|
August
13/19, 2002
Paul Wellstone: Gunboat Diplomacy, Gay
Marriage, & Broken Promises
by Jeff Taylor
When Greens talk to each other about how they're
disappointed with Senator Paul Wellstone, you rarely hear criticism
of his decision to break the term limits pledge he made in 1990
and reiterated in 1996. You're much more likely to hear references
to Wellstone's support for the "Defense of Marriage Act"
(1996) or his support for various military actions unrelated
to the defense of our country (1992-2002). Some Greens see the
breaking of Wellstone's promise as a minor thing, as something
which should not be highlighted during the 2002 campaign because
Wellstone simply changed his mind based on changed circumstances.
I don't see it that way. I think it's
closely related to one of the most important values of the Green
Party: grassroots democracy. Term limits is not a new concept.
In ancient Athens, citizens made the laws themselves and every
year they chose new administrators among themselves by using
a lottery system. Admittedly, this system was flawed--women and
slaves were not citizens--but it was an early attempt at democracy
("rule by the common people").
In the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson lamented
that the new U.S. Constitution did not include mandatory "rotation
in office." Populists throughout the past 200 years have
held to the ideal of our representatives being citizen legislators,
rather than a permanent class of professional politicians. In
the early '90s, Ralph Nader advocated term limits for politicians
as part of his "toolbox of democracy" (Concord Principles).
Jerry Brown made term limits a central theme of his populist/progressive
campaign for the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination.
There's an interesting book about the
1990 Minnesota senate race called "Professor Wellstone Goes
to Washington." Today, Senator Wellstone doesn't want to
leave. Who can blame him? He makes $150,000 a year (plus perks)
and he's a member of one of the most prestigious and powerful
groups in the world. That's not the whole story, of course. It's
too cynical. I think Wellstone also wants to make the world a
better place (in a bleeding-heart, mushy-headed, big-government,
Hubert-Humphrey sort of way).
Even if we disagree with Wellstone's
perspective or methods, he still deserves some credit for having
aims more noble than accumulating personal power or doing favors
for rich campaign contributors. That's commendable and it sets
him apart from most officeholders in Washington. But there's
one problem with extending this scenario year after year: Wellstone
has become a professional politician. How long does he need to
carry out his political goals? When he entered the Senate, he
promised to use his position as a rallying spot for progressive,
grassroots activists across the nation. That hasn't happened.
The true story is less romantic.
Here's a case study to use when looking
at the corrupting effects of hanging onto power for too long:
Senator Wellstone and the use of the U.S. military in pursuit
of the American Empire ("Policeman of the World," "New
World Order," or whatever euphemism you prefer). Wellstone
showed early promise as a vocal critic of George I's war for
oil (and missile corporations and Saudi bases). Six years later,
amid a reelection struggle, Wellstone minimized his peace-making
efforts. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported, "He
notes that he was in favor of sending the troops [to Saudi Arabia]
but objected to sending them into war before all alternatives
had been pursued." (ST, 10-21-96) In other words,
if sanctions had been tried for a while and Iraqi troops remained
in Kuwait, then he would have supported the war for oil and other
Bush objectives (democracy was obviously not one of them, since
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were both ruled by dictators).
Wellstone showed limited opposition to
the military action of a Republican president, but when it came
to Bush's Democratic successor, Wellstone was a virtual cheerleader.
He supported every single Clinton troop deployment, missile launch,
and bomb drop: Somalia (1992), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Iraq
(1998), and Kosovo (1999). This record makes a person wonder
if Wellstone's principles aren't severely diluted by partisanship.
Is his political philosophy as simple-minded as Democrat=good,
Republican=bad? Maybe. Unlike Democrats and Republicans, Greens
in the U.S. Senate wouldn't have to continually compromise their
instincts and principles in order to please their party leader
in the White House.
Paul Wellstone's admiration for Hubert
Humphrey is another possible explanation for his evolution into
a supporter of continual U.S. military intervention in other
countries (always in a context of little or no threat to U.S.
citizens). Humphrey had his good points, but his brand of liberalism
was pragmatic and largely based on his own emotional personality,
not on constitutional principles or spiritual values. This being
the case, whenever a president couched some imperialistic endeavor
in nice-sounding, humanitarian language, Humphrey was pleased
as punch to give his enthusiastic support to the mission. So,
you had him endorsing interventions in Guatemala and the Dominican
Republic and the war in Vietnam.
