Tonite seems to be critical to John Kerry’s campaign. Or more
properly, tonight plus the next three days of spin will be vital.
Kerry is far behind in electoral votes, his candidacy has not generated
excitement, and his message is unclear to most voters.
I support John Kerry for president. Unfortunately, the John
Kerry I know is not the one that has come through in this sad
campaign. The combination of the Kerry Campaign’s drive to the
right and focus on the mythical swing issues of swing voters in swing
states–combined with well-targeted Republican attacks, has turned John
into a national caricature of himself.
Tonight is John Kerry’s historic opportunity to show himself as he
really is. Tonight is his time to show his true “being” and not
his “doing.” Tonight is his time to make the case for
intelligence and honesty and care–real care backed by analysis rather
than ideology. I truly pray he achieves this tonight, that the
American people resonate with him, and that the news media–feeling
this resonance–are willing to give it its day.
I have met with John Kerry and talked with him directly about difficult
issues, including his support for the Iraq war, with which I strongly
disagreed. On the other hand, we have talked about intellectual
property rights and innovation policy, about bridging the global
digital divide and supporting human rights, and about helping the
capital markets correctly evaluate environmental risks facing companies
and thus reward good stewardship. On these issues we largely
agreed–yet because John is smart and honest he carefully explored the
places where we differed. This is a man who is willing to ask
tough questions, who is willing to challenge his allies, and who tries
to be guided by facts and reflection.
The John Kerry I know is lightning smart, courageous, and creative. For
example, John Kerry called me one day in 2001 and asked, “What would it take to buy out the coal industry?” This
was a serious question. Sometimes it is in the national interest
to have a particular industry slow down or shut down, and in a
capitalist society the way to do that is by buying out the companies
and the jobs involved. For example, this year the US quietly and
for billions of dollars, bought out the tobacco industry. Sweden
bought out shipbuilding many years ago, and retained the jobs in the
auto industry.
Slowing down the coal industry for a few years might have very positive
effects for the US. It would reduce the plague of acid rain that
has ruined lakes across America. It would save the coal for
future generations, when it will be needed to replace
diminishing oil supplies, and when technology will be available to burn
the coal cleanly and efficiently. It would stimulate the
development of energy conservation and alternative energy. It
would accelerate business development in the energy field, and might
set the stage for US global technology and product leadership in this
important future industry. This general argument, for the long-term
industry and job creation payoff of envoronmental investments, has been
convincingly made by Mike Porter of the Harvard Business School.
Finally, slowing the coal industry would
also be a huge plus for the environment of the coal-producing
region, allowing healing and regeneration of the regional
ecosystems.
I made some quick calculations. The coal industry is concentrated
among a few big players. The approximate cost to buy out the companies
was $7 billion, and the cost for severance and retraining people for
new jobs, estimated to equal total industry wages and benefits for one
year, was another $7 billion. So for about $15 billion or so, one
might make this bold intervention. Interestingly, just prior to
George W. Bush becoming president, the combined market capitalization
of the largest coal companies was closer to $3 billion. The
capital markets more than doubled the value of the industry with the
installation of a Republican president.
$15 billion dollars is a lot of money. Energy costs would also
rise temporarily across our economy. But in the long run, an
energy policy based on buying out the coal companies might generate
powerful benefits for out nation. The direct cost would be about
that of the “Big Dig” road and tunnel project in Boston. The Iraq
war has so far cost 13 times as much, and may have fewer long-term
benefits, and more long-term costs.
Now I want emphasize that John Kerry in 2001 was not yet anywhere near proposing
buying out the coal industry
as policy. He was exploring options, he was testing visions. What is terrific is that John was doing a bit of
creative big thinking, and asking
friends for their help in fleshing out the idea to the point where
it might be serously considered. And overall, what he was mulling
about was how to save the environment and establish long-term
conditions for American leadership.
This is the kind of creative long-range thinking that our country needs
on a whole range of issues. We need thinking that is bold and
fact-based, and non-ideological. John Kerry is a person who could
lead the nation on such a course. We are blessed with some of the
most advanced thinking in the world on a range of questions–and we
need to engage our best resources on our major problems. As Kerry
said at the Democratic Convention, we need a president “who believes in
science.” I thought this was Kerry’s best line.
