Charles Rangel in Bad Day Since, by Rep. Charles Rangel
On Civil Rights:
GOP competing for black votes makes both parties responsive
I truly believe that a genuinely competitive Republican Party--that is, one that sincerely competed for black votes--would allow African Americans to achieve a lot more politically, and therefore economically. It would cause the Democrats to be far more
responsive to the political needs of our group, and it would cause the Republicans to quickly become quite dependent on a constituency it now ignores.As things now stand, however, it's very, very hard for me to see how the Republicans could ever be
sensitive to the needs of a group that consistently, and overwhelmingly, votes against them. Groups that are much smaller than African Americans manage to attract the competitive attention of both parties. You see it in competitive seats in
California all the time today--Republicans making big concessions on liberal positions to woo just enough Jewish or Hispanic voters to gain the margin of victory. Those concessions could and should be coming to African American communities, too.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.200-201
Aug 5, 2008
On Drugs:
1970s: Treat drug addiction as crisis: interdict at border
I insist on recognizing drug use and addictions as a national crisis, and to begin to respond to it as such at every level, from border interdiction to treatment. I went to Congress as probably the member most concerned about illicit narcotics traffic
and drug addiction. I knew a lot more about the issue than other congressman because, as an assistant US Attorney, I prosecuted drug cases exclusively. I had made drugs, and drug-related corruption of law enforcement, my signature issue when
I was in the Assembly, and I ran hard on the issue against Adam Powell.Drugs affected every part of every life in my town. Senior citizens were assaulted by addicts, while addicts were fighting and killing one another and had taken over whole streets
and neighborhoods. Worse, the corruption was making what was historically a bad relationship between the police became something of an enabling army for the drug dealers.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.188-189
Aug 5, 2008
On Drugs:
Worked with Pres. Nixon to begin "War on Drugs"
Nixon was tough on drugs. [We] worked closely together on what was the beginning of our international "war on drugs." The national passion behind the war against drugs, I'm sorry to say, has [faded]. It hit its high point somewhere in Ronald Reagan's
presidency, during the crack epidemic, and has since petered out. We never did win the war, of course. I've always felt that as you improve the quality of people's lives, the more they have at risk by dabbling in drugs. The more opportunities and
options people have, the less likely they are to choose drugs. So, to the extent that African-Americans as a whole advanced sharply from the mid 80's through the Clinton 90's, a lot of the drug-related bleeding was staunched. But to this day, when you
tell a kid, "Don't do drugs because you'll lose your reputation & your job," and they know damn well they have no reputation and no job to lose, and that things will not get any worse for them being involved, no amount of "just say no" is going to work.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.191
Aug 5, 2008
On Foreign Policy:
1987: Rangel Amendment forced South African divestment
The Rangel Amendment denied a very valuable tax deduction to US firms doing business in South Africa to compensate for taxes paid to the apartheid government. t was known in South Africa as the "the bloody" Rangel Amendment because its passage in 1987
made it too expensive for even the most stubborn apologists for the South African system to keep doing business there. In particular, Mobil Corporation, the largest US investor in South Africa at the time, cited the sudden hike in its tax bill as a major
factor in its 1989 decision to withdraw. The oil giant previously pushed Coca-Cola, GM, IBM, and other major American corporations to pull out. Mobil's departure, under the economic pressure from the bill with my name on it, was seen as the backbreaker
for US multinational corporate support for the apartheid government. Mandela was freed from his imprisonment 10 months later.It took 10 years to get the Rangel Amendment into law, and 7 more for me to see Mandela's inaugural day.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 52-53
Aug 5, 2008
On Foreign Policy:
1994: Advised Haiti's Aristide; disappointed by no democracy
I first became very close to former Haitian president Reverend Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991 after he was ousted in a military coup. So I became an Aristide adviser. When he was finally restored in 1994, with the might of the US Navy at his back, I went
to Haiti and heard for myself the roar of the crowds of poor people hailing Aristide like a savior. Unfortunately, it wasn't long after the shouting died that the shooting and suffering resumed full force. In the end, I must doubt that I ever really knew
Aristide. How [could] someone so soft-spoken, with such a religious background, be as bad as even his former supporters now say.Aristide proved to be a terrible disappointment. He was unable to build any of the institutions of democracy Haiti so
desperately needs. My relationship with Aristide not deep enough to allow me to be certain that he was innocent of all wrongdoing in the bloody conflict in Haiti. But I was a friend of Haiti before Aristide, and I'm a friend of Haiti now.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.235-239
Aug 5, 2008
On Free Trade:
World Bank exerts US influence as first among unequals
The US has demonstrated that she will display and deploy her economic and military power to influence the conduct of other countries in her favor.
