 Carol
Moseley-Braun
An Underdog With A Passion
BY COLIN MURPHY
Democratic presidential hopeful Carol Moseley-Braun admits she's a long
shot, but it's a political reality the former U.S. Senator from Illinois
has faced before.
In 1992, Moseley-Braun surprised the Illinois political establishment
by prevailing in the Democratic primary and defeating two-time incumbent,
Sen. Alan Dixon — a race in which her two opponents outspent her
by more than 20-to-1. She later went on to defeat her Republican rival
in the general election.
But her victory proved more than just beating the odds — it was
one for the history books, as well: Moseley-Braun became the first African
American woman ever to be elected to the United States Senate. It was
the latest in a series of firsts — first woman and first African
American ever to hold executive office in Cook County government and the
first state lawmaker to be voted best legislator in the Illinois House
for 10 years in a row.
Born in Chicago to a law enforcement father and medical technician mother,
Moseley-Braun, 56, was urged to "pursue excellence, embrace opportunity
and follow her dreams." She has served her country as a United States
Senator (1992-98), U.S. Ambassador (1999-2001), as well as County Executive
Officer, State Representative, and Assistant United States Attorney. Since
her return in 2001 from her ambassadorial posting to New Zealand, she
has taught law and political science at Morris Brown College and De Paul
University, along with serving in her capacity in a business law and consulting
practice in Chicago.
Moseley-Braun was a frequent participant in the Chicago Pride Parade
while in office and remains a strong advocate for gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgender (GLBT) rights. Earlier this year the National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) released a study rating Moseley-Braun the most
gay-friendly out of the potential candidates vying for the Democratic
nomination for president. Nonetheless, with all nine Democratic hopefuls
openly courting the gay vote, a clear front runner has yet to emerge.
Former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun recently spoke to the Vital VOICE by
telephone about her candidacy, the odds and GLBT issues.
Colin Murphy: Why is Carol Moseley-Braun running for
president?
Carol Moseley-Braun: I'm running for president out of
a sense of passionate patriotism, because I believe that my country is
on the wrong track and we stand in danger of leaving the next generation
less then we inherited from the last one. And so I think it's my responsibility
to bring that experience, those skills, my perspective and vision to bear
on the dialogue and debate about the future that this country is going
to take.
CM: Senator, you've obviously seen the polls, do you
have a realistic expectation of winning the nomination, or is your candidacy,
in part, symbolic? If you will, you are the first woman to pursue the
Democratic nomination seriously since Pat Schroeder — Is it part
symbolic?
CMB: Oh, I'm sure there's a symbolic aspect of it and
we have every intention of winning. And when you mention polls, you know
there are polls all over the place and while we are just kind of the —we're
the "Sea Biscuit," if you will, in this race; at the same time
there are other polls around the country that have me in third place.
There's polls that have me beating people who have 10 times the money
that we have. So I have every expectation that we will put this together
and that we will be able to win and win the nomination.
CM: Can you talk briefly about how you first became
aware of GLBT issues?
CMB: I don't know if I've told you this story, I may
have, I remember talking about it before: I had a professor in college
who I just adored. And he, after I graduated from college and married
my husband, we had a dinner party. I had run into this professor and had
invited him and his wife to dinner. And we had a little dinner party and
I was a new bride —so this was one of my first big dinner parties.
And at the dinner party some of my husband's friends had just come back
from France and they were sitting around the dinner table making gay jokes
about things in France and this, that and the other. And before I could
serve dessert my professor, who again, I just adored, stood up and announced
that he and his wife were leaving. And I was shocked — “Why
are you leaving, I haven't served dessert yet?” And he made the
point; he said, “Carol, I wouldn't expect this kind of dialogue
in your house because both my wife and I are bisexual and gays are the
last oppressed minority. And we would no more sit here and listen to this
kind of conversation than you would sit in a room and listen to people
making nigger jokes.” And for the first time this issue hit home
with me as a human rights issue with that statement. His name was Peter
Canouse and he's deceased now. But it was such a shocking thing for me
that it made me begin to focus in on something, I frankly, had never thought
about even, beforehand. And of course I have, since that time —
which was well before I got started in a political career — been
an advocate for the human rights dimension of GLBT issues.
