Free from any concerns about getting reelected, Russ Feingold is completely candid. Here’s a snippet from his interview with John Nichols of The Nation.
THE NATION: What do you mean when you refer to “the broader struggle”? What should progressives do now?
RUSS FEINGOLD: I don’t know how it could be more stark or clear: this entire society is being dominated by corporate power in a way that may exceed what happened in the late nineteenth century, early twentieth century. The incredible power these institutions now have over the average person is just overwhelming: the way they can make these trade deals to ship people’s jobs overseas, the way consumers are just brutalized and consumer protection laws are marginalized, the way this town here—Washington—has become a corporate playground. Since I’ve been here, this place has gone from a government town to a giant corporate headquarters.
To me, the whole face of the country—whether it be the government, the media, agriculture, what happens on Main Street—has become so corporatized that the progressive movement is as relevant as it was one hundred years ago, maybe more so. It’s the same issues. It’s just that [corporate] power, because of money, international arrangements and communications, is so overwhelming that the average person is nearly helpless unless we develop a movement that can counter that power. I know we’ve all tried over the years, but this is a critical moment. We need to regenerate progressivism and make it relevant to what’s happening right now. But there’s no lack of historical comparison to a hundred years ago. It’s so similar; the only real difference is that corporate power is even more extended. It’s the Gilded Age on steroids.
Feingold also sounds like a man itching to get back in the game. If Sen. Herb Kohl retires, as many expect, I think Feingold could be back in the Senate after a mere two year break. But his point is an important one. Progressives need to find a new way out of this box. But, at the same time, we have to protect what we have.
THE NATION: You’ve never been cautious about suggesting that this president has missed the mark, not just on trade but on a host of economic issues. Yet you reject talk of a Democratic primary challenge that might press Obama on some of these issues. Why?
RUSS FEINGOLD: I’m going to be supporting President Obama. I don’t see it as productive to go after, and basically make it very difficult for, somebody to be re-elected who I think has, at least in a number of areas, some progressive instincts. I think there’s still great opportunity for him. So I’m not one who believes that a primary challenge that would weaken him in a serious way is a good idea. Now, I understand some people are of the opinion that a challenge would strengthen him; but I’m a little bit skeptical. I look at these Republican candidates [laughs] and I know pretty well who I want to be president. You know, this is serious business, when you see what these people [Republicans] want to do. You give them a president, and we are really in trouble.
That’s about exactly where I am (and have been) in relation to this administration. I am probably a little less sure than Feingold that new free trade agreements are going to do the kind of job-exporting damage that we saw with NAFTA. A trade agreement with South Korea could be mutually beneficial, or even more beneficial to our side. I think we should be careful of seeing red anytime we hear the words “free trade.” I think we’re going to continue to lose jobs because our labor is comparatively expensive and we want to keep it that way. NAFTA was harmful because Mexico borders our country. Lowering trade barriers with places like South Korea and Peru will have consequences, some of which are negative, but it won’t result in a mass exodus of U.S. factories. With that difference of opinion, I’m with Feingold. When corporate interests can turn the GOP from Cap & Traders (it was in McCain and Palin’s platform) into climate change deniers in a mere two years, and shift public opinion about it dramatically as well, then we have no chance. These people are going to destroy everything if they are not stopped. For now, that means we need a strong president. He’s our bulwark while we figure out how the hell to fix this structural problem with our politics.
If Kohl doesn’t retire, that means Feingold better run in ’16. And what he’s also saying is pretty damning of the DLC, if you ask me.
He can also run in the House. For instance, he could take out Ryan. That would be a win-win-win.
Does Ryan represent the district where Feingold lives? And did you know that Obama actually won Ryan’s district? It’s one of the great disappointments