The New Republic recently published a
long, interesting article about Sen. Russ Feingold's chances at becoming President. However, this article is more about the qualities and beliefs of the man himself rather than about how he'll fare in 2008. The title is "Will Iraq make Russell Feingold the new Howard Dean?" yet the article acknowledges that the two men aren't the nearly the same, despite both of them gaining popularity for opposing the war. Feingold's principled, consistent approach to politics is what endears him to his fans but also often angers his Senate colleagues, including those on his side of the aisle, prompting one of the Senators to say "Feingold, if we go into Iraq, we're strapping you onto the first missile!" Feel compelled to learn more about this complicated, articulate, principled man who may become President? Read on.
At a recent New Hampshire speaking engagement- you know, the standard stuff for anyone thinking of running for President, the man who introduced Feingold stresed his independence and commitment to his principles:
"As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and subsequently in the full Senate, Russ voted against the war in Iraq." At this, the crowd, filled with bitter opponents of the war, burst into rousing applause. Then Rauh noted that Feingold had recently "voted with the majority" to confirm John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme Court. "You may or may not agree with that. But I suggest that it indicates the deep degree of independence within his soul as he ponders leading this nation as a United States senator," Rauh said. Now the hall was silent; if people agreed with this interpretation, they didn't feel moved to say so. "Finally, as you reflect on Russ as a leader, be aware that he was the only member of the United States Senate to vote against the Patriot Act," he said. At this, the hall exploded into a long standing ovation.
This kind of fierce devotion to beliefs, many of them liberal, reminds many of Howard Dean, as the article points out.
For many of these New Hampshire Democrats, Feingold and his fearless approach reminded them of their last true love: Howard Dean. When Feingold appeared on a Manchester-area radio show, one man called in and said, "I think I'm hearing Howard Dean." After Feingold's speech in Epping, a Democrat in the audience named Kevin Bowe suggested to me that "he's clearly positioned to get that Howard Dean thing going." Meanwhile, on the Huffington Post blog--one of many liberal websites to celebrate Feingold of late--the leftist icon Tom Hayden
Yet, the two men are not one in the same.
But the Dean-Feingold comparison has its limits. Dean almost always told liberals what they wanted to hear. Feingold, by contrast, has a track record of quirky independence that routinely alienates his ideological allies. His career is riddled with positions--from backing Roberts to supporting campaign finance reform to defending Bill Clinton's impeachment trial--that leave other Democrats wanting to wring his neck. His unpredictable political style "can be very annoying sometimes," says David Newby, a Feingold ally who is president of the Wisconsin afl-cio. Dean was never so complicated. At the moment, however, Feingold's future may hinge on one simple word: Iraq.
Sen. Feingold, though generally liberal, has a view on foreign policy that doesn't seem to relate to either party now, as the article describes:
Conditions in Iraq are certainly nasty. But Feingold has long harbored wariness about U.S. military action. When Republicans forced a 1995 Senate vote to cut off funding for U.S. military forces in Bosnia, for instance, he was the sole Democrat to join 21 conservatives in support of the resolution. As other Democrats waxed idealistic about human rights, Feingold fretted about Vietnam parallels and worried that "our attempting to police the world threatens our own national security." By 1997, he was fighting to cut off funding for military operations in Bosnia and to begin an early withdrawal of U.S. forces. "What they haven't done is define a concrete exit strategy for our American troops," he said at the time. "This administration needs to sit down and work with Congress to map out a specific schedule for bringing our troops home, or they will be there for a very, very long time." Likewise, Feingold cast just one of three Democratic 'no' votes against the 1999 Kosovo bombing campaign. "It's a compelling notion that the American government has an obligation to stop brutality and genocide. I can't dispute that," he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in March of 1999. "But how can we be acting in Bosnia and Kosovo and not Rwanda, or Sudan, or East Timor, or even Tibet?" Feingold even told me that, during the 2000 presidential campaign, "I liked some of the things George W. Bush said about nation-building."