Through diplomacy and the world trade organizations it formed and directs, the US is coordinating the commerce of smaller nations.
It's ostensibly for our mutual benefit, but the truth is that these countries do not play on a level playing field with us. The international development finance institutions like the
World Bank that set the criteria for participation by smaller countries are also directed by standards created by the US with our interests first among unequals.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.167
Aug 5, 2008
On Free Trade:
1980s: Caribbean Basin Initiative: lower tariff barriers
It took until the 1970s for the small economies of the Caribbean to begin to emerge from colonial status and establish a foothold in the global economy. Countries like Jamaica earned precious foreign exchange from international mining companies for
aluminum ore mined & shipped from the island. Most of the Caribbean was entirely dependent on raw material, tourism, and some agricultural exports. Caribbean leaders sought to develop higher-value export industries, particularly in textiles and garments.
However, tariff barriers made it economically difficult for them to export to the US. I fought for the Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) in the early 80s in order to create a Caribbean export market in the US by eliminating for tariffs on a preferential
basis.The CBI has been responsible for nearly two decades of unparalleled growth in trade between the US and our close Caribbean neighbors. Unfortunately, such examples [are rare recently] of using economic diplomacy for the common good.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.167-8
Aug 5, 2008
On Free Trade:
Supports Chinese trade; African trade; and Caribbean trade
I want American business to have a fair advantage over foreign business. On matters of trade, I'm ready to give something up, but they've got to give up something for the larger good in return. That's what my support for the Caribbean Basin Initiative,
Chinese free trade, the African trade initiative has been about. These things help these countries but they also benefit American business. They may break me away from the majority of my party, but I have more than a consensus among my committee members
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.244-245
Aug 5, 2008
On Government Reform:
GOP majority holds secret meetings for final bill drafting
Before the GOP took control of the House and Senate, senior Republicans and Democrats would meet with their committee staffs and work out differences to be brought to the table for the bipartisan conference to consider. The doors might be closed, but
everyone had some input into what was on the table.But since Republicans took over, they call a ceremonial meeting to open the conference, quickly adjourn, then typically go off into secret meetings of their own. The fix--usually in favor of their
chosen special interests--is added there. On one such occasion, Bill Thomas (R, CA), the current chairman of Ways and Means, was chairing the official conference. But reports told me that he and the Republicans were meeting privately in his hideaway
office. I took my legislative papers & marched right in as though I was invited. They were so embarrassed that they just peeled off and left the room one by one, until the only one left was Thomas. There was nothing for him to do but adjourn the meeting.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.178
Aug 5, 2008
On Government Reform:
1974: On Watergate Committee, focused on Nixon's conviction
Nixon may not have known how Watergate started, but he certainly did know about and participate in the cover-up. As a former prosecutor, I was focused on what I saw as a clear path to his conviction. Barbara Jordan saw something bigger,
and we are all better for her vision. She believed in the Constitution and the individual rights it protects, and took that aspect of the investigation of Nixon's conduct a lot more seriously than I did.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.194
Aug 5, 2008
On Government Reform:
It's obscene what money has done to Congress
Today money isn't just the mother's milk of politics, it IS their politics. But I had never needed money to hold my seat, so the whole idea of me making a commitment to someone because he or she gave me money was beyond me. Even black members, from our
traditionally safest seats, are not immune. Once, during a key Medicare vote, I had black Democrats tell me that white doctors supported them in primaries when blacks didn't. They told me that they had to support this hospital or that one, even though it
was out of line with common good, because it supported them when the party didn't.It's obscene what money has done to the Congress. Just look at the number of millionaires in the Senate these days. The percentage has increased so much in the last
20 years that I think it's safe to say that you have to be one to be a senator. The senate was always a rich man's club, but look at the rising number of millionaires in the House, and the mounting cost of the average congressional campaign.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.215-216
Aug 5, 2008
On Homeland Security:
1951: Wounded in Korea while army was desegregating
In January 1951, some 14 months after my Operation MIKI initiation into segregated army life, the 8th Army adopted an unofficial policy of integrating African-American troops into previously all-white units. The reason was simple: 2 months earlier the
8th Army was chewed up on a mountain pass near a place called Kunu-ri, when 300,000 Chinese troops entered the war on North Korea's side.