Like Humphrey, Wellstone tends to support
a foreign policy pursued mostly for the benefit of transnational
corporations and wealthy Americans whenever it's cloaked in idealistic
rhetoric. That's a really unfortunate tendency. It's unfortunate
for middle-class Americans who pay burdensome taxes for these
military "chess games"; it's unfortunate for the brave
men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line for
veiled, less-than-noble policies; and it's unfortunate for the
many innocent people in other countries who are maimed and killed
during these endeavors. Playing the long-established game of
throwing some verbal crumbs to the voting base of their party,
Democratic presidents are especially adept at using warm-and-fuzzy
words-"I feel your pain" on a global scale-to justify
power-and-profit policies. Ever hopeful of the good intentions
of party colleagues, Wellstone signs off on all of these misuses
of the military. For example, it apparently never occurred to
him that our government's "feed the hungry" military
mission in Somalia might have had something to do with oil exploration
and exploitation rights granted to Conoco, Amoco, and Chevron
before civil war rendered those rights unuseable.
Turning to domestic policy, another case
study comes to mind. Many liberals were disappointed when Wellstone
voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act" passed by a
Republican-controlled Congress and signed by President Clinton
in 1996. Regardless of the merits of the bill, it has to be conceded
that the idea of Clinton acting as the nation's "defender
of marriage" is laughable! The same could probably be said
for many of the sanctimonious members of Congress, including
House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Gay and lesbian activists were stunned
and angered in June 1996 when Wellstone announced at a gay-sponsored
fundraiser he "personally opposes same-sex marriages"
and was considering voting for the "Defense of Marriage"
bill which would deny federal recognition of them (Star Tribune,
6-5-96). It seemed completely out of character for the "enlightened,"
progressive politician.
We might be able to piece together an
explanation from the news story. The Star Tribune noted,
"He faces reelection this fall in a race that is a top target
nationally for Republicans." Two sentences later, the reporter
says, "Wellstone shocked the crowd when he said he was raised
to believe that marriage was reserved for the union of one man
and one woman." This was the first his gay supporters had
heard of this basic belief. Presumably, Wellstone was also raised
to believe that romance and sex should be between one man and
one woman, but that hadn't stopped him from unreservedly supporting
gay rights throughout his years as a college teacher, political
activist, and office holder.
Wellstone's campaign manager denied that
the Senator's move against gay marriage was part of an election
year strategy to go along with bills supported by a majority
of voters, thus minimizing vulnerability at the hands of his
Republican opponent. It is rather coincidental that he seemed
to go against character while in the middle of a reelection campaign.
The strange timing and manner of his announcement makes me wonder
if he wasn't following the same image-driven strategy used by
Clinton in 1992, when he reassured white suburban voters by insulting
Sister Souljah at a Rainbow Coalition meeting.
Let's assume that Wellstone really was
"speaking from the gut." Just because he was raised
to believe something doesn't necessarily make it right. For example,
lots of people are raised to believe in racial prejudice and
gender stereotypes. Part of growing up is determining for oneself
what's right and wrong. And even if Wellstone the adult is personally
convinced that same-sex marriage is wrong, that would not necessarily
dictate support for the "Defense of Marriage Act."
A "personally opposed" stance does not require a liberal
Democrat to support legal codification of that personal viewpoint-witness
the scores of liberals who "personally oppose" abortion
but have no problem voting against proposed laws which restrict
abortion.
If there was some political calculation
in the Wellstone move-and it's hard to believe there wasn't some-it
paid off, as you can see from this headline three days later:
"Gay Leaders Say They Still Back Wellstone" (ST,
6-8-96). Partly out of overprivileged self-interest and partly
out of the political equivalent of battered-spouse syndrome,
leaders of the Democratic Party's core constituencies almost
always stick with the Democrat in an election, regardless of
how much neglect, humiliation, and mistreatment they've suffered
at the hands of that politician. It's one reason the Democratic
Party will never change. The only people in a position to force
that change are either too sold-out or too scared to take real
action. The Wellstone campaign knew that in 1996.
Some party activists and gay leaders
openly acknowledged the probable cynicism of Wellstone, as they
rushed to his side and made the requisite excuses for his disappointing
behavior. A Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) activist at Wellstone's
gay-sponsored fundraiser told a reporter, "This was a sophisticated
crowd. He could have told them that he was considering signing
[sic] the bill because he couldn't afford to have the religious
right attack him on that issue, that he needed those suburban
middle-class voters. I think they would have accepted that."
