Russ Feingold sat in my office for an endorsement interview the other day and held forth knowledgeably for almost an hour on many issues, but I was most struck by his remarks on health care.
Feingold’s willingness to be the nation’s only U.S. Senate candidate daring to campaign on his support for President Obama’s health care reform law has made national headlines. The Wall Street Journal pegged an entire article to how the three-term Democrat was going it alone in that regard.
In a campaign season in which voter fury is palpable and deep, Feingold’s informed explanations don’t seem to resonate in the way he hopes. It’s the visceral that rules, so I asked him whether the merits of the health care law are hard to sell because they are difficult to explain.
“It’s not easy,” he replied.
Then he launched in, calling it a “huge step forward.”
“I think if you hit two or three key points, then people are receptive to hearing more,” he said, the big ones being a huge increase in the number of people with coverage and a crackdown on dropping coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
“If people are still willing to listen,” he added, “I talk about the strong cost-containment provisions” in the bill, including attempts to prevent unnecessary and duplicative tests, which he said he played a big role in crafting and which he says experts agree are critical to reducing overall costs.
Ah, but are people willing to listen?
In his brief explanation Feingold used that phrase twice. Sadly, it sticks with me because it touches on the central reality this fall — too many are not.
An editorial in the New York Times last week headlined “Uphill in Wisconsin” hit the nail on the head.
“When it came to the actual details of governing (Feingold) trounced his Republican challenger, Ron Johnson, in a debate in Wausau, Wis.,” the editorial began. “He knew that the new health care law will not reduce Medicare spending but will slow its staggering rate of growth. He knew that a vast majority of small businesses would not pay higher taxes if rates went up on the wealthy and that global warming isn’t caused by sunspots. He knew that without the 2009 stimulus there would be at least 1.5 million fewer people with jobs.”
It continued: “Mr. Johnson, on the other hand, proudly proclaimed recently that he doesn’t ‘think this election is about details.’”
At least on that, Johnson may be right.
Polls certainly show an uphill fight for Feingold. As his race against Johnson, a plastics manufacturer, enters its final two weeks, the contest is getting loads of national media attention. Those national accounts have portrayed it as a prime example of many races in which respected, independent incumbents are in deep peril.
When I was in Washington last month, a recurrent theme in Capitol Hill conversations was not only how prospective voters were leaning, but how few of them said they were “swayable” in the final weeks. Their arms are figuratively crossed, minds made up.
The Times editorial continued: “The Wisconsin electorate he (Feingold) faces seems to have lost its progressive streak and become more like other Midwestern states.” Ouch. Like Illinois? Michigan?
No contemporary politician better exemplifies the spirit of Wisconsin’s progressive tradition of “Fighting Bob” La Follette than does Feingold, as we explained in our endorsement editorial last week.
To his credit, Feingold betrays no outward frustration that his diligent and independent performance — you know, an actual record of achievement — is held against him.
Deep-seated fear among the electorate is certainly understandable.
Legions of middle-class voters have fallen victim to an economic realignment that has seen family-supporting manufacturing and even white-collar jobs disappear and those with jobs have seen their pay and fringe benefits erode.
And this happens at a time when the wealth gap between haves and have-nots has dramatically increased.
Yet too many seem willing to listen and trust the “haves,” who seem to have no coherent thoughts about how to actually improve the lot of the middle class. Their greatest key skill is to demonize, and they do it well.
It started in earnest when Ronald Reagan got traction in 1976 with his references to a fictional Chicago “welfare queen.” So, Reagan seemed to say to ordinary workers, if we can cut her off, your life will be better. In fact, his financial policies were all about wealthy Republicans “trickling down” a few baubles to the masses.
Today the same interests demonize accomplished politicians like Feingold and paint anyone who inherited a business from dad and didn’t screw it up as a job-creating, payroll-meeting “entrepreneur.”
In a way, it is tempting to just sit back and say “I told you so” if this election brings all of these experience-free — and perhaps incompetent — candidates into office. Many of them would adhere to trickle-down principles that would most hurt those who are now apparently drawn to them en masse. But that’s a hard route to take when the stakes are so high.
In the end, the people who regard any experienced officeholder — and indeed, the government itself — as the root of evil should know they aren’t the only ones who are outraged this election cycle.
Trust me, there is anger and disbelief on the other side, too.
Ammo for Feingold 2010 