CM: You are much beloved by the gay community …
and deservedly so. You were one of only a handful of senators to vote
against the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] — could you talk about
that vote?
CMB: Well for one thing, again, I see GLBT issues in
the context of human rights issues. And frankly, it seems to me —
now again, in my own experience — not only was I in an interracial
marriage myself, but my aunt was in an interracial marriage at a time
before the Supreme Court had ruled in Loving v. Virginia, that the states
could not prohibit people from marrying each other because of race. So
what happened when the Warren court made that step, it opened the door
for my marriage whereas my aunt's marriage had been illegal. And so for
me, again, what's called the issue of "gay marriage" is a human
rights issue: Does a person have a right to marry who they want? Number
one. And as much as marriage is a civil issue as opposed to a religious
one, I mean the churches will do and can do what they feel they want to
do. But in terms of a civil issue — what the government can do,
I think it is absolutely inappropriate for the government to step in and
tell somebody who they should effectively marry with, whether that limitation
is based on gender or if that limitation is based on race, seems to me
not to be too much difference between the two. And so again, for me the
issue is very clear. It is a denial of human rights to deny someone the
ability to marry because of their race. It is a denial of human rights
to deny someone the ability to marry because of their gender.
CM: For the record, are you for federally recognized
gay marriage or civil unions and do you see a difference? There are conflicting
press reports out there as to where you stand — do you support civil
unions or gay marriage?
CMB: Marriage. Let me be real clear. But if there's
any confusion at all, it's because at the Human Rights [Campaign Presidential]
Forum when Sam Donaldson put the question to me, what I heard him talk
about was federal legislation in regard to [gay] marriage. And there I
draw the line in the sense that it's not a federal issue. That's why I
voted against DOMA because it wasn't a federal issue. These people were
trying to prohibit something that the federal government has nothing to
do with. Similarly, the federal government does not issue marriage licenses
— state governments do. But if a person were denied the right to
marry in a state then that person, I think, would have a federal constitutional
claim to have the courts direct the issuer of the marriage license to
do so-to issue it. So I probably … wasn't as clear as I should have
been because there is no equivocation on my part on this issue whatsoever.
CM: Presently, all nine Democrats vying for the nomination
are openly courting the gay vote and they're relatively all on the same
page regarding our issues. Why should GLBT voters back Carol Moseley-Braun?
CMB: Well you know you always can tell where somebody
is going to go based on where they've been. And I think that based on
my record, not just as a senator, but my record in the state legislature
as well, I have been consistent on these issues. There's been no wavering,
there's been no confusion, there's been really no contradiction to my
support of these issues as human rights issues. And so if you hold my
record of consistency up against the record of everybody else in this
field I think there should be no question for the GLBT community that
I am the candidate who has been with them out of principle — not
a matter of pandering to anybody. I don't do this to pander for votes.
I do this because it is the right thing to do and because it comports
and sits with my logic and the principles that I embrace as a public servant.
CM: President Clinton, whom I know you are a supporter
of, backed gay-inclusive hate crimes legislation, The Employment Non Discrimination
Act, and lifting the ban on gays in the military, among other things —
a whole host of pro-gay legislation. Yet he faced certain political realities
that made those goals impossible. What did you learn in the U.S. Senate
that might help you fare better in getting this legislation passed as
president?
CMB: Well it wasn't [just] a matter of the senate it
was a matter of being a state legislator as well. I have a record of "promises
made, promises kept." Because I know how the process works, I have
been able to deliver as a legislator at the state level and at the national
level. My legislative record as a United States Senator was really second
to none in my class even though I was kind of out there by myself in many
regards. But I was able to pass bills into law, to translate ideas into
action, because of my grasp and familiarity with the process. So I think
that perspective will help me be effective as president. Because I know
how to work with legislators, I know how the process works; I know what
goes into finding solutions to problems and reaching consensus on issues.
