PATRIOT GAMES
|
Sen. Russ Feingold's Fight for Liberty at Home.
|
.:: By John-david Morgan ::. l 10.11.04
.:: Illustration By Eddie Davis ::.
|
When political pundits and writers, especially those in Wisconsin, looked back on 2001 in search of the year’s most intriguing political figure, they did not have to dig far into their notebooks to find their honoree.
Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold stood alone in the minds of many in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, horrific events that gave birth to the USA Patriot Act, the homeland security measure designed to fight terrorism. Citing concerns that the bill violated constitutional rights to due process and protections against unreasonable searches, heightened the need for a federal ban on “racial profiling” ban, and gave law enforcement new powers to seize assets, Feingold cast the single vote against the Act in the U.S. Senate. The 98-1 vote made him a pariah to some, a heroic defender of civil liberties to others and, to some analysts and interests, a potential presidential candidate in 2004.
When the Patriot Act was introduced, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft inferred that Feingold and others attempting to amend it were “aiding the terrorists.” Letter writers on editorial pages in Feingold's home state followed Ashcroft’s lead, calling the senator “unpatriotic,” “a fool” and a friend of terrorists. Still, his popularity in Wisconsin held steady. In fact, his approval ratings actually increased after the vote, according to one statewide poll. Ralph Nader took to chiding the Senate democrats who supported the homeland security act: “Feingold voted against the Patriot Act, and his approval ratings soared …”
Feingold saw in the Patriot Act the standardization of what was already happening to Muslims and Arab-Americans in the days that followed the attacks. On a Northwest Airlines flight, the passengers and pilot voted three Arab-American passengers off the plane. In San Antonio, a doctor was arrested and detained because his last name was similar to the names of two hijackers. The fight against racial profiling that Feingold had taken up with the Feingold-Conyers bill accelerated with a new urgency as Feingold stumped on college campuses, calling for support for broader civil liberties reforms at home. The post 9-11 homeland security act, Feingold dared to say, would weaken America at home.
During a visit to his Milwaukee office while arranging the interview, the implications of the Patriot Act hit home. In a surreal scene during which a children’s choir sang “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” in the rotunda of the federal courthouse, I was asked by security officers to first remove my coat, my belt, and finally my shoes. I stood under the metal detector in my socks, wondering as the voices of the choir rose in harmony to fill the rotunda whether this was to become a permanent facet of life in the United States.
The day prior to the scheduled interview, the final signature on a “discharge petition” which would require Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R—Illinois) to schedule a vote on the House version of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill was received. This freed the bill for a vote in both houses of Congress, and, seven years after it was crafted, passage of the landmark legislation “to stop the train of soft money that dominates politics.” A “cautiously elated” Feingold talked campaign finance reform first, defending the compromises made over the years and declaring McCain-Feingold only the beginning in the effort to reform the “corrupt system” in place.
“I favor full public financing,” he said. “But I think the American people want to see the system cleaned up. [McCain-Feingold] has done nothing but galvanize the movement toward campaign finance reform. Its affect has only been benign toward those efforts, and it is a beginning. Much more work needs to be done.”
 ThePRESS: Let’s talk about the USA Patriotic Act. The vote was 98-1. Now, there are other Democrats in the Senate who believe very strongly in the need to protect our constitutional rights, and Republicans who would defend our “rights to be left alone.” Yet you cast the lone vote against the Act. If we could look at the more personal side of the question, why you?
FEINGOLD: I do think about that. I was raised to believe that the reason a person goes into politics is to do something and stick to your principles, even if you’ve got to do something that may endanger your career and people will have a hard time understanding why you’re doing it.
My understanding is that the protection of the Bill of Rights is the bottom line. I take it very seriously. That’s why I’m on Judiciary Committee, and I’m chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee … All I could think of is that the bill is very dangerous. As chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee, I had to vote against it. It’s my job. And, I have found that people of Wisconsin are very supportive of my stance.
ThePRESS: One poll showed that your ratings went up after you voted against it.
FEINGOLD: I think it is a national sentiment, more intensely felt in Wisconsin. We have an independent streak and a healthy skepticism about powerful interests. It includes corporations and the government, and the FBI. We trust our local law enforcement to do more and we don’t want that much involvement from federal law enforcement.
ThePRESS: Doesn’t some of this start with the Clinton Crime Bill in 1994? You voted against the Crime Bill because it expanded the federalization of criminal justice and the death penalty.
FEINGOLD: They wanted to make every gun-related offense a federal offense. That’s sort of a slap in the face to local sheriffs and police, the people who have always handled these things in the past.
ThePRESS: The Clinton Crime Bill was the first major piece of legislation that put the ideals of the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC) into practice, as part of the centrist movement of the Democratic Party. Do you think that the DLC’s influence on party policy was one reason that no Democrats were willing to join you in voting against the Patriot Act?
FEINGOLD: I do want to say that one aspect of the Crime Bill that I was very supportive of was the federal government providing funds to local government to hire police officers. That part of the effort was a great idea, and I supported that. I want to make that clear.
But in answer to the question, I want to say yes. I do feel the DLC has co-opted the larger Democratic Party and become the kingmaker as it comes to picking a nominee (for president). It has a combination of requirements. To get the nomination, you have to be for the death penalty. You have to buy into the global trade policies, and you have to adopt a federalized and overly harsh view of law enforcement. It sucks the populism out of the party.
[Note: These comments, made just over two years before the Iowa caucuses, proved to be a foreshadowing of things to come on the campaign trail. The Democratic Party’s DLC inner apparatus worked to ensure that Howard Dean’s populist candidacy for president was derailed in Iowa.]
ThePRESS: So much of the attention with the Patriot Act has focused on Attorney General Ashcroft, and, to some extent the irony of the fact that you bucked the Democratic Party leadership and supported Ashcroft during his nomination. Do you think the focus on Ashcroft, the personal spin on this, has obscured in the media the real problems that you see in the Patriot Act?
FEINGOLD: I feel that almost none of (the media) did that, and I think the issues have been covered. It isn’t personal at all. It was a terrible piece of legislation … [Ashcroft’s] remarks about how anyone who votes against the bill were agreeing with terrorists were terrible. They were outrageous comments. [He was] saying something that no Attorney General of the United States should have said, or should ever say.
I didn’t see any irony in it. And I don’t think it was detracting at all from the issues. I’ve said all along that the president has a right to have his cabinet. But I’m sure many people know that if it were up to me, John Ashcroft would be my last choice to be Attorney General. My vote against the bill was about the systematic abuses of the Bill of Rights that it allows. If anything, [the support of Ashcroft’s nomination] gave form to the criticisms. It added to the credibility of my criticisms …
Go to DEFENDING "THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY" Sen. Russ Feingold in Ann Arbor, Veteran's Day 2001•
|
|
|
|
|
 |