Search this site for: search engine by Netcreations

Wednesday, September 8, 1999
 
 

Lobbyists for Hillary

Suggested title for Hillary Rodham Clinton's next book: It Doesn't Take a Village, It Takes a Corporate Lobbyist. Two weekends ago, the Clintons hit the Hamptons to raise money for Hillary's Senate bid and the Democratic Party. The bash -- attended by 300 guests who paid $1000 each to eat barbecue with the Clintons -- was held at the home of Liz Robbins, a Clinton friend and lobbyist. Now Robbins may be aces as a FOB or FOH. But she is part of the Washington culture in which lawyers get paid large sums of money to influence legislation (a.k.a.  the people's business) to benefit corporate clients, even if that means -- gasp! -- the common good is not served. According to the most recent lobbyist disclosure reports, Robbins has massaged Washington on behalf of Agouron Pharmaceuticals (a Warner-Lambert company), Bankers Trust, E.M. Warburg, Pincus and Company (a financial services outfit that manages more than $15 billion of assets), the Mego Financial Corporation, the recording industry and others. Robbins' job is not to think of the welfare of the village, as Mother Hillary might urge, but to advance the interests of a few chiefs. Still, Hillary is relying on Robbins in order to advance her own career.

Holding a fundraiser at the home of a lobbyist is not that odd, unfortunately. After all, Democratic fundraising is dominated by corporate lobbyists and corporate contributions. The same is true for Republicans. Warren Beatty, who is still pondering an anti-politics-as-usual presidential bid, has a point. The political community of Washington is hardly diverse, particularly when one looks at who pays to keep it afloat. Hillary Clinton is a status-quo liberal who has shown little taste for challenging the fundamental flaws of the political system. Consequently, she easily hobnobs with those who peddle private influence over public interest. In her village, some citizens are more equal than others -- and that's fine by her.
 
 
 

The Boss-In-Chief?

The possible Beatty candidacy has been keeping progressive politicos a-twitter. But is a Hollywood actor-producer-director the best hope for those who call for worker-friendly and consumer-friendly -- as opposed to corporate-friendly -- policies and priorities? Is there no one else? Even Beatty has questioned whether he is the person best suited to lead the charge. At a rock concert last week, I glimpsed another possibility. In the lobby of the MCI Center in Washington, there was a boy, ten-years-old or so, wearing a t-shirt that exclaimed, "Springsteen for President." If a magazine publisher or television debater or a data company CEO or a professional wrestler can run or consider running, why not a musician? Springsteen long has been an icon-with-substance for the working class. In a quiet fashion, he has supported a variety of causes and do-good outfits (alternative energy, food banks, the Vietnam Veterans of America). He donated tickets to the first of his three Washington shows to World Hunger Year, an anti-hunger nonprofit, and from the stage he praised the Capital Area Community Food Bank. ("The economy is not benefiting all," Springsteen said.) The songs he has written and performed have brought a human touch to many issues: farm crisis ("Seeds"), the plight of American steelworkers ("Youngstown"), income inequality and the downside of globalization ("The Ghost of Tom Joad"), telecommunications ("57 Channels"), AIDS ("Streets of Philadelphia"), veterans affairs ("Born in the USA"), urban dislocation ("My Hometown"), and war ("War"). He also has not been reluctant to note his dismay with political leaders. Last week, he told the audience in Washington that many people are lost in confusion and bitterness -- "especially here."

Springsteen could easily reach out to various constituencies. He could be a hit with Hispanic voters, for he participated in protests against the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 in California. (Can he sing "Rosalita" in Spanish?) Thanks to  the presence of saxophonist Clarence "Big Man" Clemons, Springsteen's E Street Band was one of the few muscle-rock groups to be racially integrated. And the Boss also boasts ideological cross-over potential. Before the first Washington show, I ran into Brent Bozell, a leading hard-right activtist, at the liquor store next to the arena. Don't tell me, I said to him, that you're a Springsteen fan. "Me and my whole family," he answered with a smile. Don't you know, I asked, that he stands for everything you're against -- social justice, communal values, government assistance for the less-fortunate? Bozell, who spends much of his life searching for left-wing bias in the establishment media, nodded and remarked. "All my favorite musicians and actors are communists." You may wonder how a conservative like Bozell can get juiced up by a compassionate liberal populist like Springsteen. (_The Ghost of Tom Joad_ album was a direct whack at the laissez-faire triumphalism of Newt Gingrich's so-called Republican Revolution.) But Bozell may be part of a trend. At the same show, I encountered a television news producer I know. She was so excited, she was practically shaking. "My two all-time heroes," she explained, "are Ronald Reagan and Bruce Springsteen." In a political sense, Springsteen is the anti-Reagan. In 1984, he responded quite angrily when Reagan, at the behest of columnist George Will, tried to appropriate "Born in the USA." (That was a foolish move on Reagan's and Will's part, since the tune, despite its up-beat tag line, was about the alienation and bitterness of veterans who had been sent to fight a pointless war in Vietnam. In concert these days, Springsteen reclaims the song by performing it solo as he originally conceived it -- a stark, haunting number with only an eerily reverbed acoustic guitar accompany his twangy vocals. No one could mistake it for a jingoistic, patriotic anthem.) Might there be a voting bloc political scientists will one day dub "Springsteen Republicans," a la Reagan Democrats?

