Progressive Wisconsinites cheered when Russ Feingold announced in May that he was running for U.S. Senate against Ron Johnson, the Republican who defeated him in the 2010 tea party wave election. The two men couldn’t be more different and Feingold’s decision to jump into the race will provide Wisconsin voters with a clear choice between the two candidates.
Feingold has often been ahead of the curve on contentious issues but his controversial views eventually are accepted by the mainstream as conventional wisdom. For example, he was the lone vote in the Senate against the Patriot Act in 2001, warning about the bill’s threats to our civil liberties. In addition, he was an early supporter of marriage equality and a longtime critic of free trade agreements and campaign finance regulations that only benefit the wealthiest Americans and big corporations.
We spoke with Feingold last week as he’s laying the groundwork for his campaign. He’s been touring the state and stopping in Milwaukee often to get a clearer picture of all that the city has to offer and what we need from our elected officials. Here’s a portion of our conversation.
Shepherd: We know that you’ve been busy since leaving office. So what have you been up to?
Feingold: I’ve had a number of opportunities that were enjoyable but I learned a whole lot. The first thing I had the opportunity to do was to write a book. I was given the chance to pick the topic and what I wanted to write about was my concern that we aren’t getting our foreign policy right, particularly after 9/11. We have this tendency to focus on one place at a time, Afghanistan or Iraq or whatever it is. After we kill a couple of people in Al Qaida we say, well we’re done with that. But the truth is that what we’re dealing with is a complicated web of groups around the world, extremist groups, as well as the complicated groups of countries, from China to Brazil, that want to work with us to solve this problem. I called it While America Sleeps because it is my view that we are not adjusting as fast as we should to the new realities of the world that were sort of symbolized by the response to 9/11.
|
|
That was one thing I got to do. The other was that I had a wonderful opportunity to teach at the university level, including at a couple of major Wisconsin universities, Marquette and Lawrence University. Of course I enjoyed teaching both international relations and law but what was great for me was that I got to spend time, a great deal of time, with people in their 20s, a new generation that is coming into the work world now, and to really get a sense of the ways in which they look at the world a little differently. They’re not as into partisan politics. They seem to be more interested in service, both internationally and domestically. So that was wonderful.
Then I was lucky enough to be appointed by President Obama and Secretary Kerry to be the special envoy to the Great Lakes region of Africa. And that position was not only interesting, it involved a great deal of travel to Africa, some of the toughest places, particularly eastern Congo. But it allowed me the chance to work directly as a diplomat trying to resolve one of the worst violent conflicts since World War II and to also urge these countries to strengthen their commitment to democracy by respecting the term limits of their constitution. So these were all great assignments.
I was able to spend about half of my time in Wisconsin and I was also involved in the fight against corporate domination of our political process through the group I founded, Progressives United, and also being one of the chairs of President Obama’s re-election campaign. It’s been a wonderful four years. But now I’m ready to take on a Senate race.
Shepherd: Given that you were enjoying your new life outside of the Senate, why did you decide to run again?
Feingold: When I lost the election in 2010, I did not know if I wanted to run again. I, of course, had to consider whether anyone would want me to run again. I said to my family and other people, I’m not going to do this again unless I really want to. I was enjoying doing these other things and turned down a couple of opportunities to run in Wisconsin, which was difficult, because my supporters were asking me to do it. But last summer I finally realized that the thing I most enjoy and the thing I care more about is serving the people of Wisconsin. I love this state. I like going around this state. I love talking to people, I especially like listening to people, in Wisconsin. So I’m eager to do that again. I feel very excited and energetic to have the chance to run again and of course I hope to serve again in the Senate.
Shepherd: Are there any unresolved issues or unfinished business you’d like to address in the Senate?
Feingold: This is the real basis of why I want to run. It’s not a question of serving in the Senate. That’s something I’ve had an opportunity to do. What I’m seeing is that my state, the state that so many of my friends and family have cared about, is under assault by an ideology, not really a Wisconsin ideology, but a big money corporate ideology that tries to gut the traditions in our state, including respecting the hard work of working people, including the University of Wisconsin and including public service.
