We know what Paul would have said about the corrupting influence of money in politics–the torrent of money flowing from corporate powers in the wake of Citizens United. Because he was clear 20 years ago:

The ethical issue of our time is that money has come to dominate politics and the democracy my father so deeply believed in is severely compromised. Campaigns match image-makers against image-makers, pollsters against pollsters and millions of dollars against millions of dollars. It is a superficial, trivialized politics of attack ads, manipulated advertising, and nine-second sound bites. It is a politics that treats people as if they are political nerds who know or care nothing about the issues of our time.

And most importantly, money corrupts the process. This is a much more serious corruption than the wrong doing of a single individual. This is the kind of corruption which results in too few people having too much wealth, power and say and too many people being denied a voice. It is a politics of democracy for the few, not democracy for the many.

Money, all too often, determines who runs for office. Should a person have to be a millionaire to run for the U.S. Senate? Money, all too often, determines what both Democrats and Republicans have to say on the issues for fear of offending big contributors. Should a candidate mortgage his or her vision to the wealthy and powerful and privileged. Money, all too often, determines how our elected officials spend their time in Washington.

Politics becomes about amassing huge amounts of money. Issues and accountability do count when it comes to the cozy relationship between a Senator or Representative and the political action committees who contribute the big bucks. They give the money to influence legislation and expect results. But during campaigns and elections most of what the people get is images. Not issues, not accountability. As a result people view politics as phony, irrelevant to their lives, and a game where the rules are rigged for the well healed and powerful interest, not ordinary citizens.

  We know what he would have said about the folly of the Afghanistan War. He would have, respectfully, stood up and challenged a president of his own party and been a moral voice to end this disastrous war. Because he was the only Democratic Senator running for re-election in 2002 who stood up in opposition to the Iraq War:

This debate must include all Americans, because our decisions finally must have the informed consent of the American people, who will be asked to bear the costs, in blood and treasure, of our decisions. When the lives of the sons and daughters of average Americans could be risked and lost, their voices must be heard by Congress before we make decisions about military action.

Right now, despite a desire to support our president, I believe many Americans still have profound questions about the wisdom of relying too heavily on a pre-emptive, go-it-alone military approach.

Acting now on our own might be a sign of our power. Acting sensibly and in a measured way in concert with our allies, with bipartisan Congressional support, would be a sign of our strength.

  If we needed a champion on climate change, Paul would be there on the frontlines. Not a theory–because he was there back in 1992:

Global climate change, I think, could have catastrophic consequences, if we don’t do something about our reliance on fossil fuels and CO2 emmissions. And I also think that it is shameful, that the United States government led by this administration, is the only administration and industrialized country now, that won’t make a commitment with a target and a timetable. It is frightening to read about the gaping hole in the OZone layer. There’s a whole lot before us, there is a whole lot that needs to be done.

  While I see too many Democrats running for cover when it comes to standing up for unions, Paul always understood what the labor movement meant:

Because of you, the right to join a union. Because of you, some protection against the terror of unemployment. Because of you, some protection against strike breaking. Because of you, minimum wage. Because of you, safer workplace. Because of you, more bread on the table. Because of you, civil rights movement. Because of you, more protection for people with disabilities. Because of you, ending of discrimination against people because of gender. This is a mighty and an important tradition and I’m very proud to speak here today with you because of that tradition…

But you know, it’s not just an attack on unions as unions. This is an attack on the idea of union and the idea of community, because as I think about, these folks represent a philosophy that I call new isolationism. Not as in foreign affairs but as in human affairs. It’s a "Buddy, you’re on your own" philosophy. By the way, if you own your own corporation and you’re rich it works. But it doesn’t work for most people. If you’re a Vietnam vet, and you’re homeless, and you’re struggling with post traumatic stress syndrome or substance abuse this philosophy says you’re on your own. If you’re a senior citizen in Minnesota, only 35 percent of senior citizens in Minnesota have any coverage for prescription drug costs, and you can’t afford prescription drugs, this philosophy says you’re on your own. If you’re one of the 44 million Americans with no health insurance coverage at all, you’re on your own. If you should have a mother or father that has Parkinson’s disease and their nightmare is they’ll lose everything they worked for cause that’s the only way they’ll qualify for any help when they’re in a nursing home, you’re on your own. If you’re daughter has diabetes and she’s now 24 and she’s off your plan. But the problem is it will cost her a $10,000 premium to get any coverage at all because she’s been struggling with diabetes, you’re on your own. If you can’t afford housing for you and your loved ones, you’re on your own. If you don’t have enough money to put food on the table, can you believe that close one out of four children under age three are going home poor today in America. This philosophy says you’re on your own.

  In that same speech, he made it clear that, to win, Democrats must be clear which side they are on:

Harry Truman said it best "You run two Republicans against one another and a Republican wins every time." The Democratic Party’s got to be there on the bread and butter economic issues, am I right? Democratic party’s got to be strong on the work majority issues, am I right? They’ve got to focus on the kitchen table issues, am I right? They got to speak to the concerns and circumstances of people’s lives and make a difference and here’s what it’s all about. And it’s not just unions and it’s not just me as a strong labor senator. It’s a political majority.[emphasis added]

  This is just a small taste of who the man was–and why we should pause to remember him every year. And, perhaps, what sums him up most is an often-repeated quote:

"Politics is not just about power and money games, politics can be about the improvement of peoples lives, about lessening human suffering in our world and bringing about more peace and more justice."

  Use that quote as a touchstone to gauge the quality of the people now in office or running for office.

  And, then, understand why we miss Paul Wellstone so much.