Many people have been asking for more on Jim Webb's political philosophy, his journey home to the Democratic Party, and his positions on the issues. The following questions and answers, taken from Webb's recent interviews on Daily Kos, MyDD, the San Diego Union Tribune, and with Virginia Democratic bloggers, will hopefully help answer some of these questions. (Note: I've condensed a few questions and answers solely in the interest of readability. All of these can be found in full at the sites I mentioned, on Raising Kaine, etc.).
1. You served in the Reagan Administration and were a Republican for many years. What are the main reasons you decided to switch to the Democratic Party?
"I've never run for office. That tends to clarify the mind. I identified myself most strongly with the Democratic Party until the end of the Vietnam War, then I went with the Republican Party on issues of national security. I was not affiliated in any way with either of the Bush Administrations. Events following 9/11, plus a lot of thought while I was writing Born Fighting, led me to decide that I best identify with the Democratic Party. That being said, I have friends in both parties, and if I am elected I hope we can restore a measure of civility in the Congress that is now sorely lacking."
2. Which wing, if any, of the Democratic Party do you feel most comfortable with? Would you describe yourself as a liberal, moderate, conservative, populist, or progressive Democrat? Or something else entirely?
"I would describe myself as conservative on national defense, populist on economic issues, and a social moderate."
3. Why did you decide to run for U.S. Senate from Virginia? Is your run fueled by any degree of anger towards the Bush Administration and "culture of corruption" Republican Congress?
"People who are looking for anger from me will be disappointed. I was angry for many years following Vietnam because by virtue of my writings and government jobs I had inherited the responsibility of defending the wrongs done to those who had served in that war. But I lost that anger after 9/11. There are too many important issues to focus on, here in the present.
To be sure, this Administration has been woefully inept in many areas, and the political culture in Washington has become corrupted due to a Congress that has lost its way. I will focus on those areas, but more as leadership challenges than as the result of personal anger."
4. What differentiates you, if anything, from other politicians in America today?
"The major difference between me and most of them is that I am not a career politician and have never desired to be one. I have strong experience as a committee counsel in the Congress and as a Defense Department leader. But I have been extremely fortunate to be able to support myself and my family through a writing career that has given me independence and also insights that I would never have obtained if I had been running for office continuously. Writing also allows one a measure of introspection that is rarely available in government."
5. What are your main criticisms of George Allen, who you would be running against if you win the Democratic nomination? What is your main argument for replacing George Allen, and why do you believe you have the best chance to defeat him this year?
"If you like George W. Bush then you should love George Allen, who has supported this president 96 percent of the time."
6. You were an early opponent of invading Iraq -- speaking out on the issue in September 2002. What were your reasons for caution on Iraq?
"Actually I spoke out on this before September 2002, although the Washington Post article I wrote in that month was one of the first major pieces warning that the real issue was not WMD's, but impending terrorism and the lack of an exit strategy. It has been my strong position for many years that the US should not become an occupying power in that part of the world, with its constant, multi-polar turmoil."
7. Given that we're in Iraq now, what would be the essential elements of a sound strategy to extricate ourselves?
"We need to get out of Iraq, but we need to leave in a more responsible way than when we entered. This does not mean that we should be there for a long period of time. We must pressure this Administration to say, unequivocally, that the US has no long term aspirations for occupying Iraq. We should consult with the other countries in the region and bring them into the process - after all, they are going to be very much in the process once we leave."
8. Aside from the specific situation in Iraq, what would you say is your overall view on when it is appropriate to use U.S. military force? What sorts of situations demand U.S. intervention, and what don't?
"The only time it is appropriate to use U.S. military force is when inaction poses a direct threat to the United States or our interests.
I believe people in this country need to look very closely at the language this Administration has been using recently, on when it would be appropriate to use force. Last week they renewed their supposed doctrine of "pre-emptive war." Pre-emptive war is a far different thing than a pre-emptive attack on, say, a terrorist cell that is preparing to attack us. Iraq was a pre-emptive war - taking over a country by force when it was not threatening us. This is not the way the United States should be exporting its values."
9. You've spoken of the distinction between "free trade" and "fair trade." What sort of policy initiatives would you like the see the U.S. pursue in order to promote fair trade?
"I'm not an economist, but I'm a frequent traveler, especially in Asia, and I did bring American businesses into Vietnam for more than two years. This gives me an appreciation of how some of these imbalances occur. In my view, free trade only exists when two countries that have comparative economic and governmental systems are involved - as, for the most part, we can see in our practices with western Europe. For the rest of it, adjustments should be made, unless there are other trade-offs (forgive the pun) that occur elsewhere in a relationship. We are in a situation where workers are losing jobs because of unfair trade practices from foreign governments, and we cannot and should not allow these practices to continue. The first place I would look would be the protections available to our industries in our existing trade laws. We should make it clear to foreign governments that we will not allow them to operate outside of established international trade law to gain an advantage over U.S. companies. Beyond that, I believe it would be fair to re-examine NAFTA and other acts to try and rebalance the playing field."
10. What ideas do you have regarding social security and medicare? Given the Republicans unpopular attempt to convince people to support privitization of Social Security will you go after your opponent on that issue?
"I don't agree with this concept. I worked for four years on the Veterans Affairs committee in the US House of Representatives. Much of this work related to disability compensation and pension programs. Pension programs are designed to guarantee a 'floor' for a standard of living. Social Security was also designed as a 'floor' so that people who worked all of their lives and had little or no private-sector retirement income could count on protecting their basic needs. It doesn't make sense to 'bet' this 'floor' on the stock market or other such speculative programs."
