Let's cut to the chase. Yes, I am considering a run for president. The reason has nothing to do with vanity, as some have suggested, nor do I merely wish to block other candidates. I will only run if I become convinced I can win, a decision I will make later this year. Two things are certain at this point, however: I believe nonpoliticians represent the wave of the future, and if elected I would make the kind of president America needs in the new millennium.
Unlike candidates from the two major parties, my candidacy would not represent an exercise in career advancement. I am not a political pro trying to top off his résumé. I am considering a run only because I am convinced the major parties have lost their way. The Republicans are captives of their right wing. The Democrats are captives of their left wing. I don't hear anyone speaking for the working men and women in the center.
After New York City had spent $20 million and seven years trying to fix the Wollman Skating Rink in Central Park, I stepped in and did the job in three months for $1.4 million. People urged me to run for mayor because they saw I could get things done. A few years later, New York Republicans urged me to run against Gov. Mario Cuomo. Both times, I appreciated the faith shown in my abilities, but I declined.
Why am I now considering a presidential bid? First, Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura has strongly encouraged me to seek the nomination, and I highly respect Jesse as the embodiment of the political qualities America needs and voters reward. Given the choice between yet another slate of stale political professionals and Jesse's common-sense principles and straight talk, it was no contest. He has convinced me that we need this combination in the White House.
The second reason I'm considering a run is Patrick Buchanan. He has the virtue of plain speaking, but he often says stupid things--the latest example being his comments questioning whether the U.S. was right to stop Hitler. His arguments are repugnant. Yet they were initially met by deafening silence from the professional politicians. It took three days for Elizabeth Dole and John McCain to react. This underscores the central problem with contemporary politicians: They are so concerned with winning votes that they cannot even find it in themselves to immediately denounce a man who winks at barbarism.
I would bring a different approach to the White House. Those who have been put to sleep by our current wave of prosperity don't want to hear this, but I am convinced that we will soon face significant challenges--challenges we can surmount but that will require a president who is not fixated on popularity polls and re-election. I would enter office with the understanding that four years hence, I would be back in New York doing the job I love.
What are these challenges? I agree with many respected economists that the economy may take a dramatic downturn in the near future. Having prevailed over a severe (and largely government-created) setback in my own industry, I know the tough decisions a chief executive has to make to return to prosperity. There are no easy roads back, and poll-watching pols who insist otherwise and govern accordingly will only prolong the problem.
I also understand that our long-term interests require that we cut better deals with our world trading partners. This will raise an outcry because we've fallen into the habit of mistaking the easy availability of cheap, sweatshop-produced products for solid and sustainable economic stability. If President Trump does the negotiating, we'll get a better deal for American workers and their families, and our economy will not be as vulnerable to global pressures as it is today. Watch our trade deficit dwindle.
Americans can also be assured that I would never support what has to be the craziest idea in U.S. politics since Pat Paulsen's White House bids: allowing the government to invest Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Not only would a market downturn spell disaster for millions of retirees, the process by which government would chose stocks would be entirely political, making lobbyists and other political hacks the new masters of the universe.
Our international adversaries would also note a significant change. North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Muammar Gadhafi in 1986.
I would also immediately reverse the move to normalize relations with the most abnormal political figure in our hemisphere: Fidel Castro. We have pushed him to the precipice with our embargo, helped of course by the withdrawal of Soviet backing. Now comes a movement, backed by State Department bureaucrats, to rescue Mr. Castro with U.S. dollars. The striped-pants set won't like hearing this, but normalization is pure lunacy. If a right-wing dictator like Augusto Pinochet can be extradited and tried for his crimes against humanity, the same treatment is due Mr. Castro.
An upcoming book spells out my beliefs in much greater detail. At this point, it's fair to say that I would center my presidency around three principles: one term, two-fisted policies, and no excuses. For voters, it would be a business approach, and the best one available in the presidential marketplace.