Tag: wellstone

  • Paul Krugman

    New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman could have chosen a better title for his new book than The Conscience of a Liberal, which he cribbed from the late Senator Paul Wellstone. (Wellstone himself was riffing off Barry Goldwater’s 1964 book, The Conscience of a Conservative.)Krugman’s book is less a manifesto of liberal ethics than it is adiscourse on practical economics. He takes for granted Wellstone’smoral arguments for socioeconomic equality and concentrates on anempirical defense of liberal policy. Like Wellstone’s book, Krugman’sis unlikely to change conservative minds. But Krugman’s shrewd andaccessible arguments give liberal readers a tool set for arguing pointsthemselves. If you agreed with Wellstone but didn’t quite know why,read Krugman and you will.

    7 p.m., Temple Israel, 2324 Emerson Ave. S., Minneapolis; 612-822-4611; free.

     

  • St. Paul: All Apologies

    I never knew Paul Wellstone, never met him, never interviewed him. I once saw him walking down Grand Avenue, alone, in a knit shirt and short pants. I was driving by with a friend, and I said, "There’s Paul Wellstone," and I was a little taken aback when he looked up and waved, apparently hearing me, even though it was a private conversation inside a moving car. Inside every loudspeaker is a powerful magnet–that’s the image I still have of Paul Wellstone.

    I liked him okay. I think I voted for him in 1990, when he most resembled a third-party candidate. I vote for third parties mostly on the principle that our system desperately needs to give real representation to minority parties and interests, which it still doesn’t do–except through the wacky, sometimes naive filibusters of a guy like Paul. I was both proud and embarrassed when he was the sole vote of dissent in the Gulf War back in 1990–and president Bush allegedly asked, "Who is this little chickenshit?" Frankly, that was the last time he really impressed me–which says more about me than it does about him. (That is: I apparently stopped paying attention more than a decade ago).

    Even if I wasn’t paying attention, it still seems to me the Democrats never embraced Wellstone in life the way they have done in death. This probably has to do with the fact that he has become an accidental but convenient symbol for all that the party is not, maybe never was, but sometimes wishes it would be. One thing is for sure–he was not a New Democrat. Clinton, Gore, Lieberman; these guys held Wellstone at arm’s length. If anything, he was Old School Democrat… a podium-hammering man with the strength of conviction to continue the highly uncool but traditional role of speaking for the voiceless, the powerless, the unrepresented. He was P.C. thirty years before the odious phrase was coined.

    Or was he? I’ve grown mighty tired, in a very short time, of all the disingenuous tributes. Aside from the normal extravagance and sentimentality that writers afford themselves in times of national turmoil, I am highly suspicious of critics who suddenly make a show of wiping away their crocodile tears for the man. It’s just as bad as having to listen to nit-witted conservatives, lifelong enemies, damning him with the faint praise of being "a man of principle who believed in his [essentially flawed] convictions."

    But writers are more devious than that. Writers are fundamentally not doers but watchers. Inevitably this makes us critics, in the worst, arm-chair sense of the word. We are a scurrilous and spineless bunch who are the self-appointed experts we’re constantly affecting to decry. There was nothing easier in the world than sitting back and taking shots at Wellstone–or any other public figure, for that matter.

    What does a writer "do" compared to a public servant or even a rock star? He sits on a chair, at a keyboard, wrestling with the language, and that’s the end of it. He hides behind the conceit that more direct involvement in the world will corrupt his work. He says he would have gladly engaged the public man, personally and professionally, wishes he would have–Oh, how they might have wrestled over the vagaries of public policy!–a few days too late.

    What a writer creates is a page full of words. That is his creative act, and it’s a tough one, to be sure, but it’s not really much in the grand scheme of things. Writers, I’m afraid, are not nearly as evolved as lots of other human beings, and whatever we have to say about the passing of a person like Paul Wellstone should be looked upon with the same scrutiny you all save for us the rest of the time.

    Just so: I’d prefer not to live in a world where Paul Wellstone is considered radical. More than that, I’d prefer not to live in a world where good and noble people–someone’s mother, father, daughter, son–simply fall from the sky and leave our lives so brutally fast, with so much unfinished business.

    The rest is moot. May they rest in peace.

  • Wellstone the Teacher

    My son Matt, who is a freshman at Carleton College, called me early last Friday afternoon to tell me that he’d just heard that Paul Wellstone had been killed in a plane crash. He’d got the news right after getting out of his freshman political science class, the same class I’d taken at Carleton 32 years ago from Paul Wellstone.