He may have annoyed liberals with these beliefs, but he certainly made up for it with his support for a timetable withdrawal in Iraq:
When it came to Iraq, Feingold concluded in the wake of his trip there that the occupation was doing more harm than good--both to the future of Iraq and to America's global national security interests. He soon began urging the Bush administration to offer a more detailed exit strategy. On August 18, he went a step further, delivering a speech in Marquette, Wisconsin, setting December 31, 2006, as the target date for the withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. Feingold stresses that his deadline comes "with flexibility," a caveat that some critics say renders it close to meaningless. But that's almost beside the point. What is most significant is the way Feingold, as he himself says, "broke a taboo." Previously, no other mainstream congressional Democrat had proposed an Iraq exit strategy. Fearful of being called weak or taking a position that could consign Iraq to chaos, even liberals in the House have generally held their tongues.
Feingold's speech was an instant hit across the liberal blogosphere. Already a minor hero for his lonely vote against the Patriot Act, Feingold was suddenly hailed as a Democratic savior for 2008 at major "netroots" sites like Daily Kos and MyDD. In particular, the blog crowd loved the way Feingold's critique of the war displayed his "spine." Some argued Feingold's bravery, in and of itself, was at least as important as his substantive position. "I think many Americans are less attracted by ideas and positions on the issues and more attracted by backbone, tenacity, and the ability to stand up for beliefs," wrote one commenter at MyDD. The notion was also echoed by David Sirota, a former House staffer turned liberal blogger, who argued in one dispatch that Feingold "continues to courageously take on the Washington, D.C. Democratic Establishment and its weak-kneed fear of taking any sort of serious stand on Iraq. Be sure not to miss that profile in courage, Sen. Joe Biden, as he provides a perfect example of why the public believes Democrats stand for nothing. Feingold, by contrast, seems to understand the need for his party to take strong stands--especially on the most pressing national security/foreign policy issue facing our country right now." Even when Feingold was walking down a Manchester, New Hampshire, street, a stranger walked up to him to declare, "You're a man of courage!"
Almost immediately after his speech, Feingold's numbers began climbing in monthly online straw polls staged by MyDD and Daily Kos. Such polls aren't exactly the Iowa caucuses, of course. But they're still good barometers of sentiment within the crowd that helped turn Dean from protest candidate to near-nominee. Clark, who is still surprisingly popular, routinely wins these polls. But Feingold now places second nearly every time--and his numbers are growing. In an October straw poll, he won 23 percent of the vote compared with Clark's 31 percent. His next closest rival was last year's vice presidential nominee, John Edwards, at a mere 12 percent. Hillary Clinton polled just 7 percent.
And why don't his fellow Senators particularly like him?
Within the Senate, some Democrats see Feingold as less a noble reformer and more a holier-than-thou prig. He once tried, unsuccessfully, to bar members of Congress from making personal use of frequent-flier miles earned on their official travels. He is totally ascetic about the influence of lobbyists and has fought to ban lobbyist gifts for lawmakers. He also requires his own staff to observe stricter limits than Senate rules dictate, forbidding them from accepting the most token gifts from outsiders. Even junior aides--including interns--are prohibited from snacking and drinking at the countless Capitol Hill receptions held by various trade associations and happily mobbed by hundreds of Hill staffers.
On its own, this would be enough to give Feingold a hall-monitor reputation. ("He's like the kid in class who tattles on everyone else," says one Democratic Hill aide turned lobbyist.) But maybe nothing annoys Feingold's colleagues as much as his fights against annual cost-of-living raises granted to senators. Such raises now kick in automatically by law, but Feingold has tried to change that, and he routinely battles to force an invariably embarrassing Senate debate--and recorded vote--on them. "It's not my favorite time of year in the Senate," Feingold concedes. (Although Feingold is a pauper by Senate standards, he refuses pay raises and donates anything over his $162,100 starting salary for deficit reduction--more than $50,000 so far.)
Maybe the ultimate Feingold heresy came during the 1998-1999 Clinton impeachment fight. When Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia offered a resolution to dismiss the charges against the president, every Democrat voted for the resolution but one: Feingold. Again, the issue was process. Feingold argued that Republicans deserved a chance to make their case and put it to a vote and that the Byrd resolution would "in appearance, and in fact, improperly short-circuit this trial" and "call the fairness of the process into question." The vote was a disaster among his Democratic constituents, according to the Wisconsin Democratic Party chairwoman, who told The Washington Post: "We're getting a lot of very upset people calling. ... Elderly people crying, other people yelling. ... They're just mad as hell." Feingold ultimately voted against impeachment. But watching him explain his interim vote promises to amuse. One adviser to a potential 2008 rival said he could envision cutting a "Feingold favored impeachment" ad. That's hardly a winning position with the Democratic base--not to mention a touchy debating point on a stage with Hillary Clinton.