Their need for as many replacements as they could get, as soon as they could get them, was suddenly as color blind as it was acute. I suffered my wounds and earned my medals at
Kunu-ri, in a unit that, save the overwhelming white commissioned officers, was all black. I've never thought of thanking the Chinese for slapping the US Army into the reality of a postwar, segregation America.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 60-61
Aug 5, 2008
On Immigration:
Africans didn't immigrate to fulfill the American dream
I didn't know any lawyers or doctors or engineers, much less people who could credibly see themselves in the Oval Office. The need to lay a new foundation for my life had simply not occurred to me, much less having an ambition for that life.
I had no basis to dream.And that is something that's tragic in this country. Immigrants can arrive here not just with
American dreams, but with blueprints of the monuments they want to build to their talent, hard work, and the sacrifices their loved ones had to make in order to get them this far. But so many African-Americans who have been here for generations,
never have their sleep sweetened, or disturbed, by a recurring American Dream. They don't know the dream, and they have nobody and nothing in their lives to implant the idea that they can and must become something better than what they are.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 83
Aug 5, 2008
On Principles & Values:
Attitude of gratitude: I haven't had a bad day since
The idea behind "and I haven't had a bad day since" is that no matter what obstacles you come across in life, if you can pause and count your blessings, or recall difficulties that were far more serious, you can avoid viewing present circumstances as
unbearable. The attitude of gratitude is a gift that truly keeps on giving. It affords me the opportunity to take a better, clearer look at the obstacles in front of me. You don't have to be in fear for your life, as I have been, to have your mind
concentrated in this way, every day.I believe I got this attitude of "and I haven't had a bad day since" from that night in the mountain pass in North Korea [when I got shot]. I know how lucky I am to have my children, to be in Congress, and to be
participating in matters of such importance for such a long, healthy lifetime. There's no better attitude to have than gratitude for going thru life.
I just don't think I should have had to get shot in Korea to get it, but I haven't had a bad day since
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. xix & 51
Aug 5, 2008
On Principles & Values:
Black folks are very conservative in some ways
People forget, but back then, and to this day, black folks are very conservative in some ways. We're always hearing this garbage about moral values, and how
Democrats and urbanites don't have them, but most parties to this debate have no idea how conservative black folks are. I think it has more to do with being from the South, especially back then, than being black. When I was in the army
I remember so many Southerners complaining about constipation problems, because they just couldn't bring themselves to squat alongside other men on the rows of open toilets in the latrines.
Some of them would wait until the middle of the night to catch a shower alone, rather than be naked in a group.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 13-14
Aug 5, 2008
On Principles & Values:
1970s: Ran for Congress on both Republican & Democrat lines
I was facing my first re-election campaign in 1968. Although running as a Democrat, [Governor Rockefeller, a Republican, used his influence.] "What the heck did you just do?", I asked. "You just got the Republican endorsement," he says. I was stunned,
and tried to insist on at least visiting each and every Republican club in the district. Two years later, when I was getting ready to run for Congress, I knew I would have a good shot at getting the Republican nomination because Rocky made that call.