(ST, 6-5-96)
I guess I'm not sophisticated enough.
I would have been angered by a politician who was that cynical
on such an important issue! Even if I disagreed with his position,
I could have respected it if he'd told me it's because his belief
in Judaism and commitment to God forbid the sanctioning of same-sex
marriage.
Wellstone tried to straddle the two approaches.
He vaguely claimed it was his personal belief but his vagueness
allowed more "sophisticated" activists to interpret
his position as a political self-defense measure. For me, that's
the worst of all possible worlds. He didn't have the courage
to openly explain either (A) his religious convictions or (B)
his political expediency (take your pick of the real explanation-the
former would have alienated most people at the gay fundraiser;
the latter would have angered most of the voting public).
Taking conspiracy theory and twisted
logic to a new level, a leader of the Human Rights Campaign made
the assertion that the whole purpose of the "Defense
of Marriage" bill was to "divide Senator Wellstone
from an important part of his constituent base" and that
gays and lesbians "should not be tricked." It's not
that the legislation was introduced by those genuinely fearful
that the "sacred institution" of marriage was under
attack by a growing movement at the state level. It's not that
Wellstone betrayed his principles for political gain (figuring
he was in a win-win situation since he wouldn't alienate the
majority of culturally conservative voters and would retain the
support of most gay and lesbian voters). No, the bill was "designed
precisely to drive people like Senator Wellstone out of Congress"
and he was smart enough to not fall into the trap. He avoided
the trap by moving toward an anti-gay rights position. That was
a good move, according to this gay rights leader. Even in 1996
the whole world revolved around Wellstone and access to politicians
like him by quasi-liberal interest group leaders. Some things
never change!
When he announced his final decision
to vote for the "Defense of Marriage" bill, Wellstone
referred to gays who disagreed with his position, saying, "I've
said to them, I don't think we should change the definition of
marriage. It is the central institution of American life. You
reach a certain consensus in society, and no court decision is
going to change that." (ST, 9-10-96) When it comes
to social consensus and court decision, you could say the exact
same thing about Brown v. Board of Education (1954) which outlawed
public school segregation or Roe v. Wade (1973) which legalized
abortion in all 50 states. It's seemingly-glib comments like
this-from a man with a PhD in political science!-which make me
question either Wellstone's knowledge or integrity. You can debate
the merits (separately) of the nationwide social consensus for
segregation in the 1940s or against abortion in the 1960s, but
the fact is judges stepped in and overruled popular opinion...and
Wellstone approves of that judicial rejection of majority rule.
Why is he inconsistent when it comes to same-sex marriage? Since
when did he become a champion of biblically-based popular sovereignty
over politically-correct judical tyranny? That's out of character
for a darling of the limousine-liberal set. It's another indication
that he was at least partly playing politics with the issue.
In 1996, Wellstone did not just have
Minnesota voters in mind. If he was able to win reelection, he
had thoughts of running for President. Six months after voting
for the "Defense of Marriage Act," word was being spread
that Wellstone might run for the 2000 Democratic presidential
nomination. That may have been an additional factor in his support
for the federal ban on same-sex marriage. He would have seriously
hurt his chances of attracting support in the primaries in culturally
conservative areas of the country if he'd taken an unpopular,
controversial position on a wedge issue like gay marriage. In
the end, Wellstone decided to opt out of the presidential race,
but his national ambitions were probably another factor in his
surprising 1996 position.
Let's compare Wellstone's privately-held
beliefs about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage with a couple
other progressive politicians who believed in the sanctity of
human life. In the 1960s and '70s, Senator Mark Hatfield (R-OR)
and Senator Harold Hughes (D-IA) were prominent liberals in Washington.
Both men were pro-life. I say "pro-life" instead of
"anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" because
they were consistently supportive of human life almost to the
point of pacifism. They were Christians, but they were not Catholics
and their opposition to legalized abortion did not come from
a seemingly arbitrary edict of a patriarchal religious hierarchy.
