Mr. Geoghegan Goes to Washington

By Kathy G.

By now you've probably heard the news. Tom Geoghegan* -- author, labor lawyer, and all-round mensch -- is running for Congress. With Rahm Emanuel's departure to join Barack Obama's White House, his Congressional seat in Illinois's Fifth District has become vacant. The primary for the seat will occur on March 3, with the general election scheduled for April 7. Tom has lived in the district for many years, and he made the official announcement of his candidacy this morning. His campaign website is here; you can join the Geoghegan for Congress Facebook group here; and you can make a donation on his Act Blue page here.

I can't tell you how utterly thrilled and delighted I am by this development. Because there is nobody -- nobody -- whom I'd rather see holding elected office in America than Tom Geoghegan. For some years now, I've had the pleasure and the privilege of being Tom's friend. He's one of the most brilliant people I've ever met, and also one of the kindest. A passionate progressive from the top of his bald spot down to the tips of his toenails, Tom has spent a lifetime tirelessly fighting on behalf of underdogs and the dispossessed -- steelworkers being cheated out of their pensions, say; or stressed out single mothers being harassed by predatory lenders; or union reformers trying to run a clean election in their corrupt local.

What does his entry into this race feel like? Well, to start, think Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Like the iconic character played by Jimmy Stewart in that film, Tom is a tall, gangly political outsider, and he has every bit of Jefferson Smith's indefatigable idealism and rock-solid integrity. Only, there's a twist -- this Mr. Smith is no blushing innocent. Tom is a Mr. Smith who's kicked around the big city for a couple of decades and has become all too familiar with the ways of the world. Sadder maybe, in some ways, but also savvier, and wiser. And yet still utterly driven and consumed by a burning desire to make the world a better place.

Already there's been a huge groundswell of excitement about Tom's entry into this race. Seriously -- when I've mentioned the fact that he's running to lefties and netroots types, their faces light up like Christmas trees. Because if you know Tom or are familiar with his work, you know he's the real deal. He's the kind of guy you want to give your right arm for. I have no doubt that his campaign will attract the kinds of volunteers who will max out their credit cards for him, make phone calls for him until their throats are sore, knock on doors until their knuckles bleed.

What is it about Tom that people find so inspiring? Well, one of the things I admire most about Tom is how intensely inner-directed he is. The path he's chosen -- being a union-side lawyer in an era that saw a dramatic decline in the power of the labor movement; being a liberal activist throughout 30 or so years of conservatism and reaction -- has not been an easy one. And it's not like someone of his gifts didn't have plenty of other opportunities. The vast majority of his Harvard Law classmates got rich, I'm sure. Tom wrote for The New Republic back in the 70s and 80s, and many of his colleagues there, such as Michael Kinsley, Mickey Kaus, Fred Barnes, and Morton Kondracke, became famous pundits. But Tom settled down in an unglamorous city and proceeded to devote his life to the deeply uncool and positively Sisyphusean task of trying to help the poor folks and working people of America catch a break.

Tom has a deep sense of who he is and what he is about, and he's not the kind of person who is especially impressed by money or power. For years, he drove a beat-up old wreck of a car that, he joked, would inevitably provoke dubious looks from his clients (he finally bought a newer one a couple of years ago). Tom is practically never not working -- I can't tell you how many times I've tried to reach him at home on a Saturday or Sunday, only to eventually find him at the office, and he never goes anywhere without his trusty yellow legal pads. But unlike virtually every other lawyer, he doesn't keep those legal pads in a slick, expensive-looking briefcase -- instead, he carries them around in a ratty cardboard accordion-style folder (which I'll admit, I find endearing).

What is it that drives him, exactly? I confess, it's a mystery to me. I do suspect, however, that his faith has something to do with it. Tom is a serious Catholic, although he doesn't talk about it much -- he's one of those people who prefers to live his faith rather than preach about it. Contrary to media myth, there is a religious left. They don't get nearly as much publicity as the religious right does, but that's probably because they tend not to be anywhere near as annoyingly self-righteous as the religious wingnuts are.

Getting down to specifics -- why, exactly, do I think Tom Geoghegan would make such a fan-freaking-tastic member of Congress? Well, to start with, he's scary-smart, and he works harder than anyone I know. The man is 100% devoted to a life of public service, and deeply, profoundly trustworthy. I mean, dude -- if I were on trial for my life, I would pray for Tom to be my lawyer. Because he doesn't give up or give in, and if you're his client, he will work like a dog for you.

Why else is Tom the man of the moment? Well, here in the Land o' Lincoln, we have had some tiny little ethical problems of late. It involves our governor -- perhaps you've heard? Seriously -- politics in this state are a disgrace. When I visited my family in New Jersey over Christmas, they ragged on me mercilessly over how politically corrupt my adopted state of Illinois is. The sad thing is, I had to agree with them. And when people from Jersey of all places, can get away with mocking you about how corrupt your state is -- well, it is bad, people!

