Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times reports on Russell Feingold’s unique position in American politics:

When Congress passed the antiterrorism bill known as the USA Patriot Act in the fall of 2001, greatly expanding the government’s investigative powers, a single senator, Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, voted against it. With the nation reeling from the Sept. 11 attacks, opposing the bill seemed an act of political suicide, especially for a Democrat.

Today, more than 40 Democrats and four Republicans stand with Mr. Feingold as he helps lead a filibuster blocking the act’s renewal. They are betting that the politics of terrorism have shifted from fear of another attack to wariness of “Big Brother” intrusions on personal privacy.

“If we stand up and say, as we are doing now, that we are absolutely committed to fighting terrorism, and that we are absolutely committed to the civil liberties of the American people, then that’s a winning position,” Mr. Feingold said in a recent interview. “For us to show weakness on civil liberties at this point would be another sign to people that the Democratic Party is not standing up for what it believes in.”

It’s not only the voters of today that will frown on a lack of commitment to civil liberties, the historians of tomorrow will condemn any weakness in standing up to the Bush administration’s assault on the fourth amendment.

In our short history we have seen several episodes where our leaders have trampled our rights, and, perhaps with the exception of Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, all of those episodes were retrospectively judged to have been mistakes.

It started with our second President, John Adams, who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Adams signed the laws ostensibly to protect the country against the French. In reality, the acts, which delayed citizenship for immigrants, gave Adams the power to imprison or deport aliens, and curtailed criticism of government, were aimed at consolidating power at Thomas Jefferson’s expense.

While Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus may have been justified, the post-war development of Jim Crow laws left one of the worst stains on the country’s history.

Woodrow Wilson has been severely criticized, and rightly so, for the excesses of the Espionage Act of 1917.

Wilson pushed the Espionage Act through Congress in 1917, making it a crime “to willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States,” or to “willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service” of the United States.” It became a crime to “utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag.” The act also targeted those who might “urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production in this country of any thing or things necessary or essential to the conduct of the war.” In fact, the Espionage Act even made it illegal to teach, suggest, defend, or advocate any criticism of the government. The bill gave the Postmaster the right to refuse delivery of any periodical he deemed unpatriotic or critical of the administration.

FDR has been correctly criticized for the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, and Eisenhower’s reputation still suffers because of his tolerance of the red-baiting of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The common denominator in these historical curtailments of civil liberties is that, in retrospect, the curtailments seemed unnecessary, hysterical, sometimes racist, and often had a hidden political purpose.

The same can be said about the current debate over the Patriot Act and the controversy over the NSA’s illegal surveillance program. These programs were enacted in a moment of hysteria, the debates over them (and the creation of the Homeland Security Department) have been used politically, their impact is felt most heavily by our Muslim and Arab citizens, and the most controversial of these programs are not necessary.

Mr. Feingold, widely believed to be considering a run for the White House in 2008, sounded confident last week. “I hope and believe,” he said, “that the Democrats are done allowing Republicans and others to use phony fears as a way to attack us.”

Senator Feingold has been the most level-headed politician in the country through all of this. He has shown wisdom, courage, and leadership. And every American, (Republican, Independent, or Democrat), should be grateful that Russ Feingold is in the U.S. Senate and working to protect our rights. When it comes time to pick a President in 2008, all Americans should consider these qualities of Russ Feingold and give serious consideration to supporting his campaign.