In addition to being founded on a belief
in nonviolence, their opposition to abortion was also tied to
a belief that it was being promoted as a classist and racist
tool by wealthy population controllers disinterested in supplying
deeper and more just solutions to the problems of poverty and
inequality. You may disagree with their position, but it was
publicly discussed, thoroughly explained, and consistently held
(regardless of election dates and opinion polls). By 1973, Hatfield
and Hughes had developed well-earned reputations as statesmen
in progressive circles. They had been early opponents of the
Vietnam War and outspoken critics of capital punishment. Although
it was unusual for evangelical Christians to attempt a literal
application of the Sermon on the Mount to public policy, by so
doing, Hatfield and Hughes had drawn national attention to a
nonviolent ethic reminiscent of the Quakers and Mennonites. So
no one was surprised when they criticized Roe v. Wade. They had
existing reputations as advocates for human life...and they hadn't
been taking contributions from the Population Council, Planned
Parenthood, and NARAL.
In complete contrast, Paul Wellstone's
opposition to same-sex marriage seemed to come out of nowhere
and then disappeared just as quickly. There were no prior allusions
to social norms coming out of his family or personal morality
coming out of his religion relating to the limits of homosexual
legitimation. There were no subsequent attempts to change the
minds of gay activists or write the principle into the party
platform. That's why, six years later, observers point to the
1996 election as the most likely explanation ("United They
Sit," City Pages, 1-16-02).
Now, in 2002, we're told by Wellstone apologists that he had
to vote for Bush's war in Afghanistan (which took the lives of
thousands of civilians without bringing the 9-11 criminals to
justice) and the misnamed "Patriot Act" (which should
have been called the Big Brother is Watching You Act). If Wellstone
had voted against these things, it would have been political
suicide in an election year, we're told. Is there anything
Wellstone believes in deeply enough that he's willing to risk
losing his Senate seat? I guess it can't be said that he would
rather be right than be senator. The irony is, as his integrity
erodes, he'll lose more and more votes from those who care about
integrity...and eventually he'll be neither right nor senator.
Then what will he have to show for his opportunism?
Breaking a term limits promise is not
just an abstract thing. It has practical consequences. When a
politician chooses to dishonor that pledge, it's indicative of
a deeper problem. That's why he's more and more apt to do other
surprising and upsetting things-things like endorsing every overseas
military attack pushed by a Democratic president, turning his
back on the gay rights agenda when it becomes a liability on
the eve of an election, and supporting a Republican president's
war policies and civil liberties infringements. If Wellstone's
lease on power is renewed, you can expect more of the same.
Shortly after Wellstone announced that
he was breaking his term limits promise, the University of Minnesota's
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute senior fellow Joe Nathan wrote a
newspaper column entitled "A Time for Breaking Promises"
(Rochester Post-Bulletin, 2-14-01). Nathan says, "I agree
that Wellstone changed his mind and broke a promise. But I think
breaking a commitment to the people who elected you sometimes
is not only acceptable, but brave." Spoken like a true political
scientist! Sad to say, most of my colleagues in the field of
American government have a decidedly elitist slant. Lacking political
power and popular influence themselves, they fawn over those
who have these qualities. Thus, when politicians break promises
by raising taxes on the common people and giving themselves pay
raises, they're almost always hailed by political scholars for
their "courage."
It really doesn't take much courage to
be cynical, untrustworthy, and dishonorable. Experienced politicians
know they can act like that and usually get away with it because
the attention span of the average American voter is very short.
By the time election day rolls around, if the betrayal hasn't
already been forgotten, it can be neutralized by emphasizing
some secondary wedge issue or raising the spectre of the bogeyman
("If you don't vote for X, you'll get Y...then you'll really
be sorry!"). Plus, you have the "experts" on the
editorial page and NPR telling the "educated" voter
that the betrayal was really a brave act of statesmanship. Given
these conditions, it's very difficult to hold a politician to
his or her word.
Nathan continues: "In general we
should keep promises. But sometimes circumstances change.
If you can be more helpful by breaking a promise, you should
do it." More helpful to whom? To one's self? No,
Nathan says he supports Wellstone because "he can help more
Minnesotans by staying in Congress-at least for another six years."
Why only six years? If he stays for another thirty-six years,
think of the seniority he'll build up and the pork he'll be able
to deliver for the state! Using Nathan's logic that longevity
in office is desirable for a constituency, then why not have
members of the U.S. Senate chosen for life (à la the U.S.
