Progressives and the 2000 Elections

During the 2000 Democratic presidential primary, a battle erupted between Bill Bradley and Al Gore over universal health care coverage. Gore argued that universal coverage could be achieved only incrementally, on a step-by-step basis (www.algore2000.com). Beginning with children, he gradually would expand coverage to the entire population. Bradley criticized this approach, arguing that it was too little too late He proposed "a bold and comprehensive plan that will help everyone" (www.billbradley.com). (I will put aside the question of whether his plan really would have accomplished his goal.) The debate between Gore and Bradley reflects a deeper debate, over the relationship between incremental reform fundamental change, which progressives, including social workers, have long debated. Although this issue clearly cannot be resolved within the confines of this column, it is not something we can ignore. The elections are quickly approaching, and their outcome will affect our profession and our clients. As social workers, we recognize that phenomena such as equilibrium and disequilibrium and chaos and order are opposed in a relative, rather than an absolute, sense (Sommer, 1995). The same, of course, holds true for biological, psychological, and sociological factors. Our social and psychological experiences so fundamentally affect our biological makeup that we must really talk about social--psychological biology (Hamer & Copeland, 1998; Schwartz, 1996; Wilkinson, 1996). Conversely, our (social--psychological) biological makeup drives and limits our social and psychological behavior and experiences. Clearly, the differences among these factors are of a relative, not an absolute, nature. Unfortunately, we often fail to consider the relationship between incremental reform and fundamental change from this perspective. By this I mean, many social workers, and progressives generally, tend to engage in all-or-nothing thinking, which exaggerates the differences between these phenomena and overlooks their underlying identity. EXAMPLES: PAST AND PRESENT To illustrate my point, I briefly consider two examples of how, in my view, progressives have misunderstood the relationship between incremental reform and fundamental change. The first dates from the 1930s, the second from the 1990s. After the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the appointment of Harry Hopkins, Frances Perkins, and others to key positions in his administration, many social workers believed that their profession had "arrived" and would provide "leadership in welfare matters" (Reynolds, 1964, pp. 159-160). Others were more skeptical. Under the leadership of Mary van Kleek, Bertha C. Reynolds, and others, the Rank and File Movement emerged (Bombyk, 1995). Members of the Rank and File Movement believed that the New Deal had done little to address the real issues facing the country. They argued that capitalism was beyond repair and should be replaced with socialism (Bombyk, 1995). At the 1934 meeting of the of the National Conference of Social Work, Mary van Kleek urged social workers to aban don their "'Illusions Regarding Government'" and recognize it as a defender of "property rights" (Reynolds, 1963, p. 160). With the rise of government social welfare programs, social workers had become aligned with the status quo--against the their own interests and those of their clients. She believed that the real task was replacing our failed economic system (Reynolds, 1964). This argument is persuasive. The New Deal did not end the depression, and it failed to "transform [ldots] capitalism in any genuinely profound way" (Brinkley, 1998, P. 33). Roosevelt also did little to help African Americans, and recent evidence suggests that he shared the anti-Semitic prejudices of many members of his socioeconomic class (Freidel, 1990). Despite this, I believe the Rank and File Movement exaggerated Roosevelt's flaws and failed to grasp the real choice facing the country. …