There has always been a debate over the destiny of this nation between those
who believed they were entitled to govern because of their station in life, and
those who believed that the people were sovereign. That distinction remains
as strong as ever today. In every race this November, the question voters must
answer is, How do we make sure that political power is used for the benefit
of the many, rather than the few?

For well over a  year, the Bush administration has used its power in the wrong way.
In the election of 2000,  I argued that the Bush-Cheney ticket was being bankrolled
by "a new generation of special interests, power brokers who would want nothing
better than a pliant president who would bend public policy to suit their purposes
and profits." Some considered this warning "anti-business." It was nothing of the sort.
I believe now, as I said then, that "when powerful interests try to take advantage of
the American people, it's often other businesses that are hurt in the process"
- smaller companies that play by the rules.

This view was not partisan. It was based on a plain reading of the history of
Republican governance under Presidents Reagan and Bush. And every passing day
demonstrates that it was merely the truth.

I believe Governor Bill Clinton and I were right to maintain, during our 1992 campaign,
that fighting for "the forgotten middle class" against  the "forces of greed."  Standing up
for the people, not the powerful was the right choice in 2000. In fact, it is the ground of
the Democratic party's being, our meaning and our mission.

The suggestion from some in our party that we should no longer speak that truth,
especially at a time like this, strikes me as bad politics and  wrong in principle.
This struggle between the people and the powerful was at the heart of every major
domestic issue of the 2000 campaign and is still the central dynamic of  politics in 2002.

The choice, not just in rhetoric but in  reality, was and still is between a genuine
prescription drug benefit for all seniors under Medicare - or a token plan designed
to trick the voters and  satisfy  pharmaceutical companies. The White House and
its allies in Congress have just defeated legislation that would have fulfilled the
promises both parties made in 2000.

The choice was and still is between a real patients' bill of rights -- or doing
the bidding of the insurance companies and health maintenance organizations.
Here again:  promise made, promise broken.
 
The choice was and still is an environmental policy based on conservation,
new technologies, alternative fuels and the protection of natural wonders like
the Alaskan wilderness - or walking away from the grave challenge of global
warming, doing away with  superfund cleanups and giving in on issue after issue
to those who profit from pollution.

And the choice, even more urgently today, is between protecting Social Security
or raiding and then privatizing it so that the trust fund can be used to finance
massive tax cuts that primarily benefit  the very rich.

The economic debate, now as then, is  fundamentally about principle. The problem
is not that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney  picked the wrong advisors or misunderstood
the technical arguments, but that their economic purpose was and is ideological: to
provide $1.6 trillion dollars in tax giveaways for the few, while pretending that they
were for the many, and manipulating the numbers to make it appear  that the budget
surplus would be preserved. It was pre-Enron political accounting.

For them, incredibly, it is also post-Enron accounting.  And the result
is the replacement in one year of a surplus with another massive deficit.

It's not just the stock market that has gone down. It is confidence in the honesty of
our government. If President Bush wants to pursue honesty and integrity in the
White House he should make public the names of the energy company lobbyists
who advised him on energy and environmental legislation, and he should call for
the release of the Securities and Exchange Commission files on the controversy
surrounding his role in certain stock sales.

But what is far more important than the pursuit of a few bad apples in the White
House is the need to recognize that what has been put at risk is nothing less than
the future of democratic capitalism. And it cannot be rejuvenated unless the people
and the politicians focus on the question: What is good for the whole?

Ideally, President Bush should lead that effort. For the president is the only person
in our constitutional framework charged with representing all Americans.

Presidents of both parties in the past have risen to meet that responsibility when
the interests of the people were at risk from the unrestrained greed of the powerful.
A Democratic president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, met that challenge, even though
it earned him the hatred of his patrician social peers as a ``traitor to his class.''
A Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, prevented the magnates of his day
from consolidating a grip on both political and economic power.

We are at such a moment again. Uncommon power has combined with uncommon
greed to create immense deceptions and losses. Millions of average Americans
have been victimized. So have thousands of honest American corporations and
the people who manage them, own stock in them, and depend upon them for a
livelihood, for sending their children to college and for their retirement.

A major correction is needed in the course of our nation. It is needed first and foremost
in the composition of the next Congress. We need a majority of men  and women who
will not flinch from the task at hand. For now is a time for truth and courage.  And now
is the time for all Americans to stand up to the powerful on behalf of the people.