Baker Looking To Upset Pollack
Baker Looking to Upset Pollack
EDITOR'S NOTE: Early in May, Second District Democratic Congressional candidates, Lana Pollack and Dean Baker, were invited to debate each other in the form of a written interview for the July issue of AGENDA. The original format called for each candidate to pose three questions and then to answer all six. When Pollack refused to participate, AGENDA re-designed the format and asked Baker three questions we thought voters had on their minds.
The winner of the August 2 primary will face incumbent Republican Carl Pursell in the November general election.
AGENDA: Given that your opponent in the Democratic primary, Lana Pollack, has a huge campaign war chest, a liberal reputation, name recognition, and years of legislative experience, why are you pursuing the Congressional seat?
BAKER: We can offer the hope of empowering the vast majority of the electorate who have seen their votes become almost meaningless alongside the dollars given by wealthy contributors. It is difficult to see why we should be deterred in our efforts simply because a local politician running for the same seat has solicited several hundred thousand dollars from wealthy contributors, her "liberal" reputation notwithstanding. Politics has come to be so dominated by conventional big money campaigns, that if we win the Congressional seat, it will shake up the political structure throughout the country (as did Jackson's victory in the caucuses). We cannot let the electoral arena be permanently ceded to those who represent the interests of the rich.
Progressives in this district have worked hard over the last several years to build opposition to Reagan's right-wing policies. One of the ways in which this movement demonstrated its strength has been its efforts to target Carl Pursell and his pro-Reagan voting record. As a result of our petitioning, protesting, and 1986 Congressional campaign, we have succeeded in making Pursell's seat one of the most seriously contested in the country. It would be a significant victory for the progressive movement if we actually remove him from office.
In addition to attacking big money politics, our campaign also offers the hope of changing the national agenda in a number of areas. We are not afraid to raise the issue of cutting aid to Israel to force it to respect Palestinian rights, or the issues of widespread human rights violations committed by the Duarte and Aquino governments in El Salvador and the Philippines respectively. Domestically, we seem to be the only folks in sight (apart from Jackson) willing to discuss taking back Reagan's massive tax breaks for the rich and large corporations, which certainly calls into question Pollack's liberal reputation. Those of us working in the campaign have years of experience fighting for progressive causes. We understand the nature of the obstacles to progressive change in government, the media, and the Democratic party. These are formidable obstacles, but we stand a better chance than someone who doesn't even have this as their agenda.
The differences between our campaigns can be seen from what took place on the day of the Democratic Presidential caucus last March. Most of us were working with the Jackson campaign, where we registered over 1000 voters en route to victory. Meanwhile Mary Reilly, Lana Pollack's fundraiser, was running a caucus site doing everything in her power to keep people from registering voters (registering voters is a legal practice during caucuses). Reilly even threatened to have a deputy registrar arrested at one point. Our campaign is about giving people a voice, not silencing them.
As a final point, Pollack's refusal to debate bears a disturbing resemblance to Pursell's refusal to hold a public meeting to discuss his votes on Central America. With Pollack moving down this same path before she is even elected, it is difficult to see how she can present a credible alternative.
AGENDA: If elected to Congress, what would be your top domestic priority? What would be your top foreign policy priority?
BAKER: Clearly the top domestic priority must be the reversal of the priorities of the Reagan Administration. It is essential that funding be restored to areas of social spending such as housing, education, child care, and health care which have seen enormous cuts in the Reagan years. Since the deficit is already over 150 billion dollars, funding increases in these areas will be possible only with large cuts in the military budget (approximately $70 billion) and with restoration of tax rates for the very rich and large corporations to their pre-Reagan levels. This would allow us to bring the deficit into line and have the funds needed for improved social services. It is unfortunate that most politicians who advocate increased funding for social services don't have any idea of how to pay for them.
I would like to see the United States re-orient the general outlines of its foreign policy towards one that respects the right of other nations to self-determination. Obviously one place where such a re-orientation would have an immediate impact is Central America. If the U.S. is still giving aid to the contras I would work hard to cut it off, as I would with aid to the repressive governments in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.
In Southern Africa, the United States should stop providing aid to the South African proxy force UNITA, which has destabilized the Angolan government. At the same time it should stop blocking U.N. efforts to end South Africa's occupation of Namibia. It also must get serious about opposing Apartheid in South Africa. Since South Africa has stepped up its worldwide campaign of terror again against opponents of Apartheid as well as cracking down further on the domestic opposition, the U.S. should impose a complete trade embargo on South Africa.
The U.S. government is currently providing over three billion dollars per year to Israel to finance such activities as burying Palestinian teenagers alive and beating them with heavy rocks. We cannot just sit by as it employs massive repression against the Palestinian population. U.S. aid should be cut back until Israel respects Palestinian rights.
AGENDA: In the 1986 Congressional race, incumbent Carl Pursell won 79,567 votes to your 55,204 votes, roughly a 59% to 41% margin. In light of those results, how would you beat Pursell in the November, 1988 election?
BAKER: The 1986 race, in which we captured 41% of the vote, was an incredible improvement over the 1984 race, when the Democratic candidate received only 30% of the vote. Since it is generally believed to be almost impossible for a candidate to win on his/her first run for Congress, our performance was quite impressive and has brought nationwide attention to the district. There are several advantages we have going for us this year over 1986.
First, having run once before in the district, we have gained a great deal of knowledge about the district. We know where we can expect to make significant inroads, and we have people in every corner of the district who are prepared to help us. We didn't have this sort of network when we began the 1986 campaign, rather it was built up in the course of the campaign.
Second, we have established ourselves to some extent around the district. People have come to know and trust us. Again this is something that was accomplished in the course of the last campaign. After winning the primary we first had to deal with rumors that it was a LaRouchie campaign and other such nonsense; we won't have the same sort of problems this time.
Third, we've learned a great deal about what to expect from the media, the Democratic Party, and Carl Pursell. In 1986 we underestimated the media's ability to distort the campaign, the venality of hostile Democratic party leaders (who were opposed to a Democratic campaign which challenged even the Democratic Party), and Pursell's lack of integrity. For example, it actually surprised us that Pursell would engage in crude red-baiting tactics reminiscent of Joe McCarthy (and that supposedly respectable newspapers like the Ann Arbor News and the Detroit Free Press did not comment on it).
Fourth, the results in 1986 were somewhat skewed by the turnout, which saw a disproportionate number of Republican voters in a year with a very low overall turnout. With this being a presidential year, the number of people voting should be up considerably, and Democrats who stayed home in 1986 are likely to come out this year.
Finally, we will have gained a great deal from the opportunity to defeat Lana Pollack in the primary. The media has done everything possible to downplay our electoral successes thus far. When we defeat Lana Pollack it will no longer be possible for them to deny the seriousness of our campaign. This will give us enormous momentum going into the fall and will undoubtedly assure the campaign significant national attention.
BAKER