And alas, the Congressional district where Tom is running hasn't exactly been a shining beacon in the darkness, either. The cast of characters who have held the seat in recent decades include Dan "Stamps" Rostenkowski, who went to jail; Rod Blagojevich, who's on the fast track to follow him there; and then Rahm Emanuel who while, granted, is not a cheap crook like the other two, is nevertheless something of a dodgy character, at best. All in all, not a group likely to inspire the confidence of your average bail bondsman (to quote one of my favorite old Woody Allen lines).

But Tom, on the other hand -- Tom! The man is a freaking Boy Scout. To say he's squeaky clean would be putting it mildly. He's exactly the breath of fresh air Chicago, and Illinois, needs, to rid ourselves of the foul stench being emitted by the lamentable Blago and his ilk.

Another reason why Tom's moment may finally have arrived, is the wretched state of the economy. For years now, Tom has been a prophet without honor, calling for reining in the financial sector, reforming labor law to make it easier to join a union, and abandoning failed neo-liberal nostrums in favor of robustly populist economic agenda. Check out Tom's kickass call to arms about why he's running: 

For years we’ve heard the doomsayers: “We can’t afford Social Security.” “We can’t afford ‘single payer’ national health.” One thing we all learned from the $700 billion bailout: We’ve got the money to do all of this and more. At the moment, the Federal Reserve is literally printing money, to give not billions but trillions to banks and financial firms. To the people of this District, the banks and others have gotten their money. Now it’s your turn. Here’s the bailout I will go to Congress to get:

First, I want to expand Social Security, our public pension system, to replace, not overnight but in stages, the private pension system which has collapsed. Social Security now pays about 38 to 39 percent of your working income. In other developed countries, it averages 65 percent. That’s where our fiscal stimulus should be: a commitment to reach this goal, a public pension that ordinary working people can live on.

Second we have to move to single payer health care program, at least in phases: we might begin with extending Medicare to children, but the government should ultimately be the single payer for all. That’s not because single payer is the only ethical and efficient way to protect us all. No, it’s also because it is crucial to making us competitive globally. Through single payer and expanded Social Security, the goal is to pick up the “non-wage” labor costs that employers now have to pay. That’s already how other countries out-compete us: they have the government and not the private employer pick up these non-wage health and pension costs.

Unless we have government pick up the costs of pensions and health care, our companies can’t compete, and we’ll go on piling up huge trade deficits. We’ll have debacles like GM, which has collapsed in part because of the health and pension costs that the federal government should have been paying all along.

For years, the conservatives have said: “We can’t do this. The money isn’t there.” Well, the money is there. It was there for the Iraq war, a colossal waste of money, and for the bailout, the first half of which has been a colossal waste as well. And if we now have the government pick up non-wage labor costs with the use of general revenues, we will in fact make it cheaper and easier for our companies to hire. This is in fact the best and most realistic approach for a long term recovery.

Finally we have to put limits on returns to financial firms. We should re-enact the usury laws, the interest-rate caps that were in place in America up till the 1970s. We need to stop the rates of 30 to 35 percent, the hidden fees, the hundreds of ways that banks pull our money out of industry and into gambling and speculation.

In my campaign, I will have a single minded focus on the economic security to working Americans, that’s why I so strongly support the Employee Free Choice Act and other changes in our labor laws. And that’s why I support policies that will reduce the debt of working Americans. Overall, the plan I am setting out here will help make our country more competitive.

But be honest with me -- if you know anything at all about Tom, you probably strongly suspected he'd be pretty great on economic issues. What you may have questions about are Tom's stances on other issues.

Well, let me assure you, he's pretty terrific across the board. Here's what he had to say about Iraq -- in 2003, no less:

I'm against invasion. As Doctor Johnson might say of so rash an act—the expense, damnable (up to $200 billion or more); our strategic posture, ridiculous (as our allies flee us, and North Korea goes nuclear); and any pleasure, even for a hawk, fleeting (since we may be in Iraq a very long time). So count me in with Robert Byrd, the pope, James Baker, and Joschka Fischer. As to the blow-back? Maybe a movement for international law. Bad for the Bush crowd, but good for our country. In the long run, if we're going to survive as a superpower, as I hope we do, we'll need a smidgeon of such law to check and balance us.

Was that prescient, or what? And did I mention that the man writes like a dream?

Moving on -- concerning LGBTQ issues, Tom is a strong supporter of LGBTQ rights, and especially of same-sex marriage.

