Let’s
be candid. If you identify yourself as a conservative, your first inclination
will probably be to vote for Republican candidate Bill Brady in the Illinois
governor’s race. I understand that. He covers some of the basic conservative
talking points: cutting spending, holding the line on taxes, “pro-life,”
pro-Second Amendment, pro-business.
That’s
the rhetoric. Now let’s look at the substance of his positions and see how they
compare with my own.
Bill
Brady proposes to balance the state budget by cutting spending 10 percent
across the board. He refuses to identify what programs he will actually cut
until after the election. This is not a conservative position.
First,
his math is wrong. A 10 percent cut in the operating budget won’t close the
currently $9.3 billion budget deficit (the latest figure after Gov. Quinn’s
devastating cuts imposed in July). You would need a nearly 40 percent cut in
spending to manage that. Second, the spending cuts enacted by the General
Assembly and the additional cuts imposed by Quinn have already had a
devastating impact on our public schools, colleges and universities and basic
services for people with disabilities, the elderly and children in need. The
far more drastic cuts proposed by Brady would be result in more of the same. It
would be catastrophic, not only to education, social services and public safety
but to employment, resulting in the loss of over 120,000 jobs.
In
my view, there is nothing “conservative” about destroying our public schools,
making higher education more and more unaffordable to lower and middle-income
working families, kicking people with physical and mental disabilities out of
assisted living facilities and onto the streets (which will end up costing more
money), compromising care for veterans, children and family services, daycare
(which helps people get off welfare and into work), natural resources, parks
and recreation, and public safety.
Cutting
spending that represents real waste – the waste of purchases, practices and
positions that are intended as political favors and that do not serve a
legitimate public purpose – is one thing. That’s why, while Bill Brady has
waffled on the issue, I support a thorough forensic audit of our state budget,
overseen by a commission of independent citizens. But the systematic
dismantling of the public sector, through deep across-the-board cuts to the
core functions of government, is something else again. That is not conserving;
it is destroying – destroying human lives and the very fabric of our society.
It is not a conservative position; it is a radical position, representing the
radical right wing of the corporate and banking interests that would like to
destroy the public sector altogether, use taxpayer money for private
profiteering, sell off or give away public assets, and create a new generation
of workers who are uneducated, ignorant, desperate and accepting of poverty
wages.
In
sharp contrast, my platform is one of fiscal responsibility, of both spending
cuts carefully targeted at real waste, and raising the revenue needed to
restore health to the core functions of government – education, health,
infrastructure, public safety and social services for those unable to fully
care for themselves. I support the concept of investing in people, to enable
them to be more productive members of society; the kinds of public policies
that can help the private sector to flourish and create more employment
opportunities. I support raising this revenue through a fair system of
taxation, a system that places more of the tax burden on those more able to
pay, and less of the tax burden on those least able to pay – a basic principle
that goes back to Adam Smith. My plan also includes a dedicated stream of
funding for education, along with real property tax relief provided by the
state. Mine is the more true conservative position.
Bill
Brady has supported the teaching of creationism in the public schools. This is
also a radical, not a conservative, position. The true conservative supports
our country’s tradition of upholding civil liberties, including the principle
that it is not the proper role of government to promote religious beliefs. The
true conservative wants America to excel in the sciences and technology, not
have its education of these subjects compromised by religious dogma or
literalism.
When
it comes to the hot-button issue of abortion, Bill Brady is an extremist,
favoring a ban on abortion even in cases of rape and incest. My position is
that the best way to reduce the frequency of abortion is through social
policies that will reduce the frequency of unwanted pregnancies and that make
it more feasible for mothers and fathers to support and raise their children –
and not by criminalizing all abortion (which is not possible under Roe v. Wade anyway). Bill Brady’s
budgetary proposals and views on education would move us in the opposite
direction. While some conservatives will not be satisfied by my position, it
will be more effective in reducing the frequency of abortion than Brady’s
radical approach.
On
the issue of gambling, Bill Brady has recently come out in opposition to an
expansion of gambling in Illinois by opposing legislation authorizing video
poker throughout the state. I welcome his change on the issue – but it is a
recent conversion. When the issue came up for a vote in 2007, he was present
but did not cast a vote. He supported placing another casino in the City of
Chicago. Considering that his campaign has received thousands of dollars from
casino corporations, this should not come as a complete surprise. Even his
opposition to video poker is more the product of his allegiance to the casino
interests rather than the product of a principled opposition to gambling.