11. You wrote an article where you said, ?In fact, the greatest realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if the right national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African Americans to the same table, and so to redefine a formula that has consciously set them apart for the past two centuries.? I am wondering if you have a plan or a vision as to how such a coming together could happen?
"The story of the South has never been simply white vs. black. It has always been a small veneer of well-off whites, manipulating white against blacks. As I write in Born Fighting, only 5 percent of the whites in the South actually owned slaves at the height of slavery, and by 1936, of the 1.8 million share-croppers in the South, 71 percent were white.
I learned from the conduct of my grandfather, who stood up to this system in East Arkansas (from the bottom, looking up), that the two cultures which began in the South (and are now widely scattered) have far more in common, in their historical journey, than almost any other two cultures. If you look at Virginia, the rural whites along the mountains and in southside Virginia are similarly-situated in economic terms with urban blacks. We need to stop fussing with each other and realize that we have common goals. This will be one of my strongest priorities if I am elected to the Senate."
12. What do you think the US should do about Iran?
"The greatest successes we've had over the past six decades have been the result of firmness, patience, sticking to our national values but working with other countries to define and control serious threats. That was exactly how we won the Cold War: demonstrating that we had military resolve, but more importantly, demonstrating that we believed in ideals, and that we had allies who agreed with those ideals. You cannot export values at the point of a gun -- this is what the Soviet Union was attempting to do.
Iran is an emerging power. I warned in 1990 that the greatest danger if we invaded Iraq after Kuwait would be the empowerment of Iran. I warned again after the 9/11 attacks that Iran -- and its relationship with China -- was the greatest long-term threat in that region.
Right now it is important that we face the situation in Iran with firmness, but with the participation of other countries and without irresponsible threats that simply "up the ante" and invite counter-threats. We need to make it clear to China and Russia that their relationships with us hinge on their responsible support re: Iran and its nuclear ambitions.
If we simply attacked Iran right now, we would face the reality that there are 135,000 Americans sitting in Iraq who could absorb a counter-blow. Iran also could shut down the Straits of Hormuz very quickly, which would have serious impact, especially on Japan.
Common sense. Multilateral negotiations. Firmness but not stupidity or false bravado."
13. What do you think about ?outsourcing? of American jobs?
?I have very strong feelings about that. The United States is starting to look like the Philippines [and] outsourcing is a big part of that?there's got to be a formula that protects American workers."
14. Comments on your opponent, Harris Miller?
?Harris Miller is running a very traditional campaign [which is all about] party endorsements and fealty to party structure." In contrast, ?I am trying to demonstrate that I can bring people back to the Democratic Party."
15. What about earmarks and lobbying reform?
?Congress is in total disarray today, [with an] incredible increase in the number of lobbyists [and an] ?incessant need to raise money.? The bottom line, in Webb's view, is that "the system is going to break" if it's not fixed. Webb adds that "I really don't like earmarks."
16. What was your position [on women in the military]?
"When I was secretary of the Navy, I opened up more billets to women than any secretary of the Navy in history. But we did it the right way. I got my warfare chiefs, the three warfare chiefs, to go down and examine inside their own specialties where women should be absorbed. I had them then report to the chief of naval operations. And then the chief of naval operations reported to me. I had the uniform side make the decisions, the recommendations, and then bring them to me. This wasn?t me standing up there pontificating because I was a civilian official. So when this has been done in a rational way where it works, I fully support it. When it?s an intrusion from the outside, I think that not only I but other people should have questions. So where it is now? I think that from what I can see from a distance it?s working well."
17. How can we reduce our dependency on imported oil?
Webb supports investing in "alternative energy sources, particularly solar power." Also, Webb supports ?properly constructed nuclear power as they?ve got in Japan."
18. What makes a leader?
"People look for affirmative leaders,? not just ?vague optimism.? ?People don?t just want [their leaders] to say everything is wrong,? but instead want ?real, strong leadership that?s affirmative.? In contrast, ?ultra-conservatives talk about God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag to get everybody riled up? instead of ?sitting down and saying, this is where it?s broke and this is what we can do [to fix it].?
19. Would you have supported Senator Russ Feingold in his call to censure President Bush?
"I have a great respect for Senator Feingold. I view him as one of the few people in the Senate who are focusing on issues that are debilitating to the process of government (campaign finance, e.g.). I'm not sure I would support a censure over the NSA surveillance issue, but I do believe that people need to keep connecting the dots on the widespread abuse of power in this Presidency. Too many people in the Congress want to "kiss that issue" as it goes by. I do not understand what it is that the Administration wishes to conceal in the NSA issue, because it was a simple matter for them to file the appropriate notice at the time.
I'm not saying that I would not support a censure. This is a new proposal and one of my reservations would be that it is aimed at only one element of Presidential abuse."
20. Comments on health care, education, and income inequality in America?
"...the reasons that finally compelled me to run for the Senate came from the worry that I have about a growing unfairness in our society.
The country is breaking into three different groups, and is becoming defined by class far more than at any time in my memory. The people at the top have never had it so good. You only have to look at the ratios of corporate executive compensation compared to the average factory worker to see this.
The middle class is stagnating. Jobs are being sent overseas, public education is spotty. Health care is being denied to many people who actually do have jobs -- it's not a 'welfare' problem.
And we are in danger of developing a permanent underclass, without true hope of advancement."