Women's issues? As regular readers of this blog know, I'm a loud-and-proud feminist, and as such, I could never endorse anyone who is not deeply committed to women's rights. Tom, as you might suspect, is strongly pro-feminist. As an attorney, he's won a number of cases for women who were the victims of workplace sex discrimination. When it comes to choice, he describes his position as being pretty much identical to Ted Kennedy's; i.e., like many Catholics, Tom is personally opposed to abortion in most cases, but strongly pro-choice and staunchly pro-Roe v. Wade. And Tom really, really gets work-and-family policy. Some of the most interesting parts of his forthcoming book on European social democracy concern the ways that universal, publicly provided child care, elder care, and paid family leave policies dramatically improve women's lives and make the task of combining work and family far less arduous than it tends to be in the U.S.

You can read more about where Tom stands on the issues here.

As a candidate, what else has Tom got going for him? You know, besides all the things I've mentioned -- his bone-deep integrity, his first-rate intellect, and his tireless devotion to progressive values? Well Tom is witty, gregarious, an excellent public speaker, and a great storyteller. He can be quite charming and personable, and I'd hazard that he'll be able to use those social skills to excellent political effect. He's also got fertile mind full of a million creative public policy ideas. Here's one, which David Sirota has written about  -- it's Tom's idea about the desirability of amending the Civil Rights Act to prevent discrimination on the basis of union membership. And here's another -- a piece Tom wrote last year for TAP, about why America needs a National Usury Act.

But the big question, of course, is "can he win?" I won't lie -- this will be a tough battle. Tom is not independently wealthy (far from it), and he's never run for office before. He doesn't have a machine or a reliable donor base. He's gotten a bit of a late start, and he's running against some folks who are far better known in Chicago politics, one of whom has already raised upwards of $300,000.

And yet . . . I think he's got a fighting chance. Here's why: everybody and his mother-in-law is running for this baby. I've read reports that as many as 20 people may be announcing their candidacies, and it's winner-take-all -- there will be no run-off, and there's no requirement that the winner get a majority or anything. In a field this crowded and divided, there's a chance that Tom will get enough support to make it first past the finish line.

And I'm not the only person who thinks that this environment could be friendly to a political unknown like Tom. An article in The Hill quotes one local observer as saying about this election, "If I were an unknown, I’d feel emboldened."  A different expert told CQ, "This could be one of the first times someone with no political experience can make a real run at it."

The divided field, plus the fact that we now have an infrastructure (the netroots) that supports progressive candidates; and the fact that looming economic disaster means that a lot of people will probably be willing to give Tom's ideas a hearing, even if they wouldn't have before -- what this all adds up to, I think, is that Tom has a shot.

However, he can't do it alone. This is where you, dear readers, come in. Tom needs your help. If Tom Geoghegan sounds like the kind of person you'd like to see fighting the good fight in Washington, then please make a donation here. The maximum donation is $2300 per person, and $4600 per couple, but give what you can. Every little bit helps, and even donations of as little as $5 or $10 would be warmly appreciated.

If you want to volunteer for the campaign, you can fill out this form on Tom's website.

Another way you can show your support is to join the Facebook group, Tom Geoghegan for Congress.

And watch this space! Kiddies, from now until the primary -- and hopefully beyond -- this blog will be Geoghegan Central. I plan to post frequent updates on the campaign -- I'm hoping to write one post or at least put up one campaign-related link per day.

In closing, let me say this: there are two things you should know about me. One is that I hate, hate, hate cold weather (I'm unusually sensitive to the cold, particularly in my hands and feet). The other is that I'm deeply, painfully shy (true story: I was voted shiest girl in my high school class).

Now, keep those two things in mind when I tell you this -- I am thrilled to death at the prospect of knocking on doors for Tom all this month and next. In the dead of a Chicago winter, no less.

Because really -- what Tom has to give is exactly what this country is starving for. I think he has the potential to become a Paul Wellstone-type figure -- a political leader who is so inspiring, and such a fearless and eloquent champion of underdogs, great causes, and the public good, that you marvel at the fact that they somehow slipped by and got elected to anything. Yet every once in a while, a bloody miracle occurs, and one of these people finds their way to elected office. And we are truly blessed to have them around.

Does someone who is such an awesomely balls-out progressive -- let alone someone who is so genuinely nice -- have a prayer of succeeding in the dirty, brutal, and fairly reactionary world of American politics? In all honesty, I don't know. But damn me if I'm not excited as hell to have the opportunity to find out.

*Note: a question people frequently ask about Tom is how do you say his last name. Simple: it's pronounced "gay-gun." As I like to say, it rhymes with Reagan -- though phonetically, of course, not ideologically!

Comments

[Corvus]

I kicked in 15 bucks (I don't have much) a few days ago, when I read Fallows piece in support of him, but mostly because of an earlier post you did about how awesome he is. Really hoping for the best on this one.

Are his shoulders really that wide?

[Sir Charles]

Hey Kathy!

This is an exciting development. I kicked in $100 so far, but expect to come up with more. I am hoping to push my fellow law partners to kick in as well.