Bipartisan love does have it awkward moments, though. In 1972 there was a huge campaign billboard on Broadway that read: "Elect President Nixon and Congressman Charles Rangel--both Republican. Paid for by the Committee to Re-elect the President."
I could have died on the spot when I first saw it. And soon after when I was sitting on the House committee looking into Watergate, I REALLY prayed that no one would bring that thing up. They were doing that to pull in votes, and I was being used.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.138-140
Aug 5, 2008
On Principles & Values:
Prefers small constituency of House seat
Before I bonded with NY Assemblyman Percy Sutton I had no political direction, just a drive to be against whoever was "in," because I wanted to be in their place. After I succeeded Percy in the Assembly, and became a trusted son in Ray Jones's political
family, I wanted nothing more than the most that being in that body had to offer: a lucrative law practice and eventual speakership. Now, you might think that representing a larger chunk of Harlem as a state senator would be my next political objective.
But you would be wrong. I had one of my best legislative periods in the Assembly when Basil Patterson was in the state senate from Harlem. We formed a great legislative team and a great friendship. I never envied any of my colleagues in the state senate,
just as I have never aspired to be a US senator. It always seemed to me that the smaller my political base, the better I could serve it, while retaining my ability to get involved in matters outside of my narrow district.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.152
Aug 5, 2008
On Principles & Values:
Early ambition to chair Ways & Means Committee
It was anything but downhill after getting elected to Congress. Far from an anticlimax, becoming a member of the House of Representatives was like a booster rocket igniting under me. My getting on the Ways and Means Committee in December 1974 at the
end of my 2nd term was like entering orbit. What after all, is the world all about if it's not about taxes and health care and trade? Some 30% of all the legislation in Congress comes through Ways and
Means; everything we're talking about today that really matters tends to be the jurisdiction of my committee. I may have hit Washington without a plan, but I still had Sergeant Rangel's old clipboard-wielding ambition: I wasn't there
5 minutes before I set my cap for an appointment to Ways and Means, with the hope of rising from there into the House Democratic leadership.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.176
Aug 5, 2008
On Principles & Values:
1971: Co-founded the Congressional Black Caucus
In 1971, we formally constituted the Congressional Black Caucus. Over the years there have been periodic tensions around how much the caucus speaks for any single black representative. But the thing we were clear about was not wanting to be seen [as
speaking] for all of black America.Our biggest fear was that, by virtue of holding office in the national government, we would mislead people into thinking that we were the nation's black leaders in every area from civil rights to economics to local
politics. We didn't want to become the custodians of all black American aspiration, because we knew that meant being responsible for all of black America's problems. We didn't want to create expectations that would far exceed our ability to perform. It
was important not to be seen as usurping the surviving civil rights leadership organizations like the NAACP, the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the Urban League. My vision was that we were part of the black leadership, but not THE leadership.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.185-186
Aug 5, 2008
On Principles & Values:
Initiated idea of Hillary running for Senate in New York
I was in Chicago, at a 1999 rally supporting the re-election of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. Hillary Clinton was the big draw, and she was good, as she always is. Afterward, I was telling people how good she was, & someone said that she should be running
for senator--from Illinois. They allowed me to believe that Hillary had political ambitions, and I immediately jumped on it."I hear that you're interested in running for Senator," I said to her.
"What are you talking about?"
"Some people tell me
that they were thinking about drafting you here. Well, let me just tell you this: You can be the Senator from Illinois, but the REAL senators are from New York--that's where you should be running from."
And I could tell then, from the awkwardness of th
smile on her face, that there was some interest. Hillary turned me over to her chief of staff. "Why don't you let me start filling you in on what's there for her."
