By John D. Thomas

Jesse Jackson Jr. is the Antichrist.

Or at least that's what Republicans and conservative Democrats will believe once they have read the fourth-term Illinois congressman's new book, A More Perfect Union. Jackson's lengthy manifesto calls for a mere eight new constitutional amendments, and his simple solution to almost every ill affecting the country is to let the federal government take control. Advocates of a smaller, more efficient national government (read: just about every elected official in Washington but Jackson) will either cringe or laugh at lines like these, which are liberally sprinkled throughout the text: "If we are to resolve these issues, bold federal action is essential," and, "Only the federal government has the resources and ability to meet the magnitude of this crisis."

A More Perfect Union could easily turn out to be a colossally naive act of political career suicide from an upstart neophyte congressman with a famous last name. However, its courageous, inclusive, progressive and compassionate proposals could just as easily serve as a blueprint for a new 21st-century American political landscape and earn Jackson power and position that his father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, could (and probably still does) only dream of.

While Jackson, 36, is not a historian -- he has a law degree, as well as a bachelor's in business management and a master's in theology -- A More Perfect Union is essentially a history book, focusing on two primary themes, race and states' rights. In the introduction of the book, which will be in stores in mid- to late September, Jackson writes that "A More Perfect Union seeks to trace the history of race in America, and to show how the philosophy and practice of states' rights still dominate our politics and prevents us from building a more perfect Union. I argue that we must attack the states' rights ideology -- and its close relative, localism -- head-on and dramatically modify our understanding of it if we are to achieve a more just and equitable society."

Those dramatic modifications include amending the U.S. Constitution to include "the rights to a decent job, comprehensive and universal health care, safe and affordable housing, a high-quality public education, equality for women, a safe and clean environment, and fair taxes." Without even the slightest hint of irony, Jackson describes his heady plan as "a second American Bill of Rights."

We recently visited the Democrat in his neat, nondescript offices south of Chicago to talk about A More Perfect Union, which he co-wrote with his press secretary Frank Watkins. Jackson arrived exactly on time and was affable and voluble, discussing topics ranging from the possible bomb his book will set off inside the Beltway to what kind of President his father would make to whether he himself aspires to the highest office in the land.

Playboy: Many people would argue that constitutional amendments are a very drastic way to handle the issues you raise in A More Perfect Union. Why are they the way to go?

Jesse Jackson Jr.: There are two groups of Americans who have experienced their freedom by amending the Constitution. There is literally one America, a slave society, on one side of the 13th Amendment, and a different America on the other side of the 13th Amendment. There is a second-class political status for women on one side of the 19th Amendment and a different America for women on the other side of the 19th Amendment. Why constitutional amendments? Because they are longer lasting and they set high goals that the country must reach at any moment in American history. Legislation changes, it can be repealed, it can be ruled unconstitutional. So what is a high maximum bar that we can set so that every generation regardless of the political times must continuously meet on behalf of every single American? There is no such standard quite like the Constitution. And I argue that who is better to make this case than African Americans and women who have experienced their freedom by changing our founding document.

PB: Because your book is so different from what most politicians are saying, do you fear any backlash?

JJ: I suspect there probably will be a backlash. But there could also be a significant frontlash, and that frontlash could set our nation on the course of making the country better for every single American. We tried to elevate the goals in A More Perfect Union to those basic fundamental American values that are beyond race, sex and class that we all identify with. For example, all of us believe in some way, shape or form that every single American should have some form of health coverage. But all Americans tend to get confused and lost over the means. How do we get there? Conservatives argue a medical savings account, a free market approach. Democrats argue universal and comprehensive coverage. I simply argue that we need a fundamental goal that is elevated to the level of the Constitution for which different strategies can be argued and debated over. But we have to be achieving under law, arguably under constitutional law, the goal.

PB: If you had to pick one of your amendments, which is most important?

JJ: The full employment amendment, the right to work, because all of the other amendments are not possible unless we are pursuing a full employment economy. With the tremendous economic growth on Wall Street, what is becoming increasingly clear is that that economic growth is not shared by all Americans. The economy is growing very well in downtown Chicago and in the northwest suburbs, but in the 2nd Congressional District not much has changed. I have 60 people in my district for every one job. Section 8 is on the rise. Unemployment is on the rise, and I am more and more convinced that the national aggregate numbers for unemployment don't include people who are trying to get full-time work or people who are presently working part-time jobs. So how do we guarantee every American a government, both federal and state, that is pursuing the policy of full employment at every level of our economic system? I argue that this is not doable without fundamental adjustment to the Constitution.

Why full employment? Because in the former Confederate states, from Virginia around to Texas, for the last 150 years there have been laws written to perpetuate and promulgate the system of injustice in the South. So-called right-to-work laws. And these right-to-work laws fundamentally are anti-Union, which is why the South is lagging behind the rest of the country in terms of middle-class development. I argue that those workers who have labored under 150 years of post-Civil War history over whether or not they should be paid equal pay for equal work, or whether or not they should be able to organize to protect their own economic interests in the form of a trade union, must be settled by the American people.