Supreme Court)? That would give everyone plenty of time to develop
the experience needed to grapple with the difficult issues of
our nation, the freedom to rise above partisan pressures, and
the invulnerability to bravely break lots of promises. Of course,
Nathan's logic of longer-is-better applies only to those select
politicians who happen to agree with his beliefs. In other words,
Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms don't qualify.
Nathan concludes that it will be helpful
for Wellstone to continue in office for at least six more
years. But what about the substantial portion of the state which
did not vote for Wellstone in 1996? Will they be helped by Wellstone's
continuation in Washington? What about the malcontents who are
so gauche that they expect politicians to live up to their promises...regardless
of changing circumstances? Will they be helped by Wellstone's
reelection and the accompanying reinforcement of his cynical
behavior? In defending promise-breaking, Nathan points out that
"sometimes circumstances change." No duh! Circumstances
always change. That's a given. The question is, How will
a politician choose to respond to the changing circumstances?
With integrity or opportunism? With public service or self service?
With commitment or betrayal?
The changing circumstances rationale
first used by Wellstone and echoed by apologists like Nathan
is probably specious anyway. Wellstone didn't groom anyone within
the DFL to succeed him after making and remaking his no-third-term
pledge. That strongly suggests that he had no intention of keeping
his promise. Wellstone continued to raise campaign money and
passed up the opportunity to publicly promote a successor in
1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Four years passed between his second
election and the supposedly crucial changing of circumstances
(Bush elected and the Senate evenly divided). This would lead
an objective observer to suspect, if not conclude, that Wellstone
never had any intention of retiring upon the conclusion of his
second term.
Paul Wellstone is now a professional
politician. There are certain groups which have a vested interest
in keeping Wellstone in power, namely (A) the quasi-liberal interest
group leaders who make a good living off talking about the problems
of others and exploiting their fears and (B) the corporate-funded
Democratic Party which finds it useful to have a tame "liberal"
on board to point to whenever Ralph Nader begins his siren song.
The sad truth for progressives and populists
is that Wellstone as a presence in Washington just isn't that
important. He hasn't lived up to his promise. He hasn't had much
impact. He's shifted his goal from universal, single-payer health
insurance (a concrete, measurable goal) to helping people (an
abstract goal which requires endless terms in office). His new,
fuzzier goal gets corrupted not only by partisanship and gullibility
but by one of the time-tested truisms of political science: power
corrupts. He's no longer the new person in Washington, bringing
fresh ideas and real-life experiences to the cynical and surreal
atmosphere of Capitol Hill and K Street. Now he's part of that
culture. Maybe not as debased as most, but still immersed.
Breaking his promise to serve only two
terms isn't the real problem. It's a symptom. Wellstone the populist
fighter lives on only in memory, stump speeches, and slick TV
ads (many paid for by DFL soft money). Wellstone can't claim
to be a man of great integrity. He's not that different from
all the other politicians who call themselves "public servants"
while they mostly serve themselves, their friends, and their
pet causes. Wellstone may still be a cut above most national
politicians, but he's squandered the promise with which he began.
His loss of integrity will cost him votes...and perhaps his office.
That's not the Green Party's fault. It's partly because Wellstone
has chosen to tie his destiny to a corrupt and arrogant Democratic
Party.
The Senator can't hardly run on the slogan
"Paul Wellstone: Just Another Politician Trying to Hang
Onto His Job," so the race is cast in portentous, almost
apocalyptic terms. "Wellstone has to win to keep a Democratic
majority in the Senate." "Wellstone is Bush's #1 target."
"If Wellstone loses, it's the end of liberal civilization
as we know it." Yeah, right. How is Wellstone's reliably
Democratic vote any different from those of Tim Johnson or Bob
Torricelli? When he does swim against the Democratic current,
he's casting a symbolic vote which doesn't accomplish anything
beyond bolstering his threadbare maverick image. If his one vote
would make a real difference-against the interests of the Democratic
establishment-he'd probably knuckle under with a self-deluded
explanation.
That's what it's come to. Wellstone is
pliant in relation to party leaders and he himself is not a leader
of any organized movement. That makes him ineffective. When's
the last time he stopped a Democratic president from doing something
bad? Or tried to change his party's national platform in a major
way? Or led a filibuster which stopped a big piece of bad legislation?
Or affected the outcome of a presidential election? Or endorsed
a progressive Republican? Or tried to start a third party? Or
tried to stop a war?