"That would be great," she said, enthusiastically. And that's where it began.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.245-6
Aug 5, 2008
On Social Security:
Social Security isn't bankrupt; no need to privatize
The Republicans don't want the federal government subsidizing the poor and the sick because they really don't think the Constitution gives it the authority. It's not even principle--a basic truth or moral standard--it's ideology. Unlike standing up for a
principle, when you're fighting for an ideology you don't have to let the facts or the truth stand in your way. When Pres. Bush attempted to persuade America and the Congress on his plan to "save" Social Security, everyone knew he was trying to convert a
public responsibility to a private "everyone get a job and provide for their own savings" initiative. The president insisted that Social Security was bankrupt. It wasn't true. He was using that to frighten people into ending federal responsibility for
Social Security and into taking the money out of the Trust Fund and putting it into private accounts. Fortunately, Social Security is anchored in political bedrock. But the Great Society renovations are vulnerable, after a 25 year Reaganite siege.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.257-258
Aug 5, 2008
On Tax Reform:
Zeal for capital gains & wealthy tax cuts is unparalleled
At this time we find this administration is still committed to not taxing anything except wages. Its zeal for cutting taxes on capital gains, estates, corporations, and the wealthy is unparalleled in my 35 years in Congress. At the same time, the
administration and congressional Republicans continue to reduce aid to the states, money that the states must in turn replace by hiking regressive property and sales taxes. At the end of the day, then, the entire tax system is being shifted to the state,
local and regressive and away from the national and progressive. This shift in Republican tax strategy--paying for tax cuts by borrowing--now shatters the myth that the Democratic Party is one of "tax and spend." All of the tax cuts that we
Democrats offer as alternatives are more progressive and they are offset by cutting spending in other programs over which our committee has jurisdiction. That makes us the fiscal conservatives today.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.255
Aug 5, 2008
On Tax Reform:
Estate tax only reaches estates over $100M; don't cut it
It is so easy, politically, to vote consistently to cut taxes on the wealthy. It's just so seductive. I've had members of Congress support the repeal of the estate tax, a tax that only reaches estates over $100 million. I asked them, "How could you do
that? Do you know anybody in your community who would benefit from it? Have you even read about anybody in your community who would benefit?" They say no on both counts, and then add, "But maybe one day we'll be rich, too."It has been said that their
constituents feel the same way about the wealthy and their wealth. But as for the Congress, I think the main reason a representative or working- or lower-middle class Americans supports this kind of tax cut is that they hope to get campaign contributions
from the ultra-rich. I'm leading the fight against the repeal of the estate tax because I believe that this tiny fraction of Americans have such a large share of the wealth that they ought to pay an equitable part of that to the federal treasury.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.265-266
Aug 5, 2008
On War & Peace:
Reinstitute draft to avoid another Iraq
In 2006, I introduced a bill to reinstitute the draft. The downward trend in recruitment, along with the rising level of public skepticism about the means and ends of the prosecution of the war in Iraq, should force them to at least listen.I'm not
just trying to make a partisan political point with this call. The Pentagon's own researchers say there's a crisis in military recruitment, and there's no plan to fix it. I want to make those who support preemptive war either consider putting people from
their own families, their own neighborhoods, and their own class in harm's way, or consider themselves hypocrites. With all the evidence that we now have showing why we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place,
there is no doubt in my mind that with a draft in place we would have held the president's case for war in Iraq to a much higher standard, and never gone in. But now that we're there, if people still support the war, why wouldn't they support a draft?
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 46-47
Aug 5, 2008
On War & Peace:
Troops suffer by not knowing when they'll come home
When they tell you you're pulling out on July 15, your job is to stay alive until July 15. When they tell you you're not leaving on July 15 after all, they are messing with your mind, and your life.
That's one reason our troops are suffering so terribly in Iraq: they keep getting told that their service there will be limited in some way, but they keep sending them back, holding them in place with stop-loss orders and the like.
