On Sunday, November 12th in Racine, I will hold my 1000th Listening Session with the people of Wisconsin. Before reaching that milestone, I want you to know that I’ve decided to continue my role as Wisconsin’s Junior Senator in the U.S. Senate and not to seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2008.
With that statement, Senator Russ Feingold has left the field of putative Democratic hopefuls for the Presidential nomination. He has left the left in this country without a voice in the upcoming vital national conversation. As he himself notes in a story about his announcement in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal:
Asked about the Democratic field, Feingold made it clear he preferred a nominee who shared his views on the war.
“The first choice would be somebody who voted against this unfortunate Iraq war. That may not be available,” said Feingold, who was the only Senate Democrat considering a run who voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
“Second choice is somebody who at least said it was a bad idea. . . . I would be happy if Obama or (Al) Gore ran,” said Feingold, who said he was not offering an endorsement.
Clinton, the presumed party front-runner, voted in 2002 to authorize force in Iraq. “Those who were there and came to the judgment the Iraq war was a good idea have to answer for some concerns I have about their judgment. That was a really bad judgment. I’m prepared to support a Democrat who voted for that war, but I think the American people would prefer a president who had the judgment to see it was not a good idea,” he said.
In this party of cowards and millionaires beholden to the investor class, there seems little or no chance that anybody will fill this vacuum, at least not from within the party. There will be more deaths from this criminal war, there will be more children without a voice as they go without medical care, without adequate shelter or hope for a better tomorrow. It’s likely that a run by Senator Feingold wouldn’t have changed any of that, but at least the questions would have been raised on the national stage. Now they likely won’t, and one can’t help but wonder again if it’s far past time for the left to completely walk away from a party that is so broken that it is all-but impossible for a voice of reason like Senator Feingold’s to prevail.
This isn’t about just Senator Feingold. The constant need in this country for a hero to ride in to save us is a recipe for disaster. Look what happened to the left when Bobby Kennedy was killed … it all-but folded, breaking into balkinized little fiefdoms of activist groups, concerned as much with raising funds as with actually effecting change. The attraction of a run by the Senator wasn’t in HIM, but rather in his quiet, reserved willingness to acticulate for a vast untapped well of people who want this country to be better: a standard bearer, not a savior.
How many of us hear our voice reflected in the halls of government? How many of us feel the blood rushing through our heads whenever we’re subjected to a media that continually denigrates or distorts the left, a political conversation that has rendered our entire point-of-view out of bounds? There may now be a socialist in the US Senate, but the idea that we should take care of one another using government BEFORE we blow most of our resources killing people gets little or no play on the public stage.
A run for President by Senator Feingold could have helped change that. Tactically, it’s hard to argue with his decision, but strategically it’s sadly true that the desire for change, for this country to have a more civilized humane course, has NO way of injecting itself into our nations politics if someone doesn’t make the case on a stage that our worthless media will pay attention to. Senator Feingold states:
Yet, while I’ve certainly enjoyed the repeated comments or buttons saying, “Run Russ Run”, or “Russ in ’08”, I often felt that if a piece of Wisconsin swiss cheese had taken the same positions I’ve taken, it would have elicited the same standing ovations. This is because the hunger for progressive change we feel is obviously not about me but about the desire for a genuinely different Democratic Party that is ready to begin to reverse the 25 years of growing extremism we have endured.
How can that hunger be sated without leaders to fight for that change? Maybe it’s not yet time. Maybe we have to sink further before people become desperate enough to open their minds beyond the mindless propaganda of our political parties and corporate owners. The left wasn’t truly able to inject itself into government until the Depression. This isn’t to say that anybody WANTS that to happen, but as we refuse to entertain a truly broad debate in this country, it is nearly impossible to rationally avoid the rocks that the captains of state are stearing us toward. As the middle class disappears, as our healthcare system melts down, as more blood and destruction spread at the point of our explosive spears, we on the left who might inject some compassion and reason into the deliberations are ruled out-of-bounds, so the long slide continues.
The left will continue to work locally, but with this announcement it’s painfully clear that it will be years before we have a chance to offer this country some choices other than greed, envy, division, hatred and fear. Americans can be a stubborn people, sheep-like, unwilling to slow down and consider that perhaps our flock is running in the wrong direction. Historically we’ve only corrected course after disaster.
