Bill Bradley: Can He Get Into the Game? (Page 2)

We can be less lonely. We can help one another. We can be good. We are on the verge of an economic golden age. Bradley is running a metacampaign of deep thoughts. But he does attempt to attach his abstractions to policy matters. Boasting (gently) that he has tackled the "big issues" of taxes, international trade, global finance and race, Bradley identified areas where his vision can touch the ground. He mentioned the need for universal health coverage, campaign finance reform and more affordable childcare. All of this is possible, he maintains, for Bradley foresees a historic burst in the wealth of the nation. The economy could be a trillion dollars bigger in the next decade, he said, and this will afford the nation the opportunity to reduce child poverty, assist the 40-45 million Americans without health insurance, address teen pregnancy and heal the racial rift. Forget shorter commutes to work, one of Gore's leading issues. Bradley is reaching for...a better society.

How can that be attained? Bradley wasn't ready with the specifics. This spring, he said, his campaign is in the "vision-thematic" mode. Later he will move to "principles" and then "policy." Check back in September. Still, in New Hampshire there was principle and policy creep. At a high school in Londonderry, he talked of registering handguns. At a law firm in Manchester, he favorably referred to a proposed constitutional amendment permitting limits on campaign spending. (Most campaign reform advocates consider that an impractical proposal.) He has spoken favorably of means-testing Medicare. In trying to reach out to union members--who are likely to be put off by his let-it-rip trade positions--Bradley has said he is predisposed to reforming labor law to ease union organizing. But when a student at Phillips Exeter Academy asked Bradley for specifics on how one could take up his call to confront racial discord, this policy hound did not offer much policy. Rather, he proposed the "tangible steps" of conducting dialogues in clubs and dorms and convening multiracial gatherings where participants could compose a list of what they have in common.

On Kosovo, Bradley would not creep far. At every stop in New Hampshire, he was asked about the war then under way. He was not shy about highlighting problems in Clinton's policy, noting that the bombing had not prevented ethnic cleansing. But he declined to say whether he supported or opposed continued bombing. "I don't have access to the intelligence," he maintained. In the basement of the Knights of Columbus Hall in Franklin, one voter asked if he would back ground troops in Kosovo. "It's a decision the President will have to make," Bradley replied, stating the obvious. The questioner spotted the waffle. "I mean you, Senator," she shouted at him. "It's not a wise thing to do in the current circumstance," he said before pausing. "But I would never want to foreclose that." Bradley reacted cautiously to the announcement of a peace accord, noting that the "devil is always in the details."

Bradley is keeping his options open. He is in a fortunate spot: a one-on-one race for the nomination. By being sentient, vertical and not Al Gore, he can expect to start with 35 percent or so support in contrarian-friendly New Hampshire. His Peter Sellers-like ability to play multiple roles allows him to make contact with different blocs of potential voters. Reform-minded Democratic activists can sidle up to him as the anti-establishment candidate. Wall Streeters and financiers--who have generously funded his previous and present campaigns--can back him as an unabashed cheerleader of the global economy. Character-first voters can latch on to his from-modest-roots story, his unsullied personal reputation and his be-good example. Partisanship-averse independents can embrace him as a not-one-of-the-usual-SOBs pol. Liberals can be heartened by his call to help the poor. Defining himself and his message further may only serve to limit his appeal.

Perhaps Bradley can maintain his poo-poo-platter politics for the entire campaign, for his history shows he does not rush to take sides. In 1967, when he was a student at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, he appeared on a CBS "town meeting of the world" on Vietnam. While Bobby Kennedy and Ronald Reagan debated the war, the young Bradley declined to ally himself with either and ducked the basic issue. "Discussions of Vietnam," he complained, "somehow degenerate into polemical accusations, disputations of fact, et cetera. I think there's a basic understanding that must be had in any discussion here, and that is that the United States is not out to achieve a position of power in land or economic force in the world.... So we have negotiations...then what do we negotiate for? Do we negotiate for a stable Asia, and what does a stable Asia mean?" Bradley offered questions, not answers.

Bradley is reputed to be a lone thinker. He twice won the NBA championship on a squad renowned for its cohesive teamwork, but he's not a natural joiner. His record in the Senate reflects his go-it-alone approach. He supported some arms control measures (such as the SALT II treaty) but not others (such as a ban on the testing of certain nuclear weapons and antisatellite weapons). In the early Reagan years, he voted for the President's budget cuts but opposed his supply-side tax cuts. He pushed his own tax proposal to close loopholes and lower rates. When a bill similar to his initiative passed in 1986, Bradley voted against a liberal-sponsored amendment to make the rates more progressive. He urged debt relief for developing nations and voted to increase the minimum wage. He voted for the death penalty for drug kingpins and for a $30 million school voucher program sought by conservatives. He was a steady backer of abortion rights. Surprising many Democrats, he voted for Reagan's request for military aid to the Nicaraguan contras, even though he criticized Reagan's contra policy. At various times, he was described in the media as a liberal, a moderate and a centrist.

"He's smart and feels he can figure out policy issues on his own," one former colleague recalls. "Bradley was not the kind of guy who could bring others along with him on an issue." He was, former Senator Paul Simon notes, on his own cloud. "I don't recall ever getting a call from him or being asked to help on a particular subject," says former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, a liberal Democrat. Senator Paul Wellstone, who has endorsed Bradley and praised his record on race and the environment, doesn't think the loner label is so awful: "I don't know if it's a bad thing that he kept some distance and perspective."

In the Clinton years, Bradley was neither a consistent friend nor a foe of the White House. He applauded Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy on gays in the military. He was peeved when Clinton justified tax hikes by asserting that they hit the rich. ("Because you've done well and earned money doesn't mean that you are guilty of something," Bradley huffed.) In 1993 ABC News reported that Bradley had fought a Clinton proposal to close a tax loophole under which drug companies--many of which are headquartered in New Jersey--reap benefits by basing operations in Puerto Rico. Bradley criticized the Clinton healthcare proposal for not providing adequate coverage, and he worked with a group of moderate Republicans to propose an alternative. He backed Clinton on the NAFTA and GATT accords. He called for independent counsels to investigate Whitewater and the campaign finance scandals. He voted against the welfare reform bill that Clinton signed.

Local public interest lobbyists in New Jersey got along with Bradley. He usually supported their positions, but they found he was generally not interested in the nitty-gritty of politics. "He doesn't give many people the feeling he's working with them," says Curtis Fisher, the executive director of New Jersey Public Interest Research Group. Rob Stewart, the chief lobbyist for NJPIRG in the eighties, recalls that "people would want to talk to Bradley about certain issues, and he'd want to talk about the World Bank.... He played it so he wouldn't be a Don Quixote. He wasn't interested in a battle just to fight a good fight. He can be cautious, and he wanted to be seen as balanced and middle of the road."

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next »

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 68 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
• Reprint this article. Click here for rights and information.