PB: You write that the government should become the employer not of last resort but of first resort. Won't that make the federal bureaucracy the most enormous thing on the planet?

JJ: It already is the most enormous thing on the planet. We have the most enormous military on the planet, we protect the single largest economic engine and driving force for the world economy with our military, we are the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, we are the most technologically developed in the history of the world. The only question is whether or not we want to achieve a unique American purpose to ensure that every single American has access to the American Dream, and what role a government of, for and by the people should play in trying to achieve that. I argue that that must be a constitutional issue and not one left to blind market forces, which by definition, at least from my perspective, are not so blind.

PB: Do you realistically think any of these amendments will be seriously considered in Congress?

JJ: In the last session of the Congress, Republicans and conservative Democrats offered 75 amendments to the Constitution. This year we have voted on five already, including a tax limitation amendment and a don't burn the flag amendment. So the only question is why, beyond the Equal Rights Amendment, the Democratic party does not advance the idea of fundamental rights in terms of organizing. All of our organizing is based on incremental legislative programs, not fundamental rights. In the last election, the flag and the Ten Commandments were on the ballot for conservatives. But for Democrats we're at patients' bill of rights [and other] limited, incremental legislative programs. And I guarantee you that people who are fighting for fundamental rights are more passionate about their causes than people fighting for incremental legislative programs. So the fact that we have already voted on four or five conservative constitutional amendments in this session of the Congress, why wouldn't similar legislative proposals have the opportunity of working their way through the process? I happen to believe that if the American people understand what's at stake, it's just a matter of time before these amendments could be added to the Constitution.

PB: So this is not just an academic exercise?

JJ: No, it's serious as a heart attack.

PB: You write that the only appropriate prism through which to see American history is racism and slavery. Why?

JJ: What I tried to do when I made that statement was not to be dismissive of anyone else's history. And I hope I accomplished that. It is my goal to affirm the history of every single American as legitimate. However, I argue that race is probably the most appropriate prism through which to view the development of our country, the structure of our country, and to understand our most historic and central problems. Race, I argue, academically, not race personally. I try to separate it from any emotional issues, which was very difficult to do, and just present race as an academic subject. Only the history of race shows us debate over whether or not there should even be a federal government.

It was argued at the Constitutional Convention that had the issue of slavery not been submerged we might have never even arrived at the idea of a Constitution. The idea of how states were admitted to the Union, the very structure our Senate is built on, is tied into the race dialogue. Liberals say we should invest more money in health care, education, housing, a cleaner, safer and sustainable environment. Well, radical Republicans argued that we needed to invest in education, health care and housing for the newly freed slaves. That's where economic liberalism comes from. The race debate then is not what we perceive happened to Rodney King or Amadou Diallo or any of us individually, it is the collective history of who we have become as a nation and how far we are willing to go to change that history.

PB: Are you for or against direct reparations for slavery?

JJ: I support reparations to repair for damage done, however, I also know that because of the race gauntlet that reparations are not possible under the Democratic, Republican, liberal and conservative arrangement. So what is possible is doing something for every single American, for which African Americans will also be a primary beneficiary. Every American will be a beneficiary of the right to a high-quality public education. If you are in a ghetto, if you are in a barrio, if you are in a slum, if you are in Appalachia, if you are in a rural area, the right to a high-quality public education as a constitutional right means that no urban area or rural area can possibly be left behind. I argue that America does not owe me a Rolex, a new house or a new Lexus. America owes us a better America. Direct reparations will not solve this problem. It will not fix the schools, health care or housing, nor will it close some significant gaps that exist in our society. Only a long-term commitment to make our country better can close these fundamental gaps for every single American.

PB: You are a famous young man with a famous father, and you may not experience this as much as an average African American, but when was the last time you experienced direct personal racism?

JJ: I experience it all the time. I get racially profiled all the time by Capitol Hill police officers on my way to vote. Crossing the street, one officer wanted to write me a ticket one day. I was on my way to a vote and he didn't acknowledge me or recognize me as a congressman and began writing the ticket. I said, "But I thought Capitol Hill police officers were supposed to assist members of Congress in getting to a vote." And he said, "Yeah, but you have to be a member of Congress." He had my ID in his hand to write his ticket and I said, "Has intelligence significantly dropped around here or do you have a problem reading that card?" And he looked at it and he was terribly embarrassed and apologetic. So if you are asking me about the typical version of racism, then I'd say that it happens to every African American I know, regardless of who they are or what they do.

PB: You are in favor of affirmative action, but many people in this country would say that affirmative action has been given long enough to work and that African Americans have been given preferential treatment long enough.

JJ: Affirmative action is a conservative remedy in light of the history I share in A More Perfect Union. It's not reparations. The long-term goals of affirmative action have been to fight negative action against African Americans, women, people of color and other people who have been historically discriminated against. The question is, Is affirmative action a powerful enough vehicle for overcoming the history I have shared with you from 1619 to the present? And what I have tried to argue in this book is that it is not. It is an important program necessary to include to fight ongoing discrimination, but it does not approximate the power of the Constitution.