I saw Tom speak when "Which Side Are You On?" came out and was both very entertained and moved by his discussion. I can't imagine that there could be any better addition to Congress.

I am going to be out in the City of the Big Shoulders in early May for several days -- we will have to catch up.

[working girl]

As a shy female at a union shop, I tremble at the thought of the Employee Free Choice Act passing.

If it passes, then large union "enforcers" are going to know how I voted, or could, because the Employee Free Choice Act can eliminate the secret ballot in union elections.

On this one point, our fellow leftwing superstars are getting something wrong.

Hey, no one is perfect!

But if you do away with the secret ballot, a lot of workers are going to be pressured by union enforcers. They'll know how we voted without the secret ballot protecting us.

Clean union elections will be a distant memory, therefor, if the Employee Free Choice Act passes.

[Pipefitter Bill]

Splendid post, Kathy G. Tom is one of Nature's noblemen. I read his book, "Which Side Are You On?" before I ever met him, and when I did meet him he lived up to a great book. I am proud and gratified to be his friend. He has accomplished a lot for working people, and is one of the few people in this country who genuinely respects working class people and understands our issues. I put Tom up there with Bruce Springsteen--I kid you not. Tom also has some invaluable knowledge and direct experience with European workers, and this is why he is so adament about certain social issues such as health care. Most every worker I know is coming to the conclusion--long overdue--that our self described "greatest country on earth" sure does short change the great majority of its citizens compared to every other country in our political and military alliances. Everybody I know is thoroughly sick and tired of wise old gray haired rich people telling us why we can't have universal health care and a fair slice of the economic pie.

I will sign off to make room for other comments. But first: Working Girl, I hope you come back and read some of these comments, because you are absolutely mistaken about the Free Choice Act. You are a victim of anti Union propaganda. The "card check" we Union members are seeking is the right to just choose whether or not to form a Union by checking a card saying so. It is the exact same way they do it in Canada. Right now a secret ballot is required after a card check in order to certify a Union, and before the election almost every employer then starts a concerted campaign of intimidation through captive audience lectures (in the workplace, on company time), threats to close the workplace, and usually firing a few of the leading Union workers. (The NLRB--not exactly a left wing organization--admits that 5% of workers are fired for trying to organize a Union.) The card check removes this intimidation from the process. Oh, and by the way...in the unlikely event that the employer loses the election (after the threats and the firings, etc.), then they generally try to avoid negotiating a real contract for a long enough time for the work force to turn over enough so that it is "materially changed." Then the employer will try to decertify the Union by using...wait for it...a card check.

What the Free Choice Act does NOT do is remove the secret ballot from Union elections for Union offices. These elections are regulated by an entirely different Federal law, and secret ballots for Union officers are also part of the Constitution in every single International Union I am aware of. So please, read up on this, and know that if a Republican or a Chamber of Commerce type is discussing this issue, they will be lying to the best of their (unnatural) ability. They hate Unions because then they have to share the power, and Tom Geoghegan realizes this better than anyone I have ever met.

VOTE FOR TOM!

[MissC]

Thanks so much for this post! I just moved to Chicago to the IL 5th and admit feeling a little overwhelmed by knowing few people and names in political circles after being very politically active back in my former state. (And going back for the Obama campaingn last fall, thus also misisng out on any local involvement!)

This is a tremendous help for those of us out here trying to figure out where to go in electing our next Congressional Rep. Between Emmanuel's resignation and the Senate debacle, I'm feeling a tad underrepresented in D.C. these days- but if we can get Mr. Goeghegan elected- Wow.

[Batocchio]

Cool! This builds nicely off your earlier Geoghegan for Labor Secretary post.

[peep]

This just shocks me

"Occasional Slate contributor Tom Geoghegan is running for Rahm Emanuel's congressional seat. He's a friend of mine, a terrific writer and a man of honor. I'm for him even though I'm sure he's for card check."

Mickey Kaus, union-hater extraordinaire,supports Tom Geoghegan??????

[Jason Guthartz]

Hi Kathy,

Tom would be an incredibly strong choice to help move this country forward in many ways.

However, I'd deeply disappointed that he apparently refuses to take a position on Israel-Palestine. I realize it's the "third rail" of U.S. politics -- esp. in a district like IL-5 -- but since he has received such gushing, enthusiastic support from self-described progressives (and non-progressives!), I think it's fair to demand an answer on this important issue. (I've asked this question directly to his campaign, and also via comments at various sites where his campaign has blogged. So far, crickets.)

I should add -- lest this be considered an "attack" on Tom, whom I admire greatly -- that my support is not contingent on his position on this one issue. There is little doubt in my mind that he would be the most effective Congressperson among those running in IL-5, and (at least until third parties are viable) we should work for better Democrats whenever possible. I'm just saying all the Progressive Messiah talk may be premature.

best,
Jason