CM: As you know, AIDS infections are on the rise in
both the gay and straight community-most especially in young gay men and
minority women-what are your impressions of the Bush AIDS policy and what
would president Moseley-Braun do differently?
CMB: Let me count the ways! [Laughs] This administration
wants to talk about AIDS prevention without using words like condom or
sex for that matter. Which is just ridiculous. Or for that matter, needles
and drug use — they are enthralled to the conservative right wing
that really will not even allow a sensible dialogue about what are known
to be effective strategies. In the first instance when you talk about
AIDS and HIV you have to talk about [safe sex] in addition — their
answer has so far has been a lot abstinence and frankly some words. Now
I'm delighted —let me put a pin in here — I am delighted that
they've come up with a commitment for money. We haven't seen the money
yet but frankly they at least moved off the dime to provide AIDS funding
and support for the global fund. So that's a good thing and I think, you
know, you have to give credit where it's due. So I hope that they will
actually follow through and that the dollars will be forthcoming to match
the commitment. But while it's not enough at least it's something so you
give the credit where it's due in that regard.
However in terms of dealing with HIV and AIDS here in the United States
there are a variety of things that have to be done. One of them has to
do with dealing with needle exchange and the whole issue of the spread
of the disease among and between addicts. You just have to take straight
on the whole health care dynamic in a preventative way with regard to
people who have addictions. It's one thing to bemoan the fact that they
have the addiction and it's quite another — as Jesse Helms would
have done, by the way. Jesse Helms actually had legislation [introduced]
that prohibited AIDS treatment for people who were serving time in prison,
which was like insane to me. You're going to give somebody a death sentence?
It was so horrendous! [Laughs] I stood up on the senate floor and asked
the question, “how can somebody in conscience do this?” But
in any event — so dealing with the health care issue in terms of
prevention is one step. Another step has to do with, again, public health
delivery. Getting into communities and making sure people get the message
that just because you’re 22 does not mean you’re invulnerable
or that you won't die if you engage in risky behaviors. A third is to
make treatment more readily available and that gets into the whole question
of health care and making sure that we have universal health care coverage.
But beyond treatment there are also a variety of social service supports
that have to be in place. Everything from housing and supportive services,
in that regard, to hospice care. So I think of dealing with the whole
issue not just as a function of disease but as a function of responding
to human needs would be the approach that my administration would take.
CM: Final question, Senator: Earlier this month, you
participated in the first GLBT presidential candidate forum sponsored
by the Human Rights Campaign — how important do you think the gay
vote is and in this election, can it make a difference?
CMB: Every vote is important. Every vote is important.
And you know — gay, straight, black, white — the fact of the
matter is we are all in danger of losing our Republic — letting
it be captured by extremists, particularly from the right wing, when people
don't participate in this process. And I've been focusing in on voter
registration as part of my campaign largely because I was [serving as
ambassador] in New Zealand when the last election happened. When I came
back home what I found was a shocking number of people who have concluded
from the last election that their vote doesn't count and that their voice
doesn't matter. And we have to do everything we can to dispel that notion
and to get people registered and qualified to vote. We have to make the
case to the American people that their votes matter, that what you do
in terms of setting a climate of opinion and voting really does direct
policy outcomes and policy decisions. Laws come out of the policy. And
you have to participate on the front and you may not win every election.
But if you don't participate, that's like giving your opposition two votes:
the vote that they have already and the value of yours. So I congratulate
the HRC on having the forum because HRC has been very good, by the way,
over the years in advocating for GLBT issues in the congress. They really
have moved the ball forward in significant ways over time and that forum
the other week hopefully opened up the process even more to broaden the
dialogue between the GLBT community.
You can reach Colin Murphy at LKPythias@aol.com.
|