Let's face it: Paul Wellstone is no Robert
La Follette or Burton Wheeler or Jeannette Rankin or Wayne Morse
or Fannie Lou Hamer. They were men and women who didn't bluster
with populist rhetoric on the campaign trail but privately schmooze
with the Manhattan/Beverly Hills elite and go along with the
Washington power brokers when push comes to shove. They owed
their jobs to the local voters, were pariahs within their own
national parties, and repeatedly risked their careers for progressive
principles. In contrast, Wellstone has left himself wide open
to the charge that his 12 years in the Senate have been "full
of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (Dennis Tester, quoting
Shakespeare). That's not much of a legacy.
In his January 2002 City Pages
article about Minnesota's senators, G.R. Anderson Jr. noted that
the national Democratic Party had no agenda. It was meekly following
President Bush's agenda. Bombing of Afghanis...partly to install
a friendly and stable government to foster an oil consortium's
plans to build a Central Asian pipeline through the country?
Sure! Legislation which gives the President and national security
apparatus unprecedented power to spy on U.S. citizens and violate
constitutional guarantees during times of (undeclared) war? Sure!
Alternative visions for America, other than quibbling about budget
numbers on domestic programs and tinkering with foreign policy
strategies? Nope! Genuine debate over public policy ends, not
just means? Nope!
As we move into the 2002 fall election,
the Democratic Party suddenly has an agenda. How did this happen?
Did the party go back to its platform and see some unfulfilled
promises? No. Democratic platforms are vague and insincere documents
which serve the short-term goal of attracting votes from the
naive. Did the party remember its core set of principles or values?
No. It has no foundational beliefs beyond its perpetual juggling
act of pleasing Big Business while posing as the Party of the
Common People and throwing an occasional crumb to the watered-down
interest groups which provide dollars and votes every two years
so party leaders can continue to sumptuously dine at the table
with their Big Business friends.
The Democratic Party now has an agenda
courtesy of privately-commissioned opinion polls and focus groups.
The Green Party has the Ten Key Values. The Democratic Party
has James Carville, Paul Begala, and Stanley Greenberg. These
men have created the face of the modern Democratic Party, with
its utter dishonesty, broken promises, and servility to Wall
Street hidden behind slick ads and glossy brochures. These merchants
of slime and spin deserve nothing but contempt from all honest
and patriotic Americans, yet these are the kind of operators
Wellstone turned to during his 1996 campaign and they will package
his 2002 campaign. "Wellstone the paragon of virtue."
"Wellstone vs Big Oil." "Wellstone with a union-label
hard hat." "Wellstone in denim with a seed-corn cap."
"Wellstone lives to help out us plain folks." Who pays
for this propaganda? Why is the national Democratic Party so
eager to keep Wellstone in power if he's a genuine threat to
the bipartisan Power Elite?
Wanting to avoid negative campaigning,
some Greens don't want our endorsed senatorial candidate, Ed
McGaa, to talk about the issue of Wellstone's broken term limits
pledge. I disagree. The McGaa campaign should present a positive
message, but part of that message should be saying how he differs
from his opponents. After all, this is a political contest,
not a Kum Ba Ya let's-hold-hands exercise! Wellstone's promise
to only serve two terms is a legitimate issue. It symbolizes
an even more important issue: the Senator's evolution into a
professional politician. Most Minnesotans have an instinctive
understanding of that, which is why Wellstone's popularity has
declined among the many Perot/Ventura/Independent voters.
I've heard Greens say, "Coleman
will bring up Wellstone's term limits switch anyway," but
there's a problem with that scenario. Norm Coleman has little
credibility when raising questions about someone's political
consistency and integrity. He seems be an opportunist of the
worst sort! He entered politics as a protégé of
Attorney General Hubert Humphrey III. During his short speech
at the 1996 DFL state convention, Mayor Coleman invoked the name
of Bill Clinton seven times and the name of his "friend
Paul Wellstone" nine times (Star Tribune, 6-10-96).
He later claimed neutrality in the Wellstone-Boschwitz senate
race, but told an interviewer a week before the election, "I
have only positive things to say about Paul" (ST,
10-26-96). At the same time, Coleman described himself as a "Clinton
Democrat." Even so, this Clinton Democrat was already thinking
of jumping to the Republican Party because his chances of gaining
higher office through the DFL seemed limited. Shortly after the
election, he openly switched. That's a record of ambition and
convenience, not principle.
