Comments to the Democratic Summit
October 8, 2005
Sun River, Oregon
“The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines … each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly what should be said on the vital issues of the day. …
We propose to face the real and great questions of the day, not skillfully evade them as do the old, parties. We propose to raise aloft a standard to which all honest men can repair, and under which all can fight, no matter what their past political differences, if they are content to face the future and no longer dwell among the dead issues of the past.
Theodore Roosevelt: Confession of Faith speech, August 6, 1912
Although these words come to us across almost a century, they might well have been uttered today without losing any of their accuracy: A nation divided along artificial lines – red states and blue states. Two political parties, neither of which dares to speak out wisely and fearlessly what should be said on vital issues, both skillfully evading the real and great questions of the day, dwelling among the dead issues of the past rather than facing the future.
While that view may not be shared by many in this room, I believe that it is the view of our two major political parties that is held by a growing number of our citizens. And if this party, our party, the Democratic Party, hopes to play a role of leadership in this new century—providing a beacon of hope for the common goals and aspirations of our citizens, and a vehicle through which the effort to achieve those goals can find meaningful expression – then our party must become the party that dares to say what must be said, the party that squarely confronts the real and great questions of the day, the party that seeks to deal with the world as it is, not as it once was, the party that has the courage to reach for the possible rather than simply clinging to the familiar.
Let me start by asking you some pointed questions. The title of our summit today is “Winning the West.” And this general session is called “Challenge for Change: A Road Map for Democrats to Reclaim the Majority.” So, my first question is “why?” Why will the West—and by implication, Oregon— be “won” if the Democrats can just somehow regain the majority?
My point here is that it is important not to confuse means with ends. Is regaining a democratic majority an end, or it is a means to an end? Because if it has become an end then we are really off track, and not only is our party in a lot of trouble, it is also a big part of the problem.
Let me ask you a question. How many of you would say that the objective of our health care system should be universal coverage – to ensure that all of our citizens have access to health care? [pause, most hands raise] … Well, I disagree. I believe that the objective of our health care system is – or certainly should be—health, not just the financing and delivery of health care. Why? Because health care is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It has no intrinsic value outside its relationship to health, except as an economic commodity – which, unfortunately, is pretty much how our current system views it.
By the same token, there is no intrinsic value in electing Democrats outside their relationship to … what? To a set of principles, to a set of values, to a set of objectives. Principles and values and objectives which will capture and encompass the common goals and aspirations of our citizens, and which will move us forward together as an Oregon community.
I am emphasizing this point because I can’t tell you how many times over the course of the past decade—I have heard legislators (of both parties) talk about “gaining control” or not “losing control.” And I can’t tell you how many times I have witnessed legislators (again of both parties) refusing to cast a vote for or against a particular issue—not because of the merits of the policy involved—but because doing so might have repercussion at the ballot box, because that particular vote might prevent them from gaining control or retaining control, it might jeopardize their majority or their chances of reclaiming it.
You know, in 2004 we finally did get “control” of the senate, after ten years in the minority, but, and with all due respect, I am not sure what we did with it. As far as I can tell there were 18 different agendas—not a clearly defined Democratic agenda—we didn’t take risks, we didn’t draw lines, we kept our heads down … we were in the majority but we were not in control.
Means versus ends. The objective here is not simply gaining the majority but, rather, what it would mean—for our state and our future—if the Democrats were able to gain the majority. And not just a numerical majority, but a governing majority, a majority that stands for something; and a majority that is willing to take risks in order to achieve it.
So, here is the real question—the thing about which Democrats need to be crystal clear: what are the ideas and the principles for which we are willing to lose an election, for which we are willing to risk losing an election, for which we are willing to risk the majority? And if we cannot answer that question then—from the standpoint of this state and its future—it makes little difference who is in the majority or who is in control.
Now, my second question—which continues in the vein of the first—involves the “The Karen Minnis Take Back the House Project.” [Karen Minnis was the Republican Speaker of the House 2003-2007]. Why Karen Minnis? I think we’ve got the wrong target and the wrong issue here. The target isn’t Karen Minnis—she isn’t the problem, she is a symptom of the problem. The problem, from the standpoint of this party, is that she managed to get elected in a district with an eight-point democratic registration edge because, for whatever reason, her message was more compelling to the voters of that district than was ours.
And the fact that she used her power as Speaker to control the legislative agenda is the wrong issue. Did she get in the way of certain bills? Absolutely. Did she bury bills in committee? No question about it. But guess what? I did exactly the same thing during the eight years I was Senate President—from “right to work” legislation, to proposals that would have undermined our ability to manage growth through our land use planning system, to bills that assaulted a woman’s right to choose. The only difference is that most of you agreed with me.
We can’t be hypocrites here. We want to distinguish ourselves from the other side—right? Not blend in with them. So, the problem is not a presiding officer who exercises power to shape the agenda, the problem is that we have to make a better case to voters for why it is important to elect Democrats. The problem here is not Karen Minnis or the Republicans. The problem is our own party and our own message. The problem lies in the lack of clarity about what we stand for, about what we are willing to lose for. If we have to make a procedural argument to voters in order to unseat a speaker, then our ideas aren’t good enough. We need better ideas.
And we have them. The long proud history of this party has been about ideas—ideas in service of the American Dream. Ideas like Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare and Medicaid and landmark environmental legislation like the Clean Air and the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. These ideas—and the programs through which we have sought to realize them—constitute not just our connection with the past but also our contract with the future. They are ideas and programs which speak to the promise of opportunity that lies at the heart of the American Dream.
It is this promise that brought people to our country, and to this state, in the first place. It is what motivates them to make the extra effort, it is what allows people to dream and to believe in upward mobility, to believe that if they work hard they can better themselves and the future they will leave to their children.
Over the past generation, however, this ladder of opportunity that is our country’s greatness, has had its rungs systematically sawed through. The symptoms of this are all around us: the remarkable disinvestment in education, affordable housing, health care that actually produces health, at risk children, job training and long-term environmental stewardship, to mention but a few. Our party has been accused of wanting to redistribute wealth—but that is exactly what has happened, except the redistribution has resulted in greater disparities and greater inequality, not greater opportunity.
The great challenge facing the Democratic Party is to rediscover and rebuild the ladder of opportunity. It is something that everyone can visualize, that everyone can understand, and with which everyone can resonate at a deep and personal level. Education, health, living wage jobs, sustainable economic development, sound environmental stewardship and—most of all—the rekindling of our sense of community, concern and connection with one another. These are the rungs of the ladder that need to be restored.
The challenge of doing so, however, is complicated by the fact that the great programs this party has championed in the past are becoming obstacles to the very objectives we seek and, in some cases, to the values we espouse. And it is this contradiction that our party must squarely face.
Today our state and our nation are ungovernable—something I am not shy about pointing out. It was true four years ago, and it is even truer today. And the symptoms of this are all around us as well: polarization, paralysis and an almost toxic environment that puts partisanship above citizenship and short-term political gain above long-term sustainable solutions.
This troubling situation is due not so much to the people involved, but rather to the programs and structures on which we rely to advance the common good. If this party is to regain its position of leadership, then we must be willing to take on not only these structures and programs, but the constituencies which have grown up around them. Let me offer an example.
As many of you have heard me say in other settings, that I believe that the growing crisis in our health care system is the single most pressing domestic challenge facing us today—not just because of the growing number of citizens who are unable to afford timely access to needed care, but because of the implications and opportunity costs of committing an ever-increasing portion of our resources to this one sector.
But what we need to understand here is that the uninsured—including 600,000 uninsured Oregonians—are a symptom of the problem—the real problem lies in our financing and eligibility structure, it is embedded in our delivery system and in the assumptions which underlie programs like Medicare and Medicaid, both of which reflect the realities of the last century rather than the realities of today.
Medicare is an entitlement program that begins at retirement, regardless of the financial means of the retiree, and it is financed largely through taxes paid by those who are still working. Forty years ago, when it was enacted, poverty among the elderly was twice that of the general population—and Medicare was a noble effort to ensure financial access to care for older citizens. In other words, the program made eminent sense in 1965, and accurately reflected the values and objectives of the Democratic Party.
The problem is that the economic, demographic and clinical environment in which this program operates has changed dramatically over the last four decades, yet we still cling tenaciously to a set of assumptions that are no longer valid. Whereas forty years ago, those over the age of 65 were the single poorest segment of our society, today they constitute the single wealthiest segment, followed only by those between 55 and 65. Because Medicare is not means tested, however, all retirees are entitled to publicly financed health care paid for, in part, by workers, many of whom cannot afford health care for themselves and their families.
Medicaid, on the other hand—also enacted 40 years ago—provides financial access to health care, but only for certain categories of poor citizens. These categories, established by Congress, include poor families with dependent children who are on welfare, the blind and those with other disabilities, the frail elderly in need of long-term care, and certain categories of pregnant women.
Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is not an entitlement program. Eligibility for Medicaid is based on “category,” not on financial need—and thus many poor citizens are ineligible, even though they may be deeply impoverished. In other words, our system makes a distinction between the “deserving poor,” those who fit into a category, and the “undeserving poor,” those who do not.
Our continued support of these programs—as they were structured in the last century—puts our party into conflict with our stated values. We talk about progressivity, equal opportunity and social justice—while supporting programs which force poor uninsured working Americans to subsidize the health care needs of wealthy retirees.
We talk about a commitment to the poor while supporting programs which make arbitrary distinctions between equally impoverished groups of citizens. Certainly, there are many poor elderly citizens who need and deserve publicly subsidized health care. But there are many children and working Americans who deserve exactly the same thing, yet are entitled to nothing.
If we hope to lead in this new century then we must come to terms with these contradictions. We must challenge the structures and assumptions of some of our most cherished programs—not just in the area of social services, but in education, public safety, environmental stewardship and economic development as well.
Challenging these programs, however, also means challenging the powerful political lobbies which have grown up around them—many of which have traditionally supported the Democratic Party. We must find the courage to lead our base, not simply react to it. And we need to broaden our base by focusing on solving common problems, rather than simply defending programs.
We must stop viewing Americans as members of voting blocs and begin to view them as citizens. But voting blocs are often associated with programs and, thus, in order to gain the support of the voting bloc, we defend the programs, in spite of the fact that, in many cases, they not only contradict our stated values, but also inhibit us from solving the very problem the programs were initially designed to address.
We must not allow the civic debate in our state and our country to be defined by our fears and our differences. We must provide the leadership necessary to define it in terms of our hopes, our shared values, and our common aspirations as members—not of political parties—but of a community.
It is time for the Democratic Party to face the facts and seize the future.
Electing Democrats must become synonymous with a new kind of leadership—leadership which aligns its stated values with the policies and programs it supports, leadership willing and eager to say what must be said, to tell citizens what they need to hear, not just what they want to hear:
that there is no free lunch, that we cannot continue to push our difficult political choices into the future, that we cannot continue to pay for today’s programs by putting the tab on our children’s credit card.
Leadership that refuses to subordinate principle and community values to electoral politics or short-term partisan advantage. In other words, leadership that is willing to lead, to be accountable, consistent and courageous. Leadership that is willing to risk it all to restore the promise of opportunity, to rebuild the Oregon Community.