At the core of Springsteen's music is the recognition that yearning is an essential part of life. That fundamental message appeals to those in different ideological and demographic categories. His imagery and poetry has that been of the working class male. But yuppie lawyers, soccer moms, and rightwing media analysts can identify with Springsteen's admonition that it is okay to reach far, to wish for much. And they are drawn to his sympathetic identification with those who fall short of their dreams. Perhaps candidate Springsteen could first reach people at this gut level -- and then persuade them to support a boost in the minimum wage, fair trade pacts, campaign finance reform, government funds for rebuilding economical distressed areas (a notion he has previously advocated), universal health coverage, and laws that bolster union organizing.

I will admit that the Springsteen-for-President cause is a long-shot. (Columnist Arianna Huffington has a much easier task pushing her Beatty-for-President project.) Springsteen always has shied away from conventional politics. As he told his Washington audience, he doesn't endorse presidential candidates. When he came to Washington in 1995  on his solo _Tom Joad_ tour, he turned down an offer to visit the White House of Bill Clinton. "In my opinion," he explained at the time, "the artist has to keep his distance." He is self-effacing and does not like to make promises he cannot keep. ("I can't promise you life ever after," he shouted as a mock-preacher at the MCI Center. "But I can promise you life right now.") In an interview several years ago, he told me, "I don't like the soapbox stuff. I don't believe you can tell people anything. You can show them things....I don't set out to make a point. I set out to create understanding and compassion."

In a time when Jesse Ventura can be viewed as a presidential contender, the field truly is wide open. Sure, Springsteen may not be as steeped in policy details as Al Gore or Bill Bradley. But he is just as thoughtful, if not more so. And aren't his leadership and communication skills more developed? Isn't he more sincere? Doesn't he empathize more with common voters? This hard-working working-class rocker who became a multimillionaire without any help from his father probably is too modest to seek the presidency. But there are other options. Beatty, should he enter the race, will need a running mate. And isn't there an open Senate seat in New Jersey? After all, that is a state with a history of electing to office someone who performs well in basketball arenas. Springsteen might be more born-to-run than he ever imagined.
 
 

Those Wacky Candidates

Does campaigning for President lower one's IQ? It is amazing how many howlers come from the wannabes. Take Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican whose late-entry into the race remains inexplicable (unless one attributes it to an outsized ego that causes him to bristle as he watches other GOPers win attention). Hatch is not a dumb man. In fact, he can be quite clever. But recently he said, "I am the first and only presidential candidate who is talking about improving race relations as part of our national dialogue." Doesn't Hatch read the paper? Bill Bradley has given a race speech practically every week since he entered the race early this year -- months before Hatch leaped in. Bradley's race shtick is a bit retro. He acts as if it's 1950 and he's just discovered there is a race problem. And what he proposes as a solution is mainly acknowledgment there is a problem and frank conversation. But he has been trying, and anyone following the presidential contest knows that. Quick -- tell me anything Hatch has said regarding race.

Then there's our perennial whipping-boy-ex-Vice-President. Not too long ago, when Quayle was on ABC's _This Week_ he argued that Texas Governor George W. Bush was a novice on the national stage and not of sufficient heft to go toe-to-toe with Gore or Bradley.  "You want somebody that has been tested," Quayle chirped. "You want somebody that has been in the crucible. You want somebody who has been in the line of fire, so to speak, on debating these issues. I debated Al Gore, rather enjoyed that evening in October of 1992. Al Gore is a very good debater."

Let's be glad Quayle had a good time that night. But here's what count: Quayle lost the election. This is his best selling point? That he has experience debating the fellow who helped boot him and President Bush out of White House?

Another great line occurred when Representative Tillie Fowler, a Republican from Florida who is supporting GOP candidate Elizabeth Dole, was asked if Dole should clarify her position on the creationism-versus-evolution debate. (Dole, who dares to be the first woman president, ducked taking a stand in this ideological tussle.) "I'm not really sure that's something [people] need to know," Folwler said. No need to know? In her stock campaign speech, Dole tells all about how she was treated at Harvard Law School decades ago. But as creationists across the country are making advances, Dole doesn't have to share her views on this matter? What about school prayer? Her position on that is probably classified as well.

Copyright © 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications.