Bill Bradley - A Choice for Liberals

Webmaster's Note: This article was written by Shai Sachs, a Harvard student who wrote this wonderful editorial to narrate and convey Bill Bradley's outstanding credibility and character as a Democratic presidential nominee for the 2000 General Election. It was published in Harvard University's liberal magazine, Perspective

A Choice for Liberals

Bradley may be from Princeton, but so what?

by Shai Sachs

�� About one year ago, a columnist from my hometown newspaper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, giddily predicted - without a great deal of thought, perhaps - a great Battle of the Mississippi in the 2000 Presidential election. He predicted that the Minority Leader of the House, Richard Gephardt of South St. Louis, would square off against the just-elected Christian right Senator John Ashcroft.

�� With less than a year to go these hopefuls have dropped their bids, and now a new Battle of the Mississippi for the Democratic Party's nomination is taking shape. Bill Bradley, a native of Crystal City, Missouri, is trying to upset Tennessean Al Gore's once-certain campaign for the nomination. While this may surprise some liberal readers, Bradley's success may be the best news for leftists in decades.

�� There have been numerous attempts to identify a clear ideology into which Bill Bradley can fit. Promising early signs in his biography abound. He gladly supported the Civil Rights Act as a Congressional intern in 1964. He smoked pot in college. As a pro-basketball star, he refused to endorse commercial products because he felt companies offered him endorsements based on his race. But there are ominous signs as well. His father was a rich Republican. And while he served faithfully in the Air Force Reserve during the Vietnam War, no records indicate that he did so to take the system down from within. Thus one might describe him as a mixed bag.

�� Or, perhaps it would be more fair to describe him as a person who thinks long and hard, and thus does not fit into an ideological mold. Certainly he gives that impression. People who hear him speak invariably describe him as thoughtful, and his positions as well-reasoned. Two of his books - Time Present, Time Past and Life on the Run - present long passages on topics ranging from the way constant travel can affect a basketball player to the usage of water in California's Central Valley. True, nothing in his books says he gives a whole-hearted bear hug to liberalism. But the fact that he has a common-sense approach to politics, combined with the fact that he thinks his positions through carefully, blows wind into liberal sails.

�� For instance, Bradley's campaign has shed light on the inadequacy of health care coverage in the U. S. His advocacy of the issue, and his attempt to achieve a Pat Moynihan-esque "nearly universal" level of coverage is lovable and poignant. It reminds me of the early, progressive days of the Clinton Administration. Both his reasons for seeking this goal - "If not now, when?" he asks - and his tactics reflect solid maturity. The Bradley plan emphasizes choice, the maintenance of existing structures that seem to work for many people, and the improvement of other structures - like Medicare and the Federal Employee's Health Benefits program-to-work for more people. Clearly, this plan was never meant for the leftiest of the left. It does not eliminate the inherent problems of health care financing that leave HMOs with awesome power and force many to choose between food and health care. But it does present an improvement over Clinton's 1993 health care proposal because it is more politically acceptable. The plan's emphasis on maintaining existing health care choices seems to answer directly one of the main concerns people voiced about Clinton's health care plan. Years after the health care debates of 1993 and '94, Bradley, with a rare combination of simplistic reasoning and careful calculation, has picked up an old liberal ideal and given it another chance.

�� Bradley's health care program has received the most attention of all of his proposals. But, although the media has mostly failed to cover it, there is another, complementary proposal, reiterated relentlessly throughout his speeches, and plainly available on his web site (billbradley.com) that mirrors the dreams of many liberals. Bradley believes that an effort to lift all children out of poverty should form the focus of a nationwide effort that relies on the cooperation of government, business, and civic groups. To support government's side of the bargain, he has already endorsed new spending to the tune of $20 billion. He supplements the spending with another stroke of liberalism, a one-dollar increase in the minimum wage followed by an indexing of the wage to inflation. Here again he manifests the liberal spirit, shrouded in political finesse and clear reasoning about the bureaucracy and cooperation needed to actually deliver assistance to children. Of course, liberals would do well to recognize these ideas as not enough. But they definitely represent a change for the better.

