Each night of my childhood, my dad tucked me into the warm recesses of bed with a story. I learned to battle swamp monsters as the moon bled light across the night sky. I faced mean friends, angry dogs, a hundred wild pirates with blades of sharp steel. Stories gave me strength, gave me a framework for understanding right and wrong. I do the same for my two young boys now, tell them fine stories full of strong jungle women and men who swing on vines, escape certain death. Stories define us - the ones we believe, the ones we tell each other, the ones we tell about our place in the universe.

Bill Bradley, in his new book, The New American Story, explains that there is a story that runs through America's history, a story that can be retold and brought up to date, built upon, a story that will take us in a good and noble direction. To make his point, he presents us with a series of what he says are accepted stories about different parts of our life as Americans - political, educational, environmental, economic.

I believe that Bradley believes that these are the prevalent stories in our society, and in fact they are quite recognizable. We hear them all the time. But they don't seem to be widely enough held that you could say that most people believe them. In fact, every one of them sounds like the stories that people across the isle from Bill - the Republicans, the Red State people - believe.

As a counterpoint to those stories, Bradley gives us examples of new stories that can take us somewhere productive, at least in ways that seem productive and good to him. Bravo for someone trying to come up with new stories, because we sure need them.

The question is - are Bradley's new stories just stories that, though they may correct some things, fail to address fundamental problems that only a radical new story could address?

In the beginning of The New American Story, Bradley quotes Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Let's look at some of the parts of Bradley's New Story, and wonder as we look at them whether they are really addressing fundamental problems or not:

On America's role in the world, Bradley points out that in today's world, with its global connections of culture and economies, military force and unilateral thinking really doesn't work anymore. Iraq is a good example. If we want to achieve things for community, nation, and world, we have to think about each of these spheres of influence and life at the same time. Think and Act Locally, Think and Act Nationally, Think and Act Globally. These three forms of citizenship preclude the use of force as a tool for solving problems. It causes more problems than it solves. That's hard to argue with. It appears to be a story that is fact-based.

On the economy, Bradley presents the old story as the old trickle-down economics story, the one that leaves the economy to the market with little government direction or intervention. He talks about how individuals - all the way up to our federal government - are in debt, while trying to compete in a global economy full of people who work hard and for less than we can or want to do. Bradley points out that growth depends on investment, and investment depends on savings. Yet consumption represents 71% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, and savings a mere 1%. On top of that, Americans experience a huge inequality in their personal economic outcomes. That together with the fact that there are so many business opportunists nowadays who will buy and sell companies, play games with bookkeeping just to make a quick buck, is not a very pretty story.

Bradley's new economic story says that simply having the right levels of employment, inflation and productivity, though necessary, are not sufficient for us to achieve the quality of life by which we would measure our success as a society. For that, we need policies to set us in the right direction so that we can compete in the world market by offering products, services and ideas that are as good or better than those from anywhere else in the world. Policies, of course, means government with long-term thinking because only government can have long-term thinking. Businesses measure their success quarter to quarter, of course, and all too many individuals measure their success day to day.

Bradley presents well-thought out ideas on how to reduce the deficit, reform our tax system and generally put us back on solid fiscal ground.

My Question: If force is not the way to peace, is economic growth the way to quality of life?

My Bigger Question: American stories, when perceived to be "successful," get adopted by other nations, other peoples. Can the whole world achieve quality of life through competition and economic growth?

The fact of the matter is growth isn't sustainable, so quality based on growth won't last either, and in fact, the very growth that this story tells us will occur ultimately will make it impossible at the story's end. Imagine, in this new global economy, over a billion Indians, two billion Chinese, a billion Westerners, and a billion others from other places in the world, all imitating us as they already are, thinking that material growth will lead to happiness. There aren't enough resources, there isn't enough food, there isn't enough room for billions and increasingly more billions to work this formula. And if we concern ourselves only with America's quality of life, then are we good global citizens? Are we thinking globally as Bradley asks us to do? Wouldn't leading the way be all about sustainable economies on a global scale - not based on growth?

On oil and environment, Bradley presents the old story that there is plenty of oil and we will invent our way out of the energy crisis. Indeed, this is what the current administration has continued to put forth. And then there is the shortage of water, another resource for which we have no substitute at the moment. Bradley's new story is that oil is an addiction, not a diet, and that we must make changes in transportation, and level the field among competing energy providers and sources so that solar, geothermal, and other options can be fully utilized. We must cap emissions, and manage our natural resources for the future. That's hard to argue with, but again there's that question of never-ending growth.

Bradley addresses pensions, health care, and education, looking for a convergence between our ideals and our competitive edge. And in each of these areas presents us with the "old story" and then brings in the new. All in all a commendable effort by someone with long experience in public service. Bradley has clearly thought about each of these issues and seems to care.

I care too. And that's why I wonder about some of the "new stories," whether they aren't just another tale that will someday become an "old story."

The next big story in Bradley's book has to do with the political landscape. Bradley says that politics helps democracy answer two questions, "What rules do we have to abide by, and who gets what?" Bradley goes on to point out that people who live in the Red and Blue states mostly want the same things. So who gets what would seem to be a fairly simple formula, if only we could get there. As Bradley points out, special interest, poor voter turn out, money, media and spin undermine most every attempt to deliver what both people and politicians desire.

Bradley's new political story recommends things such as having non-partisan commissions draw district lines, taking measures to make voting easier, having the public finance political campaigns, and get media to spend specific amount of time covering public issues if they are to keep their federal broadcast license. Now there's the rub. Asking the media, with all of the monied interests at stake, to help bring about a highly aware marketing-resistant globally-concerned idealistically-motivation population, is like asking McDonald's to advocate vegetarianism. In fact, our media and entertainment and infotainment industry is one of the few areas in which Americans are not only competing globally, we're actually clobbering the competition, but we're certainly not exporting the idea of being good global citizens.

Imagine: Every channel spends an hour a day covering all those fine progressive policy potent issues, and then spends 23 hours a day preaching violence, wanton endless consumerism, anything to make a buck. Is there a disconnect here? Public television and public radio have been trying for years to grow a large audience, but no matter how hard they try, the commercial broadcast competition beats them out. Like they say, all it takes to change a channel is to push a button.

Bradley ends the book with some thoughtful analysis on why Republicans can't do what they ought and why Democrats don't do what they can. He concludes that the "new story" is the answer because it's the citizens who need to do and can do that which must be done. I would just encourage Bradley and citizens of communities and nations of the world to not believe any story too readily, because it may be a fairy tale, or it could be a nightmare.

Follow the story to its end. Read Bill Bradley's The New American Story. Carefully consider Bradley's new vision of America, and take it one step - take it two or three steps - further. Bradley has handed us a great road map, but it doesn't show the outskirts, the hidden oases. If each of us becomes a visionary, a global citizen with new ideals of quality of life in a sustainable economy, we might have a fighting chance, and perhaps that is the whole point of this book.