Nevertheless, in New Hampshire, Feingold rarely missed a chance to slam his fellow Washington Democrats for mounting a timid opposition to the GOP. "We, as Democrats, have to provide a genuine alternative to the Republican Party," he said in Epping. "We cannot just be what I like to call Republican lite. That will not work." At various points, I heard Feingold denounce Democrats as being "too timid" on Iraq, complain that they provided votes to pass a GOP energy bill this summer, and even boast that he was the only Senate Democrat to criticize the "Gang of 14" compromise that averted the Senate "nuclear option" showdown this spring. (Feingold said the compromise conceded too much to the Republicans.) It was a striking echo of Dean's vow to represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party"--made all the more impressive coming from a man who has to work every day with the same Capitol Hill Democrats he was bashing.
All of which makes Feingold something of a loner in the Senate. Although respected for his intellect and integrity, Feingold "doesn't have any friends" in the chamber, according to one veteran Democratic aide. It may even be fair to say he has a few enemies. For example, Feingold told me that, in the heat of one pay-raise debate a few years ago, one of his colleagues marched up to him. "Feingold," the senator said, "if we go into Iraq, we're strapping you onto the first missile!"
Though seemingly dovish on foreign policy due to his views on nation-building, the Senator doesn't shy away from a muscular national security policy:
On the drive, Feingold chose to emphasize a surprising theme. Although he's a rising star today for his antiwar position, he made a point of talking about his party's standing on national security issues. "I think Democrats bankrupt their credibility if they cannot say there is no room for trying to understand Al Qaeda. The idea that you would negotiate [with terrorists] is unacceptable." He continued, speaking in the steady and reasoned voice of the litigator he once was: "If we are not perceived as strong and able to deal with international threats, we won't win. I do agree with some of those more conservative Democrats who say we need to do this. I just don't buy their argument about Iraq."
But this kind of independent streak, especially when it doesn't match liberal activists' ideological principles, can be a liability. After his speech in Epping, during which he insisted that Democrats must "show passion for American national security" and make it clear that, "if there are people out there who want to kill us, we should stop them first," a few activists complained to reporters afterward that he had sounded too "hawkish."
Ultimately, what does author of the article, Michael Crowley, make of Feingold's chances at Presidential success in 2008?
For now, however, Feingold is the best hope that antiwar liberals have. Even if some pro-war candidates echo his themes, they can't change their original vote for invading Iraq. Feingold can also credibly say he launched the withdrawal debate. And his lonely opposition to the Patriot Act is forever fixed in liberal lore. Yes, his presidential dreams face obstacles: He's Jewish. He has been divorced twice. He's not about to rouse the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" with a primal scream. But, in reality, his odds of winning the Democratic nomination are slim anyway. What Feingold can do is make life miserable for the other Democrats who seek it. Dean didn't defeat Kerry, after all. But he was the proximate cause for Kerry's vote against the $87 billion war appropriations bill--a vote that haunted Kerry in the general election. In 2008, perhaps Feingold will play the role of Dean to Clinton's Kerry, battering her image and dragging her further left than she can afford to go. A couple of years from now, in other words, it may be Hillary Clinton who wants to strap Russ Feingold onto a missile.
My take: Although I disagree strongly with Feingold's views on international military involvement in foreign policy, as I tend to believe in the Truman/JFK "Bear any burden in defense of freedom" philosophy, I respect him for his honesty, willigness to vote his beliefs even if it meant going against his own caucus, and have confidence that he will be competent in executing his plans, unlike Bush, who can't even do the WRONG policies (i.e. Iraq) correctly. I generally find myself in agreement with his domestic philosophy, and am glad that he is willing to advocate so strongly for these causes. He comes across as very likeable, intelligent, and articulate, so campaigning and winning over people shouldn't be a problem for him, as it was with Kerry. As for his unpopularity in the Senate, I see it this way: The United States Senate, sometimes called "America's most exclusive country club," is half of a Congress that has approval ratings nearly as low as Bush's. The vast majority of Senators are old, white, rich, spoiled, special interests-addicted men. If the honorable Senator from Wisconsin is so despicable in their eyes, than he HAS to be doing something right.
Don't ever stop kicking their asses, Russ!