I want to run a campaign and be a public representative who believes that everyone’s work should be honored. In order to do that you have to be absolutely sure that you’re talking about 2016. Not 2014, not 2010. Not 1992. So what I’m doing is going to every county this year, all 72 counties, and I’ll do it again next year, to talk directly to people, to listen to people, particularly about their economic situation as well as economic opportunities.
I am running into all kinds of fascinating high-tech operations, water technology, interesting agricultural programs and others that we need to actually understand to provide the possibility for not only jobs, but very good jobs, as well as a really uplifting aspect of life these days. There are opportunities to do things in places in Wisconsin that never would have been possible before because of the incredible advances in communications and technology. I’m running to be a candidate who is really tuned in to what is happening in 2016. Not the past.
Shepherd: Wisconsin isn’t recovering from the Great Recession as well as most other states. What can you do in the Senate to help our struggling economy?
Feingold: We have to stop acting like we don’t need a partnership with business and government at all levels. We have to work together. One of the things we know we have to do, which I hear a lot about, is we have to repair the infrastructure of our country. Our federal government has to help with this. We need to be serious about roads and about our bridges and our water treatment and about so many aspects of our infrastructure, including making sure that broadband Internet is available to everyone. There are places in rural Wisconsin, but also even in urban Wisconsin, where that kind of Internet access is not available. That’s critical for businesses, it’s critical for students. These are different aspects of infrastructure that I think the federal government needs to engage in. It’ll help jobs in the near term and it’ll help us in the long term. I think a lot of people think that things are crumbling. This does not work for our future.
Shepherd: What can you do for Milwaukee?
Feingold: I’ve spent a lot of time in Milwaukee in the past few months because I want to make sure I know what is happening in the city. When I taught at Marquette Law School for a year in 2011, that was the first time I sort of really semi-lived in Milwaukee. I wasn’t there every night but I was there a lot. I really got a sense of a city that was having such a difficult time with dealing with some of the unfortunate statistics that in reality exist for many of our citizens in the central part of the city. That is something that everyone knows has to be addressed.
At the same time, there are so many exciting things happening in Milwaukee that I hope can benefit people in all parts of the city, including the central city. One of the things that I’m especially excited about is The Water Council and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee freshwater sciences program. I just toured it the other day. It’s probably the biggest program of its kind in the country. What you have now is a fascinating combination of businesses, start-up businesses, major businesses with their headquarters there, some of the top experts in this field, in water sciences, everything from management of fish supplies to issues of invasive species to issues of trying to provide to other countries that really want waste management or water treatment programs. The Chinese are extremely interested and are purchasing a lot of what A.O. Smith does. In fact, I got a chance to tour that at The Water Council. The Chinese are buying these units that have been developed that can purify water in an individual home in China. This has enormous economic potential. I intend to work as a senator to make sure that Milwaukee is specifically designated as the center for water issues, water development, water programs, in the country.
Shepherd: You were the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001. Now people realize there are some serious flaws in that legislation. How should the U.S. balance its national security needs with civil liberties?
Feingold: That to me was the challenge with regard to the Patriot Act. I laid out that night [in 2001] some aspects of the bill that didn’t make any sense and didn’t have anything to do with the terrorism problem. A lot of those provisions haven’t been fixed.
What happened there was, essentially, some people in the government saw an opportunity to put in a bunch of provisions that was an old wish list of the FBI. Robert Novak, the conservative columnist, said that at the time. A lot of this stuff was just used for drug cases. In other words, there was a bait and switch. I don’t want to deny the government ever the ability to go after information that’s based on real leads and real possibilities of terrorists. But this idea that somehow they can just collect in bulk or any other way the information of innocent Americans is just dead wrong and unnecessary.
The problem with the Patriot Act and the rhetoric on the right is they just want to give the government complete carte blanche and the ability to do whatever they want. And say, look, anybody that’s not doing anything wrong shouldn’t have anything to fear. Well, that’s not the kind of country I believe in. I believe in a country where you have a right to privacy unless you’re doing something wrong. And we need to stay on top of that.