It’s unclear whether the next Presidential contest is even worth paying attention to. Who will bear the left’s message forward? The candidates being bandied about; Vilsack, Biden, Clinton, Edwards … they’re a paltry lot. Some want to draft Vice President Gore, but is he any more likely to fight now than he was six years ago? The only national figure I can think of is one that was suggested by Molly Ivans:
Here’s what we do. We run Bill Moyers for president. I am serious as a stroke about this. It’s simple, cheap and effective, and it will move the entire spectrum of political discussion in this country. Moyers is the only public figure who can take the entire discussion and shove it toward moral clarity just by being there.
She suggested this some months ago, and for many of the same reasons I’ve explored here:
Do I think Bill Moyers can win the presidency? No, that seems like a very long shot to me. The nomination? No, that seems like a very long shot to me.
Then why run him? Think, imagine, if seven or eight other Democratic candidates, all beautifully coiffed and triangulated and carefully coached to say nothing that will offend anyone, stand on stage with Bill Moyers in front of cameras for a national debate … what would happen? Bill Moyers would win, would walk away with it, just because he doesn’t triangulate or calculate or trim or try to straddle the issues. Bill Moyers doesn’t have to endorse a constitutional amendment against flag burning or whatever wedge issue du jour Republicans have come up with. He is not afraid of being called “unpatriotic.” And besides, he is a wise and a kind man who knows how to talk on TV.
It won’t take much money—file for him in a couple of early primaries and just get him into the debates. Think about the potential Democratic candidates. Every single one of them needs spine, needs political courage. What Moyers can do is not only show them what it looks like and indeed what it is, but also how people respond to it. I’m damned if I want to go through another presidential primary with everyone trying to figure out who has the best chance to win instead of who’s right. I want to vote for somebody who’s good and brave and who should win.
National politics is lost to the left, and it will never open back up until years of local work are done, but a national run by a principled voice like Moyers could at least inject some of our ideas back into the contest. There is little or no left nationally, and with Senator Feingold’s announcement it has shrunk further. We’re in for long, dark days, for many years to come.
Russ is a good man, and his politics are spot on.
The only thing that I can think is that perhaps he feels that the next couple of years will see large retakings of power from the executive by the legislature, and that he would rather spend his efforts righting the constitutional situation than spending so much time and energy wading through oceans of babbling fluff and idiotic questions from the likes of matthews, crowley, russert, and etc.
I was bummed out when I heard it, and remain so.
As for your statement: “National politics is lost to the left, and it will never open back up until years of local work are done” — I think that is true, and would have been true with or without Feingold running for President.
I like the Moyers idea…I have been wracking my brains trying to think of another person who could fill the role that Feingold should have filled – standard bearer, spokesperson, megaphone, principled idealist with charismatic and well-spoken manner…
Moyers is good. Who else?
Hi Madman.
Well, for once you and Booman are in agreement. You are both depressed. Senator Feingold’s decision is like a kick in a gut.
I read Chris Bowers comments about it. I think he is right on that:
a) we should not immediately jump on someone else’s bandwagon
b) there may be a progressive leader out there who is not really being considered at this time.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the latter. I was racking my brains. Boxer is a possibility. Who else?
I’m wondering why Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. isn’t looked at more closely. I heard him at Democracyfest two years ago. He struck me as brilliant, progressive and charismatic. I want to do some more research on him.
Who else should we be looking into. We don’t have to accept the obvious choices, the ones the media and consultants tell us we should consider.
Idears, anyone?
It is depressing. After taking the House and Senate back last week, the next step was to get behind Russ for ’08. Now what? We just have a steaming pile of DLC-er presidential wannabes.
Now to go read Bowers’ post on the subject…
I still think we need to find our own candidate.
To continue my brainstorming — Gary Hart? Jan Schakowsky? Are there any progressive Democratic mayors of large cities? (No, Daley does not qualify.)Why couldn’t Moyers win? Paul Newman? Ben and Jerry?
Seriously, if Reagan and W can get elected the standards aren’t insurmountable.
Who can we MAKE electable?
Are there any progressive Democratic mayors of large cities?
