U.S. Senate - Bernie Sanders
To some people, he’s a stalwart defender of civil liberties speaking out against an increasingly shrill and narrow-minded definition of patriotism that equates dissent with terrorism. To others, he’s a socialist (read: communist) and symbol of America’s political degradation at the hands of the northeastern liberal elite. To Vermonters of both camps, however, he is known simply as Bernie, and there’s no getting past the accent.
With Jim Jeffords’ retirement, U.S. Representative Bernie Sanders is poised to quadruple the impact of that memorable voice by moving from his current 435-member chamber to the hallowed halls of the 100-seat Senate. So what does Bernie with a filibuster look like?
“That’s a very good question,” he said, with a hearty laugh as we sat down in a back office of his Burlington campaign headquarters for an interview. “I’m very proud of the record that I’ve established in the House of Representatives on many, many issues – certainly women’s issues. Not only do all senators have more power than members of the House, but the rules of the Senate lend themselves to some of my strengths, which are a willingness to stand up, be counted, and to fight for what is right.”
To critics’ claims that his bombastic nature might not transfer well to the gentility of the Senate, Sanders pointed to a history of collaboration with both parties, including founding the Progressive Coalition, and pulling together “right-left” coalitions on issues like civil liberties.
Congress and Party Politics
With the endorsement of the state and national Democratic parties, including a statewide petition drive to include his name in the Democratic primary, some people wonder why Sanders doesn’t do as his protégé former Burlington mayor Peter Clavelle did in 2002 and simply run as a Democrat. “Because I am not, simple answer. I’m proud to be an Independent,” he said. “The question should really be, why would I change at this stage in my career? And I’m not going to. I will vote for Democratic leadership, and take my committee assignments with the Democrats, which is what I have done in the House, but I am an Independent and I will stay an Independent.”
And though Sanders describes the current parties as right-wing extremists versus centrists, he believes returning the reigns of Congressional leadership to Democrats is essential to countering the actions of the Bush Administration. “They have minimized and degraded the role of the U.S. Congress. In many ways, the Republican leadership in Congress – rather than acting as an independent branch of government with all of the oversight capabilities provided by the Constitution – has essentially operated as a rubber stamp [to the president],” he said.
“I think there is no question that if you have people like Patrick Leahy (D-VT) as chairman of the judiciary in the Senate, and John Conyers (D-MI) as chairman of the judiciary in the House, you will begin the process of holding this White House accountable. Whether it is Katrina, the Medicare bill, the lack of preparation for the war in Iraq, [or] the more fundamental question of how we got to Iraq in the first place, the questions have never been asked. Will the Democrats ask them? Yes they will.”
Given Sanders’ voting and rhetorical record, many Vermonters were surprised at his initial hesitation this past spring to sign onto the Conyers-sponsored House Resolution 635 following affirmative votes in support of impeaching President Bush in five Vermont towns. “It was not a resolution for impeachment, that’s one of the reasons I hesitated,” Sanders explained. “What it talked about was the need for investigations and hearings about a range of issues, and that is absolutely imperative; that is what we have to do. Impeachment can only come after a series of ascertainments about the conduct of the President, and unfortunately, the Republican leadership has done virtually none of that work.”
If he had been in the Senate this session, however, Sanders said it is likely that he would have signed onto Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) motion for censuring Bush over the National Security Administration’s warrantless wiretapping. Although Jeffords signed onto a motion to censure President Clinton, both of Vermont’s current senators have declined to join Feingold’s effort as of yet.
Energy & Environment
With Jeffords’ retirement, Vermont is losing a well-respected voice on the Environment and Public Works Committee, but Sanders is confident that his record on the environment is comparable, if not stronger, than Jeffords’. “I have a 100 percent voting record from USPIRG, the endorsement of all the environmental organizations […] I’ve been a leader in Congress in the fight to move us away from fossil fuels to sustainable energy, to stop the pollution of our air, and water, and expect to continue to be a leader in the Senate,” he said.
Sanders recently introduced an omnibus energy reform bill calling for an overhaul in national energy policy to refocus on conservation, efficiency, and sustainability, and he often talks about the issue in economic terms. “The point I am trying to make is there are some people who say there is this terrible trade-off: yes, we want to protect the environment, but it’s going to cost us all kinds of good-paying jobs, what are we going to do?” Sanders said. “And that is not really the case. You have to move boldly to protect the environment, you have no choice, because we aren’t going to leave much of a planet for our kids and grandchildren. But the good news is, if we do it wisely, we can in the process create millions of good-paying jobs.”