From student body president to mayor
to gubernatorial nominee to senatorial candidate, Norm Coleman
has spent his entire adult life seeking power. He's a professional
politician with a flexible conscience when it comes to political
commitments. A man with Coleman's track record is not in a credible
position to criticize Wellstone's evolution into a career politician
who breaks campaign promises. As soon as Coleman brings it up,
instead of dealing with the issue, Wellstone will dodge with
a "You're a great one to talk..."
Ed McGaa does not have this credibility
problem. If he's specifically asked about Wellstone's integrity
or is asked to distinguish himself from the incumbent, he can
point out how the Senator's term limits promise breaking is symptomatic
of a deeper problem. As a citizen with a distinguished background
and unique cultural perspective, McGaa can address the issue
honestly without looking hypocritical. It will be a real critique-not
campaign rhetoric from a two-faced politician.
Paul Wellstone made his term limits pledge
when it was popular to do so. He broke it when it became inconvenient
for him. No one forced him to make his 12-years-max promise in
1990. No one forced him to repeat it in 1996. It was a promise
freely given and publicly used as a sign of his commitment to
citizen-based government. Given this history, when regrets inevitably
came, as the time to give up power approached, an honorable man
would still have honored his commitment, however personally difficult
it may have been. Wellstone declined to do so.
Let's say that deep down Wellstone really
is the same friend-of-the-people he was in 1990. If he had chosen
to honor his pledge, think of the freedom he would have had during
his entire second term to vote his conscience and serve his constituents.
He could have groomed a successor for 2002 more electable than
himself-one without so much baggage and polarization. He might
have run for governor of Minnesota and actually had a chance
to implement all of his idealistic notions. For example, real
campaign finance and health care reforms are more possible at
the state level. And he would have given Minnesotans a much better
DFL choice than Roger Moe, who exemplifies the discredited system
of entrenched power. But, no, placing his own ambition and comfort
above the well-being of the people, Wellstone pushed honor and
all other considerations aside in pursuit of continued power
at the federal level.
The Chicken Littles of left-leaning politics
-some sincere, some not-are shouting that the sky is falling
because Minnesota Greens have the audacity to challenge the myth
of Wellstone's indispensability and the DFL's sense of entitlement.
We seem not to care that some people who might otherwise vote
for Wellstone (or Coleman) as the lesser-of-two-evils will end
up voting for McGaa because they like him best. Yes, Greens could
spoil everything...if everything were not already spoiled. I
say, Let's try more democracy for a change instead of
less. And let's put away our third-grade mentalities and act
like grown-ups. Taking a larger view of the world, and of history,
we can see that it makes little difference whether Paul Wellstone
remains in the Senate or not. His record is just not that distinguished.
Despite his grassroots background and exciting campaign in 1990,
he became a practitioner of the same old crap. Instead of recognizing
value in life beyond the Beltway, he's launched a gratuitous,
unprincipled, and selfish third campaign.
I'm guessing that Senator Wellstone is
surrounded by yes-men and yes-women who enjoy the high life in
D.C. and want to retain a foothold in their fiefdom of power.
They're not going to tell him it's time to go home. The union
bosses, self-anointed demographic leaders, and direct-mail fearmongers
who enjoy rubbing elbows with the famous and powerful aren't
going to tell him he should keep a promise made in the heat of
a campaign. Barbra Streisand isn't going to tell him he needs
to play by the rules of average Minnesotans.
Term limits can be discussed in fancy
historical and theoretical ways. The ill effects of entrenched
power can be noted, ranging from negative personality traits
to increased policy deficiencies. But regular rotation in office-whether
self-imposed or voter-imposed-isn't hard to understand. It's
really quite simple. Most of us learned it as kids, when our
parents told us, "You've had your turn. Now you have to
let someone else have a turn." Or, in the more blunt phrasing
of one kid to another: "Quit hogging it!"
Despite the irritation it occasionally
causes for defenders of the status quo, we still have elections
every now and then. In Minnesota, we even have more than just
the two old parties on the ballot. We have a choice. Ed McGaa
is offering something different. We know all about Wellstone,
but who's this McGaa guy? An enrolled Oglala Sioux. A true American
patriot. A person who reveres the earth. A peace-seeking veteran.
A down-to-earth attorney. A memorable author. A man of his word.