    By then I’d been at Carleton for two terms and had encountered, I thought, all the typical types of college teacher. The calculus teacher had a beard and wore a peace medallion over his turtleneck and smoked dope with students. The Latin teacher was 70 years old and chain smoked Pall Malls while quizzing you on Virgil’s grammar. The English teacher lost his collection of tweed jackets and Hemingway when his house went up in smoke.

    Wellstone breathed fire.

    He was the first teacher who reminded me of me—short stature, long hair, loud voice. Like me, he wore t-shirts and jeans to class and seemed to pay scant attention to the reading list he’d assigned, except that he had an amazing command of facts that he used to support his lectures, which actually were more like speeches. His brilliance was manifest. He was a first year teacher, so he couldn’t have memorized his lectures, but he spoke without notes for an hour. He wasn’t constrained by a podium, but he was predictable. Every lecture he’d start with his fingers jammed into his jeans with the thumbs hooked over the edge of the pocket, as if he were trying to restrain himself from what he must have known was coming–the inevitable rising volume, quickening cadence, and karate chopping of knowledge into our small freshman brains.


    Sometimes you’d come out of class feeling as if you’d been assaulted by an intellect and energy so far superior to yours that you’d never measure up. But more often, you felt smarter for having spent an hour with him. That was his power, and he used it to great effect on people who had yet to fully develop their own critical abilities.

    Wellstone didn’t fit the Carleton mode. Then, Carleton was the ivory tower, and the presumption was that most of what you’d ever have to know could be learned within the confines of campus. Students were not permitted to have cars. All students lived in the dorms. And the work load was so ferocious and academic standards so high that every moment spent other than in class or the library was regarded as lost. Carleton’s stature among the best liberal arts colleges seemed a justification of its insular attitudes. Whenever we had a large snowfall, I imagined the college news bureau coming up with a press release headline: “Highway 19 Closed, World Cut Off.”

    Wellstone wasn’t of such scholarly demeanor. In 1974, he was given a negative evaluation by his department and was on the verge of being fired. The then president openly wanted to be rid of him, as did most of his colleagues. (To their credit, many Carleton profs admitted this even after last Friday.) But students and recent alumni, who’d obviously picked up something about the power of politics in his classes, organized in his defense, as did some sympathetic colleagues. The college eventually agreed to an evaluation of his work by scholars not connected with Carleton. This evaluation was overwhelmingly positive, and the decision was reversed. He was actually granted tenure a year ahead of the normal cycle.

    Carleton was an early power base for him. A liberal arts college in a liberal state is a Petri dish for growing lefties, and he knew it. From Carleton, he started organizing in Rice County, moved from there to the western Minnesota power line controversy, to the nomination for state auditor and to the Senate. His cadre was young, very smart, and mesmerized by his power to harangue. Wellstone never taught, by example anyway, that it was sometimes more effective to shut up. (Rick Kahn, a former student who spoke at his memorial service, unfortunately didn’t pick up that lesson from anyone else either.)

    Wellstone’s attractiveness lay not just in his oratorical skills, though, but in his liberal message itself, repeated endlessly. His true believers never flagged.

    But to others, the diatribe became tiresome, and we lost interest. It’s hard to tell whether it was from pure repetition or because of the seeming change in Wellstone from outsider to insider, best typified by the change in his advertising strategy from the distinctive wit and message of 1990 to the same monotonous doggerel broadcast by every other Candidate X ad infinitum. As his erstwhile ad man said last month in The Rake, “He drank the Kool-Aid.” Hell, if you believe what you hear from those who spend too much time on counterpunch.com, our interest waned because Wellstone wasn’t radical enough.

    I went to a Democratic fundraiser with Al Gore last month. The main topic of the evening was why Democrats were losing ground every election. Gore, one would think, should have more insight into that question than any man alive. A brilliant man with the right ideas, who so muddled his message during the campaign that he couldn’t even carry his own state, somehow didn’t offer me any answers. Congressional candidate Janet Robert made it all clear to me though. She chimed in that she was in such a close race she had to support Bush’s Iraq policy so she could get elected.

    Since I also have never learned the lesson of shutting up, I asked “Why then should Democrats vote for you if you’re just going to act like a Republican? Any first year marketing student could tell you that you have to draw a clear distinction between your product and that of your competitor. Do you think they sell Aquafresh toothpaste by telling you it’s just like Colgate, only a little bit tastier?” There was a brief lull in the din, which in a room full of Democrats, is about all you can hope for.