Gavin Newsom, but he probably needs to run for governor of California first. I personally think any energy put towards the Presidential race in 2008 should go into promoting Feingold for Vice-President with Edwards, Clark, etc. The remaining candidates themselves don’t excite me at all and with the massive money requirements these days no one is going to come out of nowhere.
This guy may go places, but Denver isn’t on the map as a major city. Given the rise in the national prominence of the Mtn. West, he’s worth watching.
Turned down an opportunity to run for Governor, which, IMNSHO, he could have won, to continue to change the govt. in the City and County of Denver.
Mayor John W. Hickenlooper
State of the City address, 2006
Mini Bio
08’s too soon…but…
I met him – he is an alumni of my University, and studied in the same department as me, long before I was there – He owned a brewery for a while.
He’s a great guy.
Moyers is the only one that came to my mind.
Gore did fight. He DID fight, dammit. He won the election. Period. And he fought over the recount all the way to the United States Supreme Court. When five Justices effectively voted against him, the fight was over. There is no next step after that, short of violence in the streets. Stop saying Gore didn’t fight. He did.
he could have NOT LAUGHED at the CBC when they tried to demand that their constituents stolen votes be investigated.
I don’t know if I can ever forgive him for that.
I do think that’s correct that an inspiring candidate with lots to say and nothing to lose can pull other candidates up to a higher level. Howard Dean accomplished that for us last time. By his example, and because of our enthusiasm, he forced a little more courage and boldness out of our other candidates. Dennis K didn’t do that, probably because he lacks the physical presence and/or charisma. Moyers doesn’t have a strong physical presence, but he does have “presence.” The flip side of him is that he is hated by right-wingers almost as much as the Clintons are, and some lefties will never forgive him for his years as LBJ’s press secretary. Nevertheless. . .
You’ve got me thinking about the possibility of a candidate who, by his or her progressive virtue, lifts other boats. A Bill Moyers, a Barbara Jordan. . .
that the wingers hate him is a plus, in my book. They have ALWAYS gone over-the-top when they criticize him, and his mild-mannered decency emphasizes how nuts they are.
As I told Senator Feingold in his thread, great candidates don’t grow on trees today. We lost alot with his removal from consideration.
I think Molly has a grand idea with Moyers.
Moyers is a candidate that I could easily get behind.
I think many in the left could get behind this. It is an ideal way of taking back control of the Overton Window, and it would be a HUGE lift to the rise of the left in the Democratic party IMHO.
So… How do we drag him into this?
Winning the nomination would not have to be the goal, BUT I think he could be a viable candidate if he wanted and enough of us pulled a Lamont like maneuver on the Democratic party again.
It can be done.
Eh. Moyers is old (72) and won’t wanna.
The thing to do is try and get some worm in John Edwards’ ear regarding progressive politics. Gore I like, but don’t think he would be taken seriously by the media establishment, a critical flaw.
JJackson Jr. ROCKS, but I think he also does not crave the insanity his father has weathered.
We will work with whoever the frontrunners are. We will use the strength of our position in congress to pressure whoever does win in 08.
Feingold’s early drop out is saddening, but whatever. We will keep going.
I will not work with ANY frontrunner who is DLC/NDN/crypto-Republican. I will not support anybody who will sell out bedrock human rights for political advantage. That goes for GBLT Americans. That goes for protecting a woman’s right to control her own destiny, and that goes for the increasing willingness to eagerly vote for an expanded police state and widening imperial war. That renders nearly every candidate who’s put themselves forward so far off the table for me. Not only will I not support them, I will do what little is in my power to undermine them.
Enough is enough.
Sometimes trying to have the Themocrats listen to you is just as sickening as if trying to get the Regime to hear you.
One of the ugliest protests I was at was against Hillary Clinton. Our girls got hurt that time.
And I will not support them either.
on my blog (see here and here) were a reminder that we need to think outside the Democrat/GOP box (you already do that of course). I’m still pushing the American Solidarity idea.
As for Feingold, would have been nice. Was definitely a disappointment, though I guess I wasn’t that surprised. Who knows, sometimes someone not quite fitting the usual DLC mold comes out of seemingly nowhere – we’ll see what happens as 2008 nears. Not that I’ll be holding my breath of course.