Dale Bumpers

It is entirely fitting that Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) lives in a Maryland suburb on a street called Honesty Way. The Arkansas Democrat is known for a candor that’s unsurpassed on Capitol Hill.

Having made plans to retire in January, the Senate’s last Southern liberal happily acknowledges that he is behaving like a truly liberated man these days. And never has this blunt-speaking populist expressed greater passion than now, especially when talking about his disenchantment with the partisan hostilities in the nation’s capitol and an election financing system that he regards as corrupt.

Bumpers, who just turned 73, is among a dying breed of politicians who entered public service believing it to be a noble calling.

As a child, Bumpers could name every member of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Cabinet, thanks to his father, an ardent New Dealer and country schoolteacher in rural Arkansas. “We discussed politics at the dinner table every evening,” the four-term senator recalled. “My father may be the last man who ever lived who recommended politics as a profession to his children.”

After serving in the South Pacific during World War II, Bumpers attended college and law school on the GI Bill. He practiced law for 20 years while acquiring political experience as city attorney and school board president of Charleston, Ark.

Beginning in 1970, Bumpers earned the reputation of a political giant-killer. An eloquent orator with an amiable demeanor, he defeated legendary race baiter Orval E. Faubus in the Democratic primary and then beat Republican Winthrop Rockefeller to become governor. In Little Rock, Bumpers modernized and streamlined state government with a vengeance, while promoting education and race relations.

Four years later, he defeated incumbent Sen. J. William Fulbright, another state institution, by almost 2-1 in the primary and then easily won election to the Senate.

As senator, Bumpers took up numerous unpopular causes, such as fighting funding for the space station. An ardent backer of arms control, Bumpers once accused President Ronald Reagan of not wanting “to spend money on anything that does not explode.” The senator’s support in the 1970s for returning the Panama Canal to Panama was highly unpopular back home and continues to cost him three to five points in polls.

Bumpers plans to return to Arkansas next year, with his wife, Betty, to begin a teaching career. The couple, who are about to celebrate their 49th wedding anniversary, have three grown children.

Question: You came here in 1975. How has the Senate changed in 23 years?

Answer: It’s changed very dramatically. When I came here, the Democrats had a heavy majority--63 senators. But on our side, we had a lot of ultra-conservatives . . . . On the Republican side, out of those 37 Republican senators, I’d say probably 12 Republicans voted quite often with the Democrats. So it was really a big, big majority. Of course, we’d lose those ultra-conservatives on the Democratic side, but we picked up those people who were not necessarily liberal, but certainly more liberal than anybody on the Republican side now.

I dare say there isn’t anybody on the Republican side--with the possible exception of Jim Jeffords, who is nearly as progressive and as liberal as about 10 Republicans were back in 1975. So it was easy to pass social legislation back then . . . .

Partisanship was an issue, but not in the same league that partisanship is now. Today, partisanship has become shrill, almost to the point of being irrational. . . . It’s new in this country. And it is a result of the extreme partisanship that has developed here in the last 23 years, and it’s become a very unpleasant thing . . . .

Q: In the Senate you now have nine women. Have they made a difference just by being in the chamber?

A: Yes. They’ve made a big difference . . . particularly on children’s issues. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins on the Republican side will Edwin Chin covers Congress for The Times.

join with the Democrats or the Democrats will join with them--however you want to put it--on almost any children’s issues. And, for the most part, on health issues. And, for the most part, on environmental issues.

Q: Many senators talk about how they used to have the time to socialize, to develop real friendships in the Senate. Is that less true today?

A: It is [less] true, and that’s something that’s happened since I came here, too. We used to have dinner parties at our house on Saturday nights, and invite two or three colleagues and their wives, eight to 10 people, and sometimes somebody from your profession . . . . We had to quit doing that because the demands that every senator be back to his home state every weekend precluded anything [social] on the weekends; and during the week, you never know when you’re going to be in session, so you don’t plan anything. So that has really eroded the collegiality of the membership.

Q: There are fewer members with military-service or foreign-policy experience. Do you worry about that?

A: We’re going to be almost totally devoid of veterans in the not-too-distant future, and I think that’s unhealthy. But I have a theory that goes a little further back than that . . . . The most important thing in the world, as far as what kind of senator you are, are the values you bring . . . . You have to be concerned about everybody--the poor, the downtrodden, the people who never got a break . . . . As Hubert Humphrey used to say, “It will never be a good place for any of us to live until it’s a good place for all of us to live.” Anybody who doesn’t subscribe to that theory is not going to be a very good senator or a very good congressman.

Q: Turning to campaign-finance reform, do you ever see members fund-raising in government offices?

A: That used to be fairly common . . . . My guess is that that is probably done in isolated cases now, but it’s a clear-cut violation. I’ve never done it. I remember a U.S. senator, many years ago, saying, “I raised $72,000 last night.” I said, “Well, I expect you did it on your office phone.” He said, “Oh, yeah.” He didn’t even realize it was a violation.

Q: Some say money buys access and access buys results.

