50 percent increase from the previous election in 1990. Thatrnmoney is not coming proportionately from the American people.rnIt’s coming disproportionately from a powerful minorityrnof corporate-oriented donors. That destroys any fair system ofrnrepresentation, and it’s not acknowledged now by Congress.rnThey don’t talk about the problem of corruption. They justrntalk about the burdens that thev experience in raising all thisrnmoney. But it’s far more threatening than that; democracy isrnbeing extinguished by a plutocracy of campaign donations, lobbyistrninfluence, and media concentration.rnQ. So what’s to be done, right now?rnA. I believe you have to use the television, the radio, and thernpost office as the functional equivalent of the town square ofrnold. Also, allow debate to take place around election time thatrnwould illuminate the issues and the choices for people withoutrnthe influence of money that we now see.rnQ. Is it really an organizational problem?rnA. It’s an organizational problem in the sense that organizationalrnties for average people have been destroyed. The modernrneconomy has undermined community, the ability of peoplernto work together in groups that could have impact onrngovernment. Instead, people are increasingly isolated, preoccupiedrnwith watching television and going shopping. That’s arnfar cry from America 200 years ago, when there was an elite whorndeliberated based on principle.rnQ. The political problem, then, isn’t just a question of organizing,rnbut of identifying principles and worthy standard-bearers?rnA. The end-game that we’re now seeing is best expressed by thernNixon funeral, where President Clinton, having been elected onrna platform of “change,” called on the nation to pay homage tornthe memory of Richard Nixon, the man who essentially said,rn”Leaders don’t need character. They just need to be effective.”rnTwo hundred years ago, John Adams, in a letter to his wife, saidrnthat with the Declaration of Independence and the foundingrnof a new government, we would have to purify ourselves fromrnour vices and inculcate virtues. He was focusing very clearly onrnthe absolute importance of virtue to American democracyrnas well as to American leadership. Today’s teacher is RichardrnNixon, who says virtue is irrelevant, that the statesman has tornbe a Machiavellian operative, a person skilled in the arts of manipulationrnand deception. I really believe that says where wernare. Unless we recognize that, we don’t get anywhere.rnQ. One of the great hopes for political change is a third party.rnDo you think there’s a chance that will materialize soon?rnA. The two parties appear incapable of offering any realrnchange. That’s why I mention Clinton as the apostle of changerngiving the apotheosis to Nixon, who was the complete antithesisrnof what American democracy is all about, as expressedrnby John Adams. A third party logically and conceptually wouldrnseem to be the vehicle for real change. But all the laws conspirernagainst it, and history tells us that is an unlikely scenario. Thernlocal level does present immediate opportunities for action.rnTaking responsibility for one’s neighborhood, meeting withrnone’s neighbors, that’s democracy. There is democracy at thernlocal level, because you can see people, you can get beyondrncomputer-generated letters and manipulated TV ads. You canrngo to a meeting and debate and argue, which is the essencernof democratic consensus-building. Politics at the local levelrnare very important. Even so, all the institutions from thernFederal Reserve to Congress to network television focus on thernglobal and utterly ignore the value and importance of the local.rnQ. Do you think the national press is to blame for quite a bitrnof this?rnA. The national press is part of the larger system that increasinglyrnfunctions at a global level, a multinational level, andrntrivializes the local community. You have, for example, publicrntelevision, and, at least on public television in San Francisco,rnKQED, there’s very little local programming. For the mostrnpart, local programming, they say, is too expensive to produce,rnso they buy it from somewhere else. Certainly the media hasrna tremendous focus on what is beyond one’s grasp.rnQ. Including Washington?rnA. Washington, Wall Street, Europe, wherever. There exists arnglobal focus over which we have virtually no control. Andrnwhere we have some control, there is amnesia. Are childrenrnnow taught about their neighborhoods? Are they taught theirrnown history? Here, are they taught about Oakland 50 yearsrnago? How Oakland was 100 years ago? About the nature of thisrnparticular watershed, this land, this soil? I myself am a productrnof Yale Law School, the University of California at Berkeley, thernJesuit schools, so I think in terms of a worldview, and yet I amrnincreasingly perceiving the arena of action to be at the localrnlevel. And when I say the local level, I don’t in any way meanrnwe can forget about what is happening nationally or globally.rnRather, we have to force larger institutions to operate in the interestrnof local autonomy and local power. But they all conspirernto do exactly the opposite.rnQ. Speaking of amnesia, people forget you were the first personrnto bring up Whitewater during the 1992 campaign. What dornyou perceive as Hillary Clinton’s role, in that it’s not really supervisedrnby a governmental body? Do you think she mightrnhave too much power?rnA. I can’t say Hillary has any more power than Mrs. Reagan.rnShe just exercises it differently. I don’t know if I can add onrnthis. But she’s certainly Spearheading the health care reform,rnand it remains to be seen exactly what’s going to happen. Thernpresent state of affairs, at least as it comes out of SenatorrnMoynihan’s committee, is a very minor adjustment—throwingrnsome money at people through subsidies or tax credits andrncommitting to a commission that will convene after the nextrncentury to consider what to do next. It’s like, what happened?rnAs Horace said, the mountain was in labor and it broughtrnforth a mouse, which appears to be the case with Hillary’srnhealth care plan and her 500-member secret committee.rnQ. What would your proposal on health care reform look like?rnA. The most logical system would be the single-payer—andrnwhat I envision is something very different from what we nowrn18/CHRONICLESrnrnrn