On Russ Feingold

You remember Jesus, of course. No, not that One. I have in mind Jesus ben Sirach, credited with one book of apocryphal writings. That Jesus. He wrote Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach. Only deep into the book do we find its most famous line “Let us now praise famous men…” and then with permission granted to myself to edit quasi-sacred writ, here are some examples of why the famous men are to be praised—for “giving counsel by their understanding, and by their knowledge of learning, wise and eloquent, honored in their generations, and the glory of their times who have left a name behind them, that their praises might be reported.”

Heady stuff. Few qualify in the modern world. Russ Feingold is among them however, recently turned away by the voters of Wisconsin, though still young enough at fifty-seven to return to the fray. Known as a great dissenter, Feingold voted against his own party 887. Looking remarkably like Daily Show host Jon Stewart, Feingold attributes his independent spirit to growing up in the small town of Janesville, Wisconsin where most of his friends were Protestant, many from conservative homes. Rather than conform, he excelled.

Not surprisingly a biblical analogy is used by a colleague to describe him. “He has been the David against some pretty big Goliaths,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. “He never shied away from a fight, even if he had to fight alone.” He opposed the Patriot Act, the Bush bank bailouts, and the Obama troop surge in Afghanistan. Most recently Feingold joined 18 other senators from both parties in voting against President Obama’s compromise extension of the Bush-era tax cuts. The measure also extended unemployment benefits for millions of Americans, a key demand of Democrats. To me this is his most important vote in opposition. To give multi-billionaires tax breaks for two years in return for thirteen months of unemployment compensation to the neediest, the people who multi-billionaires put out of work to begin with, is a shanda, and I’m sorry our delegation voted for it, pleased as punch, to quote another mid-westerner that Feingold refused to do so. Feingold’s argument was more economic than my moral stance, but it holds: “Rather than include a combination of responsible spending cuts and revenue increases to offset its projected cost [the tax breaks] of nearly $900 billion … instead just adds its cost to our already massive national debt.”

Those were dissenting votes; he had positive ones as well, most notably the epic coalition-building that resulted in the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 (after a seven years legislative struggle) that severely limited national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, and “issue ads” that name federal candidates within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation or by corporate or union general treasury funds. So-called soft money was the target; big business complained and in 2009 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the guts of the bill were ripped out. Big corporations objected that free speech was imperiled, that money was speech and could not be regulated by federal legislation. The Supremes in Washington agreed (well, five of them, anyway) and McCain-Feingold went the way of the passenger pigeon. If the Court is right, if money = speech, America is in trouble; deep trouble. There are those few with many dollars and those many with few dollars. The rich can shout from the highest minarets, the poor get to write the occasional letter to the editor. Parity, which Feingold and John McCain (in his maverick mode) sought, is destroyed. The dollar rules, the voice of the people is muted. The bill took seven years to pass, and then seven years later it was declared unconstitutional. Pharaoh’s dream came to reality, again.

In bidding adieu to his colleague, McCain said “In his time in the Senate, Russ Feingold, every day and in every way, had the courage of his convictions. And though I am quite a few years older than Russ and have served in this body longer than he has, I confess I have always felt he was my superior in that cardinal virtue.”

In the 112th Congress there will be thirteen Jewish senators (counting Michael Bennet [D-Colo.], who does not identify a religion, but notes that his mother is Jewish and a Holocaust survivor.) Missing will be Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

The 2010 Elections

The people have spoken, though I wish they’d spoken differently.

Two years ago Obama and the Democrats were America’s darlings. On November 2 we saw the power of big money behind the scenes and big voices on TV and radio. We Americans ride a pendulum. In 1964 the conservative movement was dead and in 1980 we got Reagan. In 1972 Nixon was overwhelmingly re-elected and then in ’74 was forced to resign in disgrace. Bill Clinton also lost congress two years into his first term and then handily defeated Bob Dole. The big Republican wins on Tuesday will be followed by big Democratic ones at a polling place near you sometime in the future—but not in two years, I wouldn’t think. Such is life.

A man whose intelligence I respect thinks that the stunning Republican victories were the result of, “the power of the American People, who do not want a ‘European Social Democracy’ type of society.” My immediate response was “You've made my point. The Democrats weren't proposing anything close to European style socialism, but the big money and the big mouths convinced the voters big-time that they were.”

It’s mid-term exam time. Question: Which European leader was the first to introduce and have his parliament pass legislation creating social security benefits, sickness insurance (2/3 of the premiums paid by employers, 1/3 by employees), and accident insurance (100% paid by employers), health insurance, civil marriage obligatory (and church marriages optional). Hint: He was Otto von Bismarck, not some far left socialist (in fact, he had a series of anti-Socialist laws passed). Why? One reason was to woo workers from the Socialist party to his Conservative one; the other was that the master of Realpolitik knew that Germany’s economy depended on a stable happy work force.

President Obama has two choices. He could say (and has already said) I’ve learned my lesson and want to compromise with the new Republican majority in the House, the empowered Republican minority in the Senate. This is the Bill Clinton approach, and it’s worked. Then, but it won’t now. Already, within the week of the elections GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) has rejected talk of bipartisanship and made crystal clear his party’s goal is to defeat Obama in 2012. The party of NO will not become the party of “Let’s roll up our sleeves and work together”. Right wing Republicans call Obama “Leviathan” perhaps an homage to Thomas Hobbes as they work to “Reverse the damage done by the Obama-Reid-Pelosi regime since 2008.” (Mark Tapscott, Editorial page editor of the blog “Washington Examiner”)

Memo to Mark Tapscott: Obama didn’t assume office in 2008.

Or Obama could go the other way (but I don’t think he will as he’s shown no inclination to do so when he had large majorities in congress) and roll up his sleeves and say, “I have an agenda, the American people knew what it was when they overwhelmingly elected me and I’m going to push it.” This was the attitude of Cheney and Bush when they rolled into Washington in 2001. They knew the people had wanted Gore and Liebermann, but they’d won and they pushed and pushed and got what they wanted from cowed Democrats and jubilant Republicans. But as I say, I don’t think Obama has it in him. He’s weak; eloquent, but lacking in the reality of how Washington works—not with a whimper but with a whip. Ask Dick Cheney.

The Republican leader in the House is likely to be the only Republican Jew in Congress, Eric Cantor of Virginia. (What does that tell us, that of all the Jews in the House and Senate only one is a Republican? It tells us that Jews are still overwhelmingly concerned with social justice, not bottom lines, with the economics of job creation, not trickle down tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans while the gap between poor and rich increases exponentially.) Jews won and lost this season. Rhode Island sent its first Jewish Congressman to the House and America lost Russ Feingold, a man who with John McCain fought and fought and fought and fought for election reform, only to have it trashed by the Supreme Court. It’s ironic that he was among the first victims of the big money splurge that resulted.

For a complete accounting of how Jews did this season, see: http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/11/02/2741564/tracking-the-races