�� Some might wonder whether Bradley takes these positions merely as a form of lip service. Certainly liberals have a right to distrust him. He voted to send aid to the Contras, and he voted for a tax cut - not Reagonmics - in the 80's. He is no Paul Wellstone. But there are clear reasons why Wellstone has endorsed Bradley. First, Bradley has matured considerably since the 80's. The man who angrily banged his pencil on a Senate podium 56 times in 81 seconds to represent the blows that Rodney King received after the announcement of the infamous verdict is not the same man who ran for election in 1978. Second, Bradley has one of the most solid reputations for integrity and honesty of all national politicians. Third, Bradley has nothing to gain by maintaining such liberal positions. His main constituencies right now are voters in New Hampshire and Iowa; they are generally more conservative than the rest of the nation. Were he paying lip service, one might expect him to take more centrist positions. Fourth, Bradley has great respect in the Senate for assembling bipartisan coalitions and passing good legislation. We can reasonably expect he will bring his well-tuned skills to bear on his current proposals. Finally, of course, there is the chance that Bradley is indeed perpetrating a hoax; this possibility always exists. But the chance of winning liberal legislation from a candidate who champions liberal causes is much greater than the chance of success with a candidate who champions centrist causes.

�� Bradley's proposals, if a bit small in magnitude, have pointed political change in the right direction. Although he won't call himself liberal explicitly, he has an earnest desire to provoke long-lasting, large reforms that happen to be liberal. He does not represent the realization of our wildest dreams. In the days of FDR and LBJ we would have asked for much more. But, for a long time to come he may be our last, best hope.

�� But not only is Bradley a promising progressive, he actually has a good chance of winning. Bradley's tremendous success makes his campaign particularly interesting. He has begun to dominate in the Northeast, and looks poised to beat Al Gore by respectable 5-to-10 point margins in every state there. He outpolls George W. Bush, the likely Republican nominee, by 10 and sometimes 20 points in the Northeast. Nationwide, he trails Gore by as few as 15 points-down from 30 in August and 60 in June. Most significantly, he performs better against Bush in nationwide polls than Gore does. In some polls the difference between the two, vis--vis Bush, is only a few points; in others it is 5-10; but in all polls, Bradley has a noticeable edge. And little wonder, too - Gore is a candidate who appeals only to Democratic Party faithfuls. Bradley's mix of liberalism and common sense not only gives him a solid base among Democrats, but among many Independents and Republicans.

�� Of course, early polls are not reliable predictors of the election results. But considering that both Bush and Gore should have a tremendous advantage over Bradley in early polls, because of the wide recognition of their names, these numbers are very encouraging.

�� But the best has yet to come. Bradley, using connections garnered in the NBA and the Senate Finance Committee, as well as extremely successful individualized mailings, has raised almost as much money as Gore. Thanks to careful spending, he has saved a greater portion of his funds, and has a significant advantage in the coming television advertising contest in February 2000, when millions of voters in key primary states will turn their attention to the race. He has demonstrated a superior ability to garner support from centrist voters and to raise considerable money. So, unusually enough for a candidate loved by liberals, he is an electable candidate.

�� Gore's campaign, in contrast, spells bad news for liberals in every way. His ideology is far more ambiguous than Bradley's, because it changes every few years. He might best fit the description of a conservative in liberal's clothing. For the primaries, he has quickly changed from his old ways of eagerly encouraging the dismantling of a social safety net. Once a happy endorser of timber salvage and the catastrophic position of the US negotiating team at the Kyoto conference on global warming, he now once again waxes environmentalist to appease voters. He looks like a carbon copy of his boss, who abandoned the liberal constituency in a heartbeat.

�� Furthermore, Gore has demonstrated a remarkable inability to organize an effective campaign. His negative ratings in polls are several times greater than Bradley's. Despite an agenda that attempts to be Clintonesque, coupled with months of attacking Bush, Gore utterly fails to attract the centrist voters and, subsequently, to make any headway against Bush. He can barely hold his grip on the Democratic nomination - a prize that he should have been able to grab easily as the sitting Vice President.

�� It seems that his campaign staff sees the writing on the wall. Judging from the statements they issue, one imagines that they have reached a state of total desperation. Bradley recently released an ad in which a woman who suffers medical complications praises him for passing a law which helped her deliver her third child. Due to the time constraints of the commercial, the woman appeared to be crediting Bradley for help with delivering her second child. The Gore campaign, in response, vilified the woman for lying. The pettiness and sloppiness of the attack makes me wonder: is this guy for real?

�� All of this might prove forgettable if Gore could at least marshal the resources needed to beat George W. Bush. He cannot. Despite extensive support from high-ranking Democrats, Gore has posted only trivial gains over Bradley's fundraising machine. Due to surprising top-heaviness, his campaign has squandered away the advantage he once held. Gore is the worst possible candidate for liberals - he only pays lip service to our demands, and additionally promises us defeat in the general elections.

�� Of course, the underlying assumption here is that a liberal should support any major candidate. Once the field is limited to the Democratic and Republican candidates, the choice becomes fairly obvious. But why should it be so limited in the first place? Numerous leftist alternative parties will fly their own candidates next year. Why should a liberal compromise her beliefs by voting for a Democrat, when she can support an alternative party candidate who more closely fits her views?

�� The first answer is that this year, for the first time in a long time, supporting a major candidate is a fairly small compromise. Bradley supports all the causes that make liberals jump for joy: health care, income redistribution, gay rights, environmental protection, campaign finance reform. He differs from many liberals only by a matter of degrees. Now, we have a unique chance to support a candidate not only because he can win, but because he's actually not that bad.

�� The second answer is that while in the long-term the alternative leftist parties will be our best hope for lasting reform, presidential bids do not serve an alternative party's goals adequately; only local politics do. When major cities elect New Party mayors, when the Green Party wins control of a state legislature, and when the Progressive Labor Party elects its first governor, it will be time to start talking about presidential politics. In fact, the parties themselves subscribe to this philosophy. Build from the ground up, the New Party web site asserts, and good things will follow. This means that for now, liberals can indulge in some Democratic Party presidential politics without feeling guilty for abandoning alternative parties.

�� Finally, there is a point at which a liberal must examine why she participates in voting at all. Does she wish simply to make a statement? Certainly, voting is an appropriate, although limited, forum for making statements. But, while it may weaken the liberal statement somewhat, a vote for Bradley has a real chance of translating into real, immediate help to the people who need it. How must the liberal weigh the importance of making a statement against possibly delivering much-needed assistance? Understandably, a reasonable liberal needs a fine calculus to adequately decide this question. This same question reappears every election year. I suggest that this year, due to the remarkable strength of Bill Bradley, the delicate balance between making a statement and making a difference has tipped towards the latter. Bradley has a substantial enough chance of victory; his proposals have a reasonable enough chance of passage given his victory; and those proposals have a good chance of delivering assistance if passed. The probabilities are large enough this time around that we need to put aside the intellectual liberal squabbling for one cycle.

�� Understandably, many liberals will be skeptical about these suggestions. They should be. Bill Bradley is not the perfect presidential candidate. But he far surpasses the other major candidates. He has demonstrated a clear support for the causes that we love dearly. He has demonstrated, in startling contrast to Al Gore, the ability to run a clean, professional campaign that can capture the prize. For the first time in many years, he gives a chance to participate in the two-party system without too much embarrassment. He is the last, best chance of liberals in the twentieth century.

-----------------------------

Shai Sachs
[email protected]
Boston, MA
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sachs/

�� This article is publicly accredited to Shai Sachs and property of Perspective, Harvard's Liberal Magazine. Use of this article for monetary personal gains, and plagarism will not be tolerated. Any and all acts of accreditation violations or online plagarism will be subject to legal consequences.