have been better, he added, had United Nations inspectors continued their work looking for weapons of mass destruction. And he also warned that America was buying itself a long-term commitment in that country.
“If we’re there for five years, we’re talking about a trillion dollars. I don’t think it’s in our national interest to occupy Iraq,” Kucinich said.
Addressing trade issues, Kucinich decried the trend for U.S. firms to outsource jobs overseas and import foreign workers under the federal H-1B visa program.
His first obligation on trade, he said, would be to stabilize the nation’s manufacturing economy. And his first act in office, Kucinich said, would be to initiate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization and the NAFTA trade pact between the United States, Canada and Mexico. He would instead return to negotiating trade agreements on a bilateral basis.
“The trading relationships that we have right now are very unfavorable to our country,” Kucinich said.
As an example of that, he pointed to the recent dust-up over tariffs on foreign steel. When the Bush administration slapped duties on that steel — which Kucinich said was being dumped on the market at below-cost prices — the WTO said it was illegal, which made it possible for foreign retaliation. The tariffs eventually were scrapped.
“It’s kind of a bay window on the problem as we try to stabilize our economy,” Kucinich said.
On other issues, Kucinich said he would work for nuclear non-proliferation if elected President, and said the United States must take a strong stand on protecting the environment. He further said the United States had a right and an obligation to engage China on human rights issues, and called for scrapping the American trade embargo against Cuba, which he called “archaic.”
“We ought to find a way to normalize relations with Cuba (and) end the embargo,” Kucinich said.
The line of questioning about Cuba prompted the one time during the interview where Kucinich notably paused before answering a question.
Kucinich said flatly that he was not an advocate for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. But when asked if he considered Cuba a police state or repressive regime, Kucinich waited for about 20 seconds before responding as follows: “He’s had some practices in dealing with political dissidents that I don’t approve of. I don’t believe Castro is beyond criticism . . . (but) I do think it would be helpful for the U.S. to have some process of constructive engagement.”
Subscribe to this blog's feed