Quantcast

Why I Support Bradley | The Nation

  •  

Why I Support Bradley

  • Share
  • Decrease text size Increase text size

This article by Senator Paul Wellstone is the first of a series of statements The Nation will be publishing on progressives' options in the presidential election. In the weeks and months to come, we will open our pages to other views. --The Editors

About the Author

Paul Wellstone
Paul Wellstone is a Democratic senator from Minnesota.

Also by the Author

The elections of 2000--resulting in the election of George W. Bush to the presidency, a historic 50-50 split in the Senate and a reduced Republican margin in the House--have supplied the basis for countless commentators to intone that Democrats must operate "from the center" or else face political annihilation. Progressives have heard this tune often enough over the past decade, invariably following every election. It seems that regardless of whether Democratic fortunes are up or down in any given year, the lesson drawn by inside-the-Beltway pundits is always the same: Operate from the center. It's easy to dismiss this stale conventional wisdom, but in the aftermath of this unusual election many progressives are legitimately wondering about the prospects of a progressive politics.

The American people do want us to govern from the center, in a sense. But it is not the center the pundits and politicians in Washington talk about. Citizens want us to deal with issues that are at the center of their lives. They yearn for a politics that speaks to and includes them--affordable childcare, a good education for their children, health and retirement security, good jobs that will support their families, respect for the environment and human rights, clean elections and clean campaigns.

One thing this election confirmed is that progressive politics can be winning politics. The public is clearly center-left on the most important issues: campaign finance reform, education, healthcare, living-wage jobs, trade and the environment. And there can be no doubt that Al Gore's championing of ordinary people over powerful interests gave a postconvention boost to his sagging candidacy. Progressive populism responds to the widespread awareness that large forces in our economy have too much power and ordinary people have too little.

Another critical lesson of this election is that progressive constituencies cannot be ignored. Union households, African-Americans and Hispanics were crucial to Democratic mobilization and turnout. It has become increasingly implausible to argue that Democrats must distance themselves from working people and the disadvantaged in order to win elections.

Yet the politics of our country, strangely, is center-right. The cruel irony is that George W. Bush won the presidency, in good part, by campaigning on Democratic issues--investing in children, education, prescription drug costs, healthcare and Social Security. His "compassionate conservatism" praises local volunteer efforts by ordinary citizens yet rejects the notion that government can make a positive difference when it comes to the most pressing issues of people's lives. This is a fine philosophy if you're a large corporation or wealthy, but not such a great deal if you're a working family.

Moreover, President Bush's agenda is bold and clear: $1.6 trillion in tax cuts flowing mainly to the wealthy, which will erode our country's revenue base and thus bar major investments in childcare, education and healthcare; a direct assault on environmental and workplace health and safety standards; massive new Pentagon spending on unworkable missile defense; the privatization of Social Security and Medicare; and an open challenge to Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose. There is more to the Bush agenda, of course, but this much ought to be enough to galvanize progressive forces around the country.

The problem is that all too often progressives have been better at denunciation than annunciation. We need both. People are as interested in what you're for as what you're against. With a unified GOP preparing to take the reins of a new administration, now is the time for progressives to put forward new ideas and new leaders. We need to take stock, compare notes, support one another and begin building today a winning progressive politics for tomorrow. Progressive politics is a winning politics so long as the central focus is on workaday majority issues.

Progressive politics is successful when it is not top-down and elitist and when it respects the capacity of ordinary citizens. That is why the impetus for change must come from outside Washington. There are three crucial ingredients to democratic renewal and progressive change in America: good public policy, grassroots organizing and electoral politics. Policy provides direction and an agenda for action; grassroots organizing builds a constituency to fight for change; and electoral politics is the main way, in the absence of sweeping social movements, that we contest for power and hold decision-makers accountable for progressive public policy. These ingredients are linked like the three legs of a stool.

As important as new ideas are, another think tank or policy institute not connected to local grassroots organizing will not suffice. Many of the discussions I have had so far in the progressive community have focused on creating a new organization as a counterweight to the Democratic Leadership Council. I am sympathetic to these efforts. Without them, the DLC moves us toward a Democratic Party that gives the country what the eminent political scientist Walter Dean Burnham calls "the politics of excluded alternatives"--what Jim Hightower calls "downsized politics." I am all for representing the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. But progressive politics must draw its energy and ideas from local citizen-activists. Too often we have failed to make that critical connection.

On February 28, the Campaign for America's Future will hold a conference of citizens' organizations and activists in Washington to draw a blueprint for a campaign to fight for economic and social progress. I am excited about participating in this gathering, which will be an important first step. There must also be regional gatherings held around the country to involve people in a meaningful way in an inclusive effort to create a progressive politics. As a Midwesterner, I am particularly sensitive to an exclusive focus on East and West Coast gatherings.

We must recognize that there is a wealth of effective labor, community and citizen organizing going on all across the country. The Service Employees International Union is showing the way by organizing a grassroots campaign for universal healthcare. The grassroots campaign for clean money/clean elections is our brightest hope for political reform. The nationwide grassroots campaign for a living wage has supplied new energy to the struggle against inequality. And the Seattle Coalition of trade unionists, environmentalists, human rights advocates, family farmers and people of faith is providing a democratic counterweight to corporate-led globalization.

Even so, I often ask myself, "Why doesn't the whole equal the sum of its parts? How does this organizing translate into more national clout for a progressive politics?" If we are to make this grassroots politics part of an effective national politics, grassroots leaders must be included. We must reach out to these leaders, including those disenchanted with party politics. A lot of these leaders' energy is focused on progressive issues, not party politics. Likewise, most citizens are not interested in party strategies; their politics is much more concrete and personal. If we don't speak to the concrete and personal issues that affect people's lives, we will miss out on some of the best opportunities for organizing people.

