European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - December 9, 1993, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Thursday december 9, 1993 commentary the stars and stripes Page 17clinton should heed advice of Early leaders Harry g. Summers heart or head a which will control the direct Tori of the Clinton administrations foreign policy will it be the cold hard National interests of the head or the warm fuzzy sentiments of the heart it is a dilemma As old As the nation itself. When it comes to foreign policy and the military actions under girding those policies three character traits shape the traditional american response. First is idealism the emotional urgings of the heart which propel us toward foreign involvement in the name of to use the current buzzword the a a enlargement of democracy and Freedom. Then there is pragmatism the practical Cor Side rations of the head which argue against such involvements unless the National interests of the country Are threatened. These two character traits Are at War with each other today in the debate Over american military involvement in the Balkans. Invoking comparisons with the holocaust idealists demand immediate . Military intervention in the name of humanity to Stop the killings and atrocities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But the pragmatists question whether . Interests Are truly involved and whether american lives ought to be put at risk. Traditionally these two competing character traits were resolved by a third character trait a no interventionism or isolationism in its More virulent form. In his Farewell address in 1796, president George Washington warned that a the nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection either of which is sufficient to Lead it astray from its duty and its  Washington could have been talking about Somalia or Bosnia today when he went on to warn thalo sympathy for the favorite nation facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or  in terms that even the most outspoken critics would hesitate to use today Washington condemned those who advocated such involvements warning that a it gives to ambitious corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favored nation facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without  As been noted before in these pages Washington s warnings were echoed 25 years later by Secretary of state John Quincy Adams. On july 4,1821, reacting to an idealistic groundswell for commitment of the . Navy a Mediterranean so to support the greek uprising against the ottoman Empire Adams noted with sympathy that a wherever the Standard of Freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled there will be americans heart her benedictions and her  a but a he went on to say reflecting the pragmatic Side of the american character a she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy a lest America a involve herself beyond the Power of extraction in All the wars of interest and intrigue of individual avarice envy and ambition which assume the colors and usurp the standards of  these classic standards governed . Foreign policy for Well Over a Century. Although cloaked in idealistic terms pragmatic naj Johal interests led to the . Invasion of Canada in 1812, of Mexico in 1846 and of the Philippines in 1898, As Well As intervention in the Boxer rebellion in China in 1900 and along the mexican Border in 1914. Until the recent haitian fiasco economic and Politi Cal interests not idealism prompted . Interventions in the Caribbean. And National survival Ted us into the two world wars and to a lesser degree into Korea. It was not until Vietnam that the heart for the first time overruled the head. In 1966, saying that he a spoke very directly and very pertinently to us Here today Quot George f. Kennan read John Quincy Adams 1821 address into the Senate Vietnam hearings including Adams warning that idealistic intervention might Well Lead to americans becoming a the dict Atress of the  for a while after Vietnam that advice was heeded. Whatever else can be said about Grenada Libya Panama and the persian Gulf War it was obvious that pragmatic National interests not idealism prompted . Intervention. But that did not last. The Clinton administration finds itself impaled on the horns of a classic american dilemma. Somalia a and the cries for involvement in Bosnia and Haiti As Well a Spring from the fuzzy idealism against which both Washington and Adams had  los Angotta Olmos democrats gut Bill on Campaign finance Reform some funny things happened on the Way to the House of representatives passing just before adjournment late last month its 1993 version of Campaign finance legislation. They make the Bill a joke. In 1992, when the House was writing a Campaign finance Bill with the Confidence that president Bush would veto its Handiwork the majority democrats included a ban on a leadership pics Quot the special funds that Many congressional big shots set up apart from their own Campaign  groups and fat eats who want to Curry favor with the big shots give to both funds a and the Money in the second Pac or political action committee is then doled out by the leaders to other members of Congress who go along with their wishes. It is a classic device for double dipping. Abolishing the leadership pics was rightly considered one of the significant Steps the democrats proposed to take to clean up Congress act. This year when those same democrats drafted another Campaign finance Bill knowing that president Clinton had promised to sign it they dropped the ban on leadership pics. Rep. Sam Gejdenson d-conn., the primary author of the Bill both last year and this maintains that the objections of the big shots to losing their private treasuries had nothing to do with the omission. Gejdenson told me that the ban on leadership pics was dropped because it was a not an attainable goal. It was an Opportunity for showmanship. A his reasoning was that the Power brokers would find other ways to pump Money into other campaigns and a a in a rather have it out in the  speaker of the House Thomas s. Foley d-wash., who has such a Pac and who recently played Host to a Gejdenson fund Raiser at the Foley Home said it would have been Fine with him if the leadership Pac ban had been kept in the Bill a a but others had  so out it went. Here a another funny change that happened Between the1992 sure to be vetoed Bill and the 1993 sure to be signed. A  first Bill set a ceiling of $600,000 on the Cash that an incumbent could carry Over from one election to the next. The new Bill has no limit on carryover funds. Why was this done Gejdenson offers a variety of explanations. A some of the biggest holders of carry Over funds retired last year so it did no to seem As much of an Issue. We did no to want to Force peo David s. Broder pie to give Money Back to contributors and then go out and raise More. A some of our members arc worried that millionaires May run against them a a and feel they need Money in the  there Are always excuses. Bui the reality is that Large carry Over funds Are powerful devices for intimidating would be challengers. Who wants to co up against an incumbent who already has $1 million in the Bank these and other discrepancies Between the 1992 and 1993 Bills were noted during the debate by rep. William m. Thomas a Calif a but the democrats barely bothered to answer. They had made a command decision to stifle Republican dissent and tailor the Bill to whatever it took to win approval in the democratic caucus. They operated on the Assumption that if they passed something that they called Campaign finance Reform they would earn cheers from the knee Jerk Reform a Lacue on newspaper editorial pages and self styled Good government groups and maybe fool their constituents into thinking that Congress had mended its ways. So far the scam seems to be working. House passage of the Campaign finance Bill was front Page news in the press and was warmly applauded in most editorials. Few stories and almost no editorials i saw noted that key provisions such As the two mentioned nere that would have curbed the advantages of incumbents and Cut the influence of congressional big shots had mysteriously disappeared. Few stories prominently highlighted the fact that the democrats had once again passed a Public financing Bill with no financing mechanism. It promises that those candidates who accept a a voluntary spending limits can receive up to $200,000 Worth of a communications vouchers convertible into mailings print ads or to spots. But it provides no Money to pay for these subsidies and says the whole Bill will remain inoperative until the Money is found somewhere. The deception goes deeper. The House Bill is very much at Odds with the Senate Campaign finance Bill passed earlier this year. Gejdenson says the Senate Bill is a posturing a not real Reform senators say the same thing about the House Bill. They Are both right. But the officials in the Good government groups argue that these Rotten ingredients can somehow be cooked into a nourishing Reform meal in a House Senate conference committee. Done to bet on it. The pattern suggests clearly that the closer a Campaign finance Bill comes to enactment Ine More the democrats Drain it of elements that might seriously inconvenience their incumbents. This is Reform give me a break. Cythe was Migton Post