This mismatch between the clear duty to serve one's country in time of war and the cloudy objective--military and political--of this war is taking a toll on the junior military officers we may desperately need
10 or 15 years from now, when a real war comes along.
Without an honest and true statement of who the enemy is, and a definite yardstick for measuring his defeat, our soldiers are to some extent just sitting ducks.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 69-70
Aug 5, 2008
On War & Peace:
2003: Lonely voice opposing pre-emptive war
Why was my voice so lonely out there in 2003, when I questioned our invasion and the new doctrine of pre-emptive war?The pre-emptive strike on Iraq has been a historic watershed for the US. It's established a new precedent in our putative role
as a leader of the UN. Under our new doctrine, you don't have to go to the UN to determine your right to go to war when you haven't been attacked.
All you have to do is convince a majority of citizens that such a war is in our self-interest; consent or cooperation from any and all nations is welcome but not required.
Dissent or opposition may not be tolerated.
Sometime early in 2005 the serious questions about how and why we got into Iraq really began to penetrate the American consciousness.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 69-71
Aug 5, 2008
On War & Peace:
Opposed Kerry in 2004 primary because Kerry voted for war
The president had given Congress and the American people misleading information--linking Saddam Hussein, 9/11, al Qaeda, WMD's, uranium from Niger, and so on. This was the problem John Kerry had; he just could not say he was misled into voting for the
war. I can't imagine how a heroic Vietnam veteran being challenged by Bush and Cheney with no war records between them felt he had to defend himself about whether or not it was his medals or his ribbons that he threw over the White House fence.
Who cares?The 2004 presidential campaign seemed to be our election to lose. Senator Kerry came to visit me in my congressional office. I said, "I can't find myself supporting any candidate for president who actually voted for the war."
[Kerry should have explained his war vote with saying he was misled by Bush. Instead], Kerry started with "Oh, Charlie, come off of it." I entered the elevator, the doors closed, and with them closed my interest in John Kerry.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p. 80-81
Aug 5, 2008
On War & Peace:
Morally suspect war in Iraq is funded by deficit
Today we have the morally suspect war in Iraq, and the threat of the doctrine of preemptive war spilling over into Iran. So many of our soldiers are being killed or maimed every day.
These policies are being financed with spiraling deficits, piled up by an inequitable tax system, while we fail to meet domestic priorities like protecting the people of New Orleans, before and after Hurricane Katrina.
One day, dear reader, someone may ask you: "During the time our nation was pouring out its blood and treasure in these conflicts, and committing these atrocities abroad and at home, what were YOU doing?"
If somehow we can appreciate what we do each day as making a little history--especially election days--every day is exciting because every day can make a difference.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.133
Aug 5, 2008
On War & Peace:
Opposes war politically, out of respect for soldiers
Every time I go to a soldier's funeral, I'm always hoping that the bereaved families have never misinterpreted my strong political opposition to the war as flowing from anything except a love and respect for those who have stood where
I have stood in battle.As I arrived at the funeral of a young Dominican soldier in my district, I saw a dead soldier who was about twenty years old.
He had on the same brown uniform that I had worn with such swagger over fifty years ago. When I saw how much he looked like me when I was his age, my knees buckled.
The sight of that young Dominican put me right back to my beginnings as cannon fodder in a questionable war.
Source: I Haven't Had a Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.269
Aug 5, 2008
On Welfare & Poverty:
Make taking people out of poverty our #1 priority
It's critically important today to make talking people out of poverty our number 1 national priority. Why? Because poverty is disproportionately visited on our most valuable resource, people under the age of 21. To compete with massive faster-growing
economies like China and India, or better educated, socially secure economies like Japan and the European countries, we will need all our young people heading for higher education and training instead of the military, prison, or jobs flipping hamburgers.
Source: A Bad Day Since, by Charles Rangel, p.259
Aug 5, 2008
Page last updated: Feb 06, 2014