Ed is offering something different...and better. This November,
it will be up to those of us who vote to deliver the message
no one else wants to give: "Paul, you've had your turn..."
Jeff Taylor
has a PhD in political science from the University of Missouri
and has been active in the Green Party since 1987. , He's a member
of the Olmsted County (MN) Green Party.
New Print
Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- War Talk As White Noise:
Anything to Get Harken and Halliburton
Out of the Headlines;
- First Hilliard, Then
McKinney: Jewish
Groups Target Blacks Brave Enough to Talk About Justice in the
Middle East; Intimidation
is the Name of the Game; Smearing
"Insane" McKinney As Muslims' Pawn;
- The Missing Terrorist?
Calling Scotland
Yard: "Where's Atif?"
- They Never Booed Dylan!:
Tape Transcript Shows
Famed Newport Folkfest Dissing of Electric Dylan Not True. The Catcalls were for Peter
Yarrow!
- New Shame from the Liffey
Shrike
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now! Or Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
August 14
/ 19, 2002
Susan Davis
Played
Out: a Journey to Central City, Colorado
CounterPunch
Staff
Our Favorite
Films
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Usonian
Utopia's:
Frank Lloyd Wright, Working Class Housing and the FBI
Uri Avnery
A Phone
Call from Hell
Wendy Brinker
Racism
is Alive and Well in the South Carolina Death House
Hamit Dardagan
The
Unbearable Lightness of Bombing
Ahmad Faruqui
The Legacy
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Philip Farruggio
Leading
by Example
Anthony Gancarski
Union
Jackass: Richard Perle's UK Charm Offensive
Jeff Halper
Fortress
Israel: the Message of the Bulldozer
Gary Leupp
An Open
Letter to Bruce Springsteen about Bush's War on Terrorism
Dave Marsh
Sing a
Simple Song
Rashmi Mayur
To Johannesburg
in Search of Hope
Steve Perry
Another Fine Mess:
Martha Stewart and Paul Wellstone
Anis Shivani
What's
Next...Concentration Camps?
Edward Said
Punishment
by Detail
Jeff Taylor
Paul Wellstone's
Legacy
August 10/11,
2002
Walt Brasch
The Bush
2 Legacy...So Far
August 9,
2002
Mokhiber
/ Weissman
Corporate
Crime:
More Shareholder Power
Not the Solution
Ansar Ahmed
The Waning
of the
Pax Americana
Alexander
Cockburn
War,
the Military and the Hunt for the "Violence Gene"
August 8,
2002
Ron Jacobs
Iraq:
The Final Storm?
Dave Marsh
Now Ain't
the Time
for Your Tears
Mark Weisbrot
Bush
Administration Tries to Hide Role in Venezuela Coup
Anthony Gancarski
AIPAC,
Congress and Iraq
Robert Fisk
Families
of the
Disappeared Demand Answers
Gary Leupp
Karzai's
Bodyguard
August 7,
2002
Anis Shivani
The First
21st Century
Police State
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Fallon's
Fallen
Is the US Navy Killing
Children in Nevada?
Robert Fisk
For the
Forgotten Afghans,
the UN Offers a Fresh Hell
Dr. Susan
Block
Rigas in
Cuffs
Bill Christison
Disastrous
Foreign Policies of the US Part 5: the Call of Democracy?
August 6,
2002
Philip Farruggio
Signs
of the Elites
Bruce Gagnon
We Must
Come Alive
David Krieger
From
Hiroshima to Hope
Jerre Skog
Global
Reach of Corporate Crime or What the Hell are
They Teaching at Harvard?
Robert Fisk
Return to
Afghanistan:
Collateral Damage
Alexander
Cockburn
The
Fox in the Pension Fund
August 5, 2002
Rahul Mahajan
Iraq
and the New Great Game
Jordy Cummings
The
Last Frontier of
Israel and Palestine
Bernard Weiner
Inside
Saddam's Diary
Mike Leon
US Mute
to Israeli Brutality
Norman Madarasz
Brazil:
the Most Important Election of 2002?
August 4, 2002
Susan Davis
Fat Americans
August 3, 2002
David Krieger
Nuclear
Apartheid
Gilad Atzmon
The End
of Innocence
Gavin Keeney
Everybody's
a Critic
Alexander Cockburn
Can the Times' Jeff Gerth
Save Dick Cheney?
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|