A: It is childishly naive to even suggest that money doesn’t buy access. That’s the reason I have said one of the . . . greatest threats to our democracy is the way we finance campaigns and the way we allow lobbyists and public-interest groups to give money to the parties. They know exactly what they’re doing. And the people who take the money know exactly what they’re doing. That’s the reason I believe that the current campaign financing system is rotten to the core.

. . . I was pretty naive when I ran for government the first time. That was in 1970, back before campaign-finance laws . . . . Politicians used to stick money in their pockets with a great deal of fervor.

Q: Cash?

A: Cash. Absolutely. People used to come in when I was running for governor. One man came in and put down 50 $100 bills in cash--and became an archenemy because I refused it. The best way in the world to make a lifelong enemy is to refuse to take money from somebody. You’re making a statement that you don’t think he’s quite up to par if you do that . . . . But that was a customary thing, and I had enough sense to know that that was wrong. We meticulously accounted for every single dollar we got when I ran for governor.

. . . When I was running for governor, everybody gave me money and said, “Dale, all I want is good government.” After I became governor, I found out they wanted a little more than good government. That’s the way it worked . . . . These are all things that are unsaid.

Q: You’ve said that money even played a role in the debate over NATO expansion.

A: If you go back and you sort of lift up the veneer of who was promoting it, you’ll find the military-industrial complex. Why? Because Poland, the Czechs and Hungary all are going to have to spend a lot of money to bring their military establishments up to NATO standards. Who’s going to pay for it? We are . . . . I don’t know what the figure is, but I can tell you the military-industrial complex is pushing it more than anybody else.

Q: Getting back to Congress. How can the Senate be more responsive to the needs of the people?

A: The people can turn it around . . . . The other night, I made a speech at the Washington Hilton and then rushed out to grab a cab . . . . The driver said, “Aren’t you Sen. Bumpers?” I said, “Yeah. How did you know that?” “Well,” he said, “I watched you on C-Span.” I said, “What are you?” He said, “I’m Ethiopian.” He’s been here four years.

Now he’s better wired to what’s going on in Congress every day than 90% of the people in America are. You know why? Because he comes from a place where politics determines life and death.

. . . We are the most politically unsophisticated nation on earth. That’s because we have not really tackled our educational problems; and we have especially not tackled the problem of making sure that every child that graduates from either high school or college understands our political system and his responsibilities for it . . . . If no child in America was deprived of a college education for lack of money, you’d be amazed at the additional interest you’d create in the body politic.

. . . We’ve got a long way to go . . . . Everything hinges on our priorities. And our priorities are as skewed and misplaced as any nation on earth . . . .

I’ll give you another illustration. Think for a minute about the No. 1 problem in the whole world: population . . . . It is an absolute unmitigated disaster in the making. But you never hear it talked about on the floor of the Senate, because somebody’s afraid it’s going to generate into a question of abortion.

Q: Bill Clinton, who followed you as governor--

A: The first time I ever heard Bill Clinton speak was at a big political rally . . . . I didn’t know Bill. He spoke that night as a candidate for the House of Representatives. All I could think when I heard him speak was: I hope he never runs against me. It was a powerful speech. He had it memorized. He was limited to five minutes. He spoke from the heart. He had that crowd in the palm of his hand in five minutes. I was really impressed.

Q: Now that the president has confessed and apologized, what happens next?

A: First, let me say that I thought the general thrust of what he said was proper. He showed contrition. And I’ve been amazed by the harsh comments I’ve heard and read. I didn’t think the president was particular harsh on Ken Starr. I thought he was almost pleading, “Let’s get this thing over with.” I didn’t think Bill was out of line to suggest, to say, that he felt it was a political investigation. He has felt that from the very beginning. But that might have been better left unsaid. I also know the president well enough though to know that . . . it was almost impossible for him not to have said that.

The only thing left now for Starr to do is file a report. Anything further in this regard is almost voyeuristic. They know all they need to know.

Then it’s up to Congress. Oh, there’ll be a lot of gnashing of teeth, and a lot of noises by people who love to make headlines. But I can tell you the House won’t do anything with it. And if it comes to the Senate, there’ll be a filibuster.

So this thing isn’t going to fly.

Q: What do you think Clinton is going to do after he leaves the White House?

A: I can’t imagine Bill Clinton out of politics--and I’m talking about being in the political arena running for something. He may not. I’ve heard him say he’d never run for anything again, and I guess John Quincy Adams went back and ran for the House. But I think Bill Clinton might very well be the second one. If he doesn’t, Hillary will. I hope she does.

. . . I enjoy Hillary Clinton’s company. I enjoy being with her and talking with her as much as any person I’ve ever met. She is so bright and so sensible, and I think she has such good values and she articulates how you implement things, how you go about getting things done, better than anybody I’ve ever known.

Q: Any personal regrets?

A: I have chosen too many battles that were negative. I took on the super collider [atom smasher], fought for three years with Howard Baker about the Clinch River breeder. On the space station, the mining laws . . . I have consistently lost those battles. Marginal successes here and there, and I hate it when I’m just trying to stop things.*