The Political Interest

By Michael Kramer

BACK IN THE DARK AGES, WHEN VICE PRESIDENT SPIRO Agnew attacked the press as "nattering nabobs of negativism," Eugene McCarthy agreed with Agnew's critique but disagreed with his right to say it. Authentic advocacy requires standing, McCarthy argued, especially in politics, where any fool can speak and every fool does. If record and reputation defy one's rhetoric, even the right talk fails the heft test. The same standard applies to the current Vice President. It is not that Dan Quayle's family-values sermon missed the mark; much of what he said was right. It is that Quayle represents an Administration that has only rarely supported the programs that actually promote strong families -- everything from child care and parental leave to infant nutrition, Head Start, apprenticeship training, gun control and -- well, the list is almost endless. In a callous drone, the less fortunate have heard a single Republican note for 12 years: "You're on your own." Quayle's complaint may be smart politics -- the White House is convinced that the November election will be a three-way battle in which core conservatives will determine the outcome (and so is now suddenly urging a continuation of the "Reagan-Bush partnership"). But because of what two G.O.P. Administrations have failed to do, Quayle's calculated rant rings hollow and deserves little more than a bemused shake of the head.

Which about sums up New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley's reaction to Quayle's comments -- and unlike Quayle, Bradley possesses the requisite standing. Bradley has been talking about racial tensions for years, most recently in a series of speeches (before the Los Angeles riots) in which he castigated George Bush for "playing the politics of race while economic inequality increases."

Slumped in a chair in his Washington office last week, Bradley was depressed not only about the Administration's penchant for law-and-order solutions to the virtual exclusion of other remedies but also by the lack of an insightful & response on the part of his own Democratic Party. "I had hoped that L.A. would provide the opportunity for people to be candid with each other about the dimension of the problems as well as the aspects of the problems, and to treat them with urgency," said Bradley. "But that hasn't happened."

Bradley supports the better-than-nothing Democratic addition of $1.45 billion to the Administration's urban-emergency-aid bill but agrees with Boston Mayor Ray Flynn, who says that even that sum represents little more than "a small down payment" toward what's necessary. "To say that you don't need a massive investment of perhaps $20 billion a year to reclaim the cities is ludicrous," says Bradley, who has his own litany of prospective family- bolstering programs. The centerpiece is a proposal that would establish a nationwide network of "15-month homes" in which poor babies and their (typically) unwed mothers would be housed in order to provide a nurturing environment where cognitive stimulation would be emphasized. "The most important year for public investment is the first year of life," says Bradley. "You can get kids back on the right track later, but it's costlier and not as effective. Get them early, and the studies show you can increase their I.Q."

As just about every elected official hunts for programmatic answers, Bradley acknowledges that even if all his proposals were enacted tomorrow, the ugly core of the matter will survive as long as "white Americans resist relinquishing the sense of entitlement skin color has given them throughout our history." In other words, says Bradley, even "walking our talk" is insufficient. In essence, Bradley is after the hardest solution, attitudinal change, which the most enlightened government action can only marginally influence. "Every individual has to understand the extent to which each of us is central to healing our divisions," he says. "Until whites reject seeing most blacks as Willie Horton and blacks reject seeing most whites as Archie Bunker, there is no hope. Unless we remind each other of our common humanity, too many of us will continue to think of ourselves as islands of privilege and comfort."

Bradley suffers few illusions and so constantly hits at the interdependence of all Americans as the only realistic route toward capturing the public's imagination. "By the year 2000," he says, "only 57% of people entering the work force will be native-born whites. White Americans have to understand that their children's standard of living is inextricably bound to the future of millions of nonwhite children. To allow them to self-destruct because of penny-pinching or timidity about straight talk will make America a second-rate power." At the very least, says Bradley, the exercise of moral leadership demands that the President make the case for enlightened self-interest.

Yes, it feels and sounds a bit mushy, but as Bradley says, "When politicians don't talk about the reality that everyone knows exists, they cannot begin to lead us out of our current crisis." He, for one, is trying. It is past time for others to follow.