    Wellstone wasn’t there that night, but he gave us his answer the next week by voting against granting Bush dictatorial war powers. He was the only candidate in a close race to do so. He certainly didn’t do it for marketing reasons, because, if anything should be clear to us, it’s that Wellstone knew nothing about marketing. What he did know was what was right. Oddly, that was his market advantage, and his polls immediately trended up. I wonder if he even knew why.

    That’s the last lesson the professor got through to me–that despite the prevailing political wisdom, the people will ultimately know the genuine man not by what he says, no matter how loud and often he says it, but by what he does. The rest is silence.

    Photo courtesy of Carleton College

  • Forgiving Rick Kahn

    Fritz Mondale said Wednesday that the effect of the tragedy on those closest to Wellstone didn’t justify the tone of his memorial service, “But we’ve all made mistakes. Can’t we find it in our hearts to forgive?”

    I certainly hope so—for a couple of reasons. First, how do we blame Rick Kahn for an electorate that gives Norm Coleman only 30 percent of the vote when he’s running against Jesse Ventura but 50 percent when running against Fritz Mondale? And second, if the Democrats are in a situation where one speech by one person that nobody had ever heard of can kill their election chances, their problems undoubtedly run deeper.

    So, whom can we blame? I think Ventura gets a heaping share for making such a big deal out of Kahn’s speech that he walked out of the memorial, appointed Barkley to the senate seat, and ordered the flags which had been lowered for Wellstone back to the top of the staff. (Of course, if you believe the disingenuous Pioneer Press editorialist D. J. Tice, we should praise Governor Dimwit’s swift assessment of Kahn’s speech, for if not for Jesse, response to the memorial faux pas “would have hardened along partisan lines, producing mostly confusion and still more bitterness.” Yup, thank God for Jesse helping to mitigate the bitterness so voters could get back to considering the real issues.)

    Some blame should accrue to Jim Ramstad, the Republican singled out by Kahn that night, who immediately said, "People get carried away sometimes with emotions. We all get carried away sometimes with emotions. Just let it be." The stark contrast between the class Ramstad and the crass Ventura not only benefited the Republicans, but helped sink Ventura’s party mate Tim Penny.

    Don’t forget Norm Coleman, who was facing certain drowning under a tidal wave of Wellstone sympathy, and yet never complained, nor showed anything less than regret at the loss of an honorable opponent, even when he knew he would now have to go up against the second most popular politician in Minnesota history.

    President Bush deserves particular blame, too. The son of the man who once called Paul Wellstone a “chicken shit” praised Wellstone’s principles, even though he agrees with not a one.

    Yeah, I’m blaming the Republicans for their victory, in Minnesota and in every other state where they kicked Demo butt. They are better actors, better marketers and much better politicians. If you don’t believe that, ask yourself if you do believe, had the shoe been on the other foot, that the Republicans would have let the family send some overwrought accountant without a script to deliver Jesse Helms’ eulogy.

    It reminds me of the line in The Untouchables when Sean Connery accuses his opponent of “bringing a knife to a gun fight.” Well, the Democrats brought a pea shooter. They have the best orator that’s been in the White House in my lifetime in the audience and they let the admitted drudge Tom Harkin rattle off the same old Democrat doxology? We should be glad these guys lost, because if you can screw up a funeral that bad, imagine what they’d do to the country.

    Which, come to think of it, is what you have to do–imagine what the Dems would do, because I’ll be damned if I can remember if they told me in the past several months. One thing you can say about the Republicans is they’ll sure tell you what they are going to do. In case you have forgotten, it’s destroy Iraq, give you a prescription drug plan, fix social security, make sure your neighbor is not Al Qaeda, police up the corporate villains, fix the schools, and get tough on crime while keeping it easy for a 17-year-old undocumented alien to get a sniper rifle. Best of all, you won’t have to pay for any of this because they are not going to raise taxes. What makes it even cooler is that each one of these messages fits neatly into a 30 second voice over of pictures of a good looking young man in an open collar shirt shaking hands and kissing babies.

    That is how politics is done. And as long as the Democrats believe that a man like Fritz Mondale, whose thoughts on complex issues don’t fit neatly between the sports and weather on the 10 p.m. news, can win against this kind of expertise and execution, I don’t see much hope.

    As for me, tonight I’m going to start acting like a Republican. I’m going out for a very expensive dinner, and I’m going to charge it to my kids.