In
contrast, I oppose any and all expansion of gambling and will work toward
reinstating prohibitions on most forms of gambling, including the state lottery,
as soon as we have restored fiscal stability to our state. I oppose gambling as
a hidden tax on the poor, the ignorant and the desperate. I reject the notion
that it is good for our economy. Every dollar taken in by gambling is one less
dollar being spent on food, clothing and other products and commodities that
are more useful to consumers and producers alike. When we also consider the
social costs of more bankruptcies, crime, blight, domestic conflict and
divorce, substance abuse, and other secondary effects of gambling, it becomes
clear that gambling harms our economy and budget far more than it helps it.
On
the Second Amendment, Bill Brady and I both support the right of law-abiding
citizens to possess firearms, including the right to carry firearms. However, I
realize that in order to get a right-to-carry bill passed, we also have to
recognize the political realities of strong local opposition in and around Cook
County. Therefore, I propose that a right-to-carry bill should also include a
provision allowing individual counties to opt out. That is the only way we are
going to get a right-to-carry bill passed in Illinois in the foreseeable
future. In addition, I take a much stronger position on other steps needed to
reduce violent crime in our state, addressing the social causes of violent
crime and the need to crack down on illegal gun sales on the streets.
On
the issues of ethics reform and clean, responsive government, Bill Brady now
says that he favors campaign contribution limits and an end to corporate and
union contributions. However, he voted against the ethics reform bill passed
last fall that placed limits on campaign contributions and he says nothing
about the important issue of ending campaign committee transfers. While voting
against ethics reform, he voted in favor of an amendment that blew a gaping
loophole in the bill. One provision in the bill prohibited businesses that have
or seek state contracts worth more than $50,000 from donating to officeholders
in charge of awarding such contracts. Brady voted in favor of an amendment that
exempted road and other transportation contractors from having to comply. This
is an “exception” that almost swallows the rule.
There
is no reason to suppose that electing Brady as governor will end pay-to-play or
the practice of awarding political favors to big donors. There is every reason
to believe that such practices would continue; only favoring the Republican
gang over the Democratic gang. A recent Chicago Tribune investigation found
that Brady voted on three separate occasions for bills that could impact his
personal business. He has used his position to favor political supporters. He
used his clout to help students gain admittance to the University of Illinois
and gave a legislative scholarship to the daughter of a man who gave his
campaign $12,000.
I
will fight to end pay-for-play in Illinois. I favor a ban on “soft money”
contributions, more stringent campaign finance limits on donations in Illinois,
a complete bar on contractor donations, and limits on the transfer of funds
from party leadership to candidates. I also favor a ban on corporate campaign
contributions in Illinois. Despite the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the
Citizens United case, we can effectively bar corporate interference in the
political process by reinvigorating our corporate chartering laws to require
corporations to waive their so-called right to engage in political speech.
True
conservatives need to look carefully at Bill Brady’s platform and the
generalized nature of his campaign promises. Look at his website. He makes
vague, general statements, like: “Today’s tax policies make the state’s climate
worse than most others in the nation for job-creating businesses. Bill Brady
will turn that around and bring jobs into Illinois.” Does he explain how he
will “turn that around”? No.
In
contrast, I provide detailed explanations of my stances on the issues. Even
when you don’t agree with me, you know what I am fighting for, and why. Bill
Brady, like his opponent, generally avoids doing that. By keeping his
statements vague, he allows himself plenty of “wiggle room.” This is one way in
which Democratic and Republican politicians have long kept liberals and
conservatives alike in their respective camps — even though they rarely follow
through on either the best of liberal ideas or the best of conservative ideas.
What
the Democratic and Republican parties and their candidates really represent are
slightly different versions of the same corporatist agenda. That is, they push
the agenda of the same financial institutions and multinational corporations
that fund both parties and their candidates. Thus, while they seem to differ on
ideology, that’s just for show. There is very little difference between what
Democratic and Republican officeholders actually do in office.
The
true conservative may not agree with me on every issue. The true conservative
will not agree with any candidate on every issue. But on balance, when it comes
to the most important issues — responsible budgeting, fair taxation, providing
the fullest educational and economic opportunities, supporting Second Amendment
rights in an effective way, rolling back gambling, ending machine politics,
providing ethical and responsive government and truly conserving our
environment and our civil liberties – the true conservative has many good
reasons to favor me over Bill Brady in the November election.
Rich Whitney of Carbondale is the Green Party candidate for governor. To read Whitney’s complete paper on “Why true conservatives should vote for me,” go here.
This article appears in Sep 9-15, 2010.