We need to build a progressive force that does a lot of organizing within the Democratic Party--especially candidate recruitment and elections. But this cannot be the only goal. This new force must not only introduce new and exciting perspectives into the political dialogue of our country; it must also recruit candidates; provide training, skills and resources for successful campaigns; build an infrastructure of field directors and campaign managers to support progressive candidates; have a savvy media presence; apply effective grassroots organizing to electoral politics; and otherwise build political leadership at the local, state and federal levels of government.

This is more a democratic than a Democratic challenge, though I hope there is a strong connection between the two. It is a challenge that is certainly bigger than any one leader or campaign, and it will require progressives to work together and to pull in the same direction. But building such a grassroots-based effort to advocate effectively for the progressive agenda, and to put more progressives in office at every level and across the country, is a goal worth fighting for.

Nearly three years after the inauguration of welfare reform, Congress and the Clinton Administration would do well to reflect upon the admonition of Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Worke

As I travel across the country, I am often asked why progressives should support Bill Bradley for President, as I do. For six years, I watched Bradley work effectively in the Senate, where he earned my respect on issues from healthcare to the environment to tax reform to foreign policy.

I always support the person I most believe in, even if we do not agree on all the issues. I think Bradley, if he can win the Democratic nomination, will win the presidential election. But that's not the main reason I'm supporting him. I support him because he has immense personal and intellectual integrity. I trust him, even when I think he is wrong. And I have no doubt about the strength and durability of the values that inform his life and work.

I do not agree with Bradley on every issue. We differ, for example, on our approach to trade and international economic policy, vital issues for progressives in this country. But I am impressed with his commitment to progressive change.

On issues progressives care most deeply about, Bill Bradley is talking about large-scale, not incremental, changes to provide access to healthcare, move children out of the grinding poverty that limits their horizons and choices, improve race relations and enact authentic campaign reform. When you hear him discussing his solutions to these daunting problems, you know that his commitment to addressing them runs deep, and that he'll be bold and imaginative in the fight. He took that approach on one of his most significant legislative accomplishments, a complete overhaul of the tax system in the eighties, which made our tax code more progressive and simpler for all Americans.

Bradley is often derided by his opponents for saying the nation needs "bold ideas." But he is right. Take the healthcare debate, an example of what Jim Hightower calls our "downsized" politics. When Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office, 38 million Americans were uninsured. Now, 44 million are uninsured. Moreover, the insurance industry has effectively taken universal healthcare coverage off the table. Of all the candidates in the presidential race, only Bradley is committed to putting it squarely back on the table. Bradley's proposal for access to healthcare strikes a balance between real vision and political feasibility. Gore's plan, while a modest improvement over our current system, fails to provide access to healthcare for all. As we choose our next President I think it's important that we choose someone who's not afraid to take on the healthcare fight again--and all the powerful special interests who oppose universal access.

Similarly, consider Bill Bradley's advocacy of moving children out of poverty. His commitment to equal opportunity for every child comes into sharp focus here. As President he would renew our national vow to this cause. It is in his soul--I know this based on hours of talks with him--and is a primary reason why I support him. Even with the economy booming, we are still being told by Republicans, and even sadly by some Democrats, that we can't afford to provide a quality education for every child. The evidence is irrefutable: We must get it right for children before age 3 if they are to succeed. I want to see a President who will again fight for poor children.

Bill Bradley, because of his unique life experiences, knows that racism is the "original sin" of American politics. It has impeded our progress as a democracy and made it more difficult to organize working people for economic justice. Bradley's commitment to racial justice began in childhood and was nurtured through his years in the NBA. I will never forget the fierce passion he showed on the Senate floor after the beating of Rodney King. His commitment to racial justice rests on a foundation of moral imperative, not political expediency; his strong stand against racial profiling demonstrates that commitment.

But at the heart of our inability to solve these longstanding problems lies the corrupting influence of special-interest money in politics. Experts say that campaign finance reform "doesn't poll well." Bradley isn't taking stands based on polls. He knows that campaign reform is the fundamental moral issue of American politics today, and he's right to make campaign finance reform and democratic renewal a centerpiece of his campaign. As President he would fight hard for reform because he knows that without it, hopes of advancing progressive economic or political change will continue to be crushed by the weight of special-interest contributions from those who wield power. People want leaders like Bradley who call on them to be their own best selves and who will help them regain control over their own government.

Though foreign policy is not yet a major campaign issue, Bradley's qualifications in this area are solid. Not only is he known to be a knowledgeable and experienced policy-maker in international affairs--I have in mind his expertise on Russia and the Pacific Rim--but he knows we must rely far more than we have on the United Nations and other international organizations to resolve disputes. Bradley, more than any other candidate, is likely to find ways to combine our real national security interests with our best values. Pressing forward on arms control, human rights, debt relief, democratization and efforts to control ethnic and religious tensions, he would be an architect of a foreign policy of which Americans could again be proud.

Policy issues aside, there are many intangibles when it comes to deciding who would make a good President. There is the chemistry between the candidate and the people. On no issue has this been more evident than farm policy. I have watched Bill listen to the stories of family farmers in Iowa, struggling because of record low prices and a failed federal farm policy. Bill takes their stories to heart and, as President, would fight for them. Americans yearn for a President they can again trust and believe in. I know I do. This is Bill's strength. It is why he is doing so well.

I personally am sick and tired of campaign politics in which candidates promise everything and do little. Like the great basketball player and effective Senator that he was, Bradley, unlike many, actually walks his talk. He would be a bold and visionary President for our country. He sees around corners and addresses big issues head on, pushing for fundamental progressive reforms. This I know firsthand, and it is why he is my candidate for the presidency. I hope other progressives will join me in working to elect him.

  • Share
  • Decrease text size Increase text size