Shepherd: What’s your reaction to the information leaked by Edward Snowden about the extent to which the government is collecting information about ordinary Americans and others?
Feingold: I was disturbed that he would do such a thing. It’s wrong to violate our country’s laws. The result of it was that a lot of people became aware of something that I was already aware of as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that our government hasn’t been telling us the truth about the breadth of what they have done under the Patriot Act. After promising everybody that they wouldn’t abuse it there were serious abuses. However, I do not condone what Mr. Snowden did.
Shepherd: You’ve been a critic of free trade agreements such as NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. But aren’t they necessary at some level in a global economy?
Feingold: In an ideal world of course we would all like good free or fair trade agreements. The trouble is, ever since I have had an opportunity to work on these issues, it seems like the workers in this country, and often the workers in other countries, get the short end of the stick. When I came into the Senate everyone said NAFTA was going to be a great deal for Wisconsin workers and I had to fight against both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich and others to vote against NAFTA. You know what? It cost Wisconsin 70,000 jobs.
Every time one of these agreements comes up they try to sell us a bill of goods, saying, well this time it’s different and we’ve got this language in there and that language in there. But the trouble is there is never any will to enforce that language. Just because you have language protecting the environment and protecting workers, that doesn’t mean that anyone is ever going to enforce it. Frankly that’s even what’s happening in the Obama administration. So why should I believe that this new agreement will be any different? There is no compelling reason to believe that this will be different. I think we have been hit too many times by unfair trade agreements and unless they meet a real burden of proving that they will actually enforce the protections for workers and the environment I don’t think we should do it.
Shepherd: You have a very different take on the student loan crisis than your opponent. What do you think should be done to make college more affordable for those who want to attend and are serious students?
Feingold: One of the most amazing differences between me and the incumbent is the critical question of whether you believe we should help students with some government help to go to college and post-secondary education. I know that student loans held by the federal government are the difference between many people going to college or not. It’s made the difference for people who are close to me, that have worked for me. The incumbent senator has specifically said he doesn’t think the government should have ever gotten involved in student loans and he wished that it never had. It’s pretty obvious that he doesn’t understand the reality of education costs for people these days. He said that he worked his way through college. Well, the trouble is that he’s living far in the past, when tuition was maybe $600 or $1,000. It shows that he literally doesn’t understand what it means to be a young person trying to go to college today. I do understand that. I have spent a great deal of time with young people. And it’s just a crime when they don’t have a chance to go to college if they want to.
Shepherd: Your opposition is accusing you of misusing the funds donated to your political group, Progressives United. What’s your response?
Feingold: The fact is that the Progressives United organization, which I founded, was an excellent organization that did exactly what it was supposed to do. Those who are claiming it didn’t are intentionally disregarding its purpose. What they’re saying is that we didn’t give enough money to candidates. That wasn’t its main purpose, to give direct contributions. If that’s all it was, a way to funnel contributions to one organization or to candidates, I wouldn’t have had any interest in it.
What this was about was mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people through generating large email lists to give contributions to candidates of their choice so that it would be a populist approach to these issues. It was very successful in that regard. Everything you’ve seen about this [from the Republicans] is an intentional effort to not look at the truth. The truth is, this organization did exactly what it was supposed to do.
In terms of some examples of what it did, which of course was not publicized by the Republicans, the organization was able to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people to help win a big victory to protect net neutrality. We were a major player in that effort. It was also possible through Progressives United to raise directly or indirectly for progressive candidates as much as almost $2 million. Of course that hasn’t been reported. There were also victories with regard to putting a lot of communications into the Securities and Exchange Commission, which had some bad ideas about letting the banks off the hook.
There were a lot of great people working hard for a good cause. The only reason people are aware of the specifics of what was spent and what wasn’t spent is because we voluntarily disclosed everything. In other words, in many ways this was a model organization. I’m proud of it. Not only was nothing wrong done, in my view everything right was done.
