Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Death Of A Liberal's Liberal
By Mike Bayham
October 25, 2002

This column is not known for offering praise for many Democrats let alone an arch-liberal who has spent his political career advancing a leftist ideology that is totally contrarian to my conservative beliefs. However there is a difference between disagreeing with the political philosophy of a public official and respecting an altruistic person who happens to think a different way. It is entirely possible to hold a person in high esteem while at the same time refusing to ever cast a ballot for him.

This is certainly the case of the late Minnesota US Senator Paul Wellstone, who died only days before the election for his bid for a third term.

There are few issues I saw eye to eye with Paul Wellstone. If I were to write down ten political issues that were nearest and dearest to my heart and added the prefix "anti" in front of them then you would have his philosophy. Wellstone was against everything I was for and for everything I was against. Despite the large philosophical gulf between his views and mine, Paul Wellstone had my admiration for many reasons.

In a Machiavellian way I thought his presence in the US Senate was a good thing for Republicans because he was a forceful voice from the most liberal faction of his party and always fought to keep the Democrats "honest," meaning staying true to the left of the more pragmatic Clintonian group. When the bulk of the Democratic political establishment went with Gore in the 2000 Democratic primaries, Wellstone was one of Bill Bradley's earliest (the first member of Congress to do so) and most enthusiastic supporters.

Politics aside, I found him to be a very sincere political leader who stood his ground, whether the opposition was coming from the GOP or his own party. He had strong convictions, those being the good kind concerning his feelings, not the ones that have sent more than a few politicians to jail.

I first heard of Paul Wellstone while watching the Congressional election returns as a tenth grader at Holy Cross. Though my favorite candidate for election that year was returned to office (North Carolina US Senator Jesse Helms), I was somewhat chagrined to see that some kinky haired, liberal, prairie state academic had defeated an incumbent Republican US Senator in Minnesota.

Wellstone caught my attention that night, though he later would receive my respect for his consistent championing of matters that members of his own party would not embrace for fear of electoral repercussions. Wellstone did not see his election as a way to set himself up for life with a nice pension or entrench himself as a member of the "club" but did what too many politicians forget to do after they are sworn in: use their time in office to make as much of a difference as possible. Wellstone's purpose in government was not self-political perpetualization but to enact measures that he believed were right.

Rather than being concerned with political entrenchment, Wellstone was more interested in making a difference regardless of the political cost of his actions. He was like the born-again liberal Warren Beatty "Bullworth" character except he did not have to regain his basic ideals after losing sight of them: Wellstone never sold out in the first place.

With Wellstone's death, along with the retirement of Helms and Strom Thurmond and the primary defeat of New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith, the US Senate will enter 2003 with four of its most polarizing statesmen departed from the Capitol. The timing of the tragedy has added an additional wrinkle to what is already a complex situation for Minnesota voters.

Unlike the infamous Carnahan-Ashcroft election in 2000, there is a law on the books that covers situations such as this and there are only a handful of days to replace Wellstone's name on the ballot with a new Democratic contender. Also, because Wellstone's wife perished with him along with his daughter in the plane crash, the traditional policy of appointing the spouse of a sitting official is not applicable.

There has been talk of Walter Mondale offering himself up as a potential last-minute candidate and the statement he gave on the day of Wellstone's death is similar to the cryptic yet opportunist speech that Jean Carnahan gave at her late husband's funeral. What happens with the Democratic-Farm-Labor candidate slot on the ballot will be played out in the next few days.

There is one thing that has been speculated that will not happen: retiring Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura has stated unequivocally that he will not appoint himself to fill the vacant seat for the "lame duck" Congressional session between the election and January 2003. Whether he appoints the winning candidate or someone not connected with Wellstone or the US Senate race all together is another unknown matter that will be determined in the near future, likely after the election.

However, Ventura's selection, depending on the Missouri election and the person he picks, could have some short-term political significance. Because of the now 49-49-1 split in the US Senate, Ventura could single handily decide if the Republicans will have a jump start in reorganizing the Congress' upper chamber if they win enough seats to hold an even or majority vote in the US Senate in 2003.

Paul Wellstone was a breed of "true believer" politician that has largely gone extinct in the Beltway. Wellstone represented a class of ideologically charged Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater-types that have been replaced in large measure by Congressmen who thrived on compromise and feared pitched political battle. His unapologetic liberalism and political windmill tilting paid homage to the "Happy Warrior," whose seat Wellstone occupied for the past 12 years.

While the political winds have shifted their fair share of iron rooster weathervanes from the tops of the party barns, Paul Wellstone defied the forces expedience and political pragmatism and boldly kept his arrow pointing left.