PB: It is being said by many in the press that Al Sharpton, who recently announced that he will run for President, is the de facto leader-in-waiting of African Americans in light of your father's personal problems. Do you agree?

JJ: I have known Rev. Sharpton all of my life. There are very few Thanksgiving dinners and very few Christmases we have not spent together. So I don't know the press' interest in this selection process. There has never been an elected black leader. Leaders in the African American community have earned who they are. I know God is not finished with Jesse Jackson, I know God is not finished with Al Sharpton. There is enough work for everybody to do out there, and everybody has to pursue their passion and what drives them. The press can select and choose whom they desire, but my relationship with Rev. Sharpton, my relationship with dad, is obviously very strong.

PB: So you have respect for Sharpton as a political leader?

JJ: I have respect for Rev. Sharpton as a political leader, Rev. Jackson as a political leader, Rev. Farrakhan as a political leader.

PB: The Village Voice recently wrote that Michael Powell will be the first black President of the United States. Do you think he will be?

JJ: I don't know Michael Powell, the FCC chairman. I always thought his father [Colin Powell] would be.

PB: You contend in the book that the best way for the Democrats to win the White House would be to put a progressive African American on the ticket as a vice president. That runs counter to what most people would think. Why would that work?

JJ: [Because of racism in this country,] there would obviously be an enormous backlash to the idea of an African American progressive on a national ticket. But I argue for just the opposite reasons that such a backlash in our community would create an enormous frontlash in terms of voter registration and voter participation. Most importantly, this frontlash will occur where we need it to occur the most for progressives, in the former Confederate states, where 53 percent of African Americans still live. Those African Americans and progressive whites in the South [working together] in a national campaign around moral- and economic-centered constitutional issues has the greatest opportunity to reach out to poor whites in the South and to get them to move beyond the manipulation that they have experienced over the last 150 years.

A coalition with progressive African Americans around economic-centered justice issues in the South has never occurred in national politics. Such a candidacy I believe has a great opportunity not only of winning a national campaign, but also winning with a mandate to advance fundamental issues. Such a coalition could change the course of U.S. history and therefore change the course of world history because adding such rights to our Constitution would obviously advance the idea that there are other democracies around the world that are entitled to such rights, and that can only happen if the United States leads the way.

PB: Name five African Americans who could be President today.

JJ: Congressman Mel Watt, attorney Charles Ogletree from Harvard, Colin Powell, The Village Voice says Michael Powell, and I believe Rev. Jackson is capable and qualified to be President of the United States. I saw that myself. No one will ever convince me to the contrary. I saw that in 1984 and 1988. I saw him as the most qualified and the most visionary candidate running in that race. And a number of my colleagues who serve in the Congressional Black Caucus, Harold Ford Jr. from Tennessee, for example, he wants to be President. A number of them are very capable and very able. But what I find totally amazing, as presidential speculation continues to mount for 2004, is why the general press never comes to an African American or adds them to the list of thoughtful potential presidential candidates.

PB: Do you find that repugnant?

JJ: The perception in the press is that an African American on the ticket can only advance an African American issue. I can offer a number of pieces of legislation that would benefit all Americans, but a number of my colleagues would slam them against the Tenth Amendment. Others will say that Jesse Jackson Jr. is supporting some sort of preferential program. There is nothing that is not broad-reaching and inclusive of every single American in this book. How do you define these rights as special interest programs? They're just not that.

PB: Do you think your father would have made a good President?

JJ: He would have made a great President of the United States, and I would have had a blast. [Laughs]

PB: People will undoubtedly read aspirations into this book. Is this your first real step onto the national stage?

JJ: I should tell you a little bit about myself. I don't see myself as a politician, I see myself as a public servant engaged in politics. There are a number of people in the media who will probably read something much broader into our work than my intention. One of the things that Frank and I wanted to do was write something that would be definitive in American politics, that long after I have moved off the political stage, in whatever form that will manifest itself, we wanted something that every politician could be measured against. When a person is running for office and they offer a proposal on education, will their proposal provide equal, high-quality public education for every single American? I want that to be a standard 100 years from now. But there is no need in me kidding myself. Amending the Constitution is not a secret, no one person can do it, no one person can grab this agenda and say that it is theirs. This is an American agenda, and quite frankly, if I never held another office I am comfortable and confident that what we have written is a direction that the country should be going in on behalf of every American.

PB: So you have no aspirations to be President?

JJ: I am actually aspiring to something else that I think is even more profound than being President. I want to be a founding father. And I happen to think that the criteria has become so skewed that the standard for being President is almost impossible. You have to be near perfect, you have to have never done anything wrong in your life, you have to have raised your children a certain kind of way, you have to have been good to your wife, you have to have been moral not only in your public life but also in your personal life. The standard for being a founding father is much lower. Founding fathers owned slaves, slept with other people's wives, some of them have even been accused of sleeping with each other. I think it is easier for me at this stage in my life to be a founding father than to be a President. [Laughs]