Investing in efficiency and weatherization programs, for example, saves money through conservation while creating good-paying jobs, Sanders said. He also pointed to the potential for developing an infrastructure for hydrogen cars, an increase in production of more efficient solar panels, and investing in wind turbines, geothermal, and biofuels.
Agriculture
Although Sanders’ presumed opponent on election day, Richard Tarrant, has occasionally called for the federal government to stop subsidizing agriculture altogether, Sanders believes that maintaining food security requires the federal government. “I don’t want to see the day come when we become dependent on foreign countries for our food and we don’t want to be dependent, as we are with oil, on a handful of large multinational agribusiness corporations who control the production and distribution of food.” Sanders said. “One of the top priorities I have is trying to maintain family-based agriculture, not just in dairy, but in other commodities all over this country.”
Sanders would also like to see greater emphasis on creating a regional food infrastructure and moving more towards organics, citing his early opposition to the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBST), “which I think history is showing was the right decision,” he said. “One of the things we should not be doing is providing huge amounts of funding for corporate welfare and large agribusiness; [we should] convert that into funding for small family farms.”
Corporate Control of Media
The insufficient coverage of one of Sanders’ signature issues is logical, if lamentable, when you consider that his critique falls squarely on the shoulders of those charged with publicizing it, namely the mainstream media. “I held the very first town meeting on corporate control of the media,” he recalled proudly, “bringing people from the Federal Communications Commission here with 600 people to speak about what is going on in terms of the media.” And what is going on, Sanders said, is a blunt and bold attempt by a right-wing extremist administration to intimidate the media.
“When you have an important member of U.S. House of Representatives say that The New York Times is treasonous for doing what their job is, to report what goes on in this country, then you very clearly have an effort to try to silence the media,” Sanders said, referring to statements made by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. “Now, my own view is if the media was doing half the job they were supposed to be doing, we would not be in Iraq today. But clearly what they did is become stenographers for the Bush administration [and] now the Bush Administration is accelerating its fight against the media.”
Sanders was careful to note that it isn’t just the threat of prosecution stifling the First Amendment, but also the consolidation of media ownership. “The loss of net neutrality will make it harder for small, independent media outlets to be heard in this country,” he said.
Health Care
In the rhetoric of health care reform, critics of so-called “socialized” medicine paint Sanders, a democratic socialist, as the ultimate evil. For the record, Sanders supports a national healthcare program administered at the state level, pointing to Dr. Dynasaur as a successful example. “People don’t like to refer to it as a single-payer system, but it is a state administered single-payer health insurance program for our children, and you know what? It’s a very good program,” he said. “Could it be better? Yes, it could. Is it cost effective? Yes. Is it doing what it is able to do? Yes. The State of Vermont should be very proud that we provide the best coverage for our children of any state in the union, and in general, I would like to see that kind of program expanded to include people in the entire state.”
Sanders opposes deregulating the health insurance industry because he believes it will result in a great deal of “cherry-picking” of younger and healthier people, leaving the public sector obliged to pick up the costs for everyone else. While he acknowledged the risk of conservative states choosing not to provide parity of coverage, particularly for reproductive services, Sanders suggested that the alternative would be worse. “If you gave the federal government all the power right now, you’d be worse off. So the issue here is to fight for the right to choice, to educate and organize on that.”
Choice, Politics and Science
With his literature proclaiming Sanders the most “pro-woman candidate,” he has set a high bar of expectations, but again pointed to his record as proof, beginning with his endorsements by NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and Gloria Steinem’s previous campaign visits to Vermont. He also listed his 100 percent voting record on choice by NARAL, support for expanding battered women’s shelters, and increasing funding for women’s small business centers as accomplishments to back up the claim.
Of the FDA’s delay in allowing over-the-counter access to emergency contraception access, he again pointed to the legacy of the Bush Administration. “What you have right now is the most reactionary and incompetent administration in the history of our country, and one of the things they have done – far and beyond the circumstance you talk about – is inject in an unprecedented way, politics into all aspects of science, which is an absolute outrage,” he said. “Whether it is global warming, or abortion issues, or breast cancer, they have injected politics into it. We have an administration that puts ideology above science in this case and we need to elect people into the United States Senate and House who are going to stop these people from doing what they’re doing.”
Conclusion
Sanders has received more than 60 percent of the vote in every election since 1998, but whether that love affair will continue and propel him into the Senate is not entirely clear. Sanders, for one, takes nothing for granted and has characteristically put together a large grassroots staff, both in terms of numbers and geographic outreach. Recent polls show support for Tarrant increasing, but Sanders is still over 60; the Senate might just have to learn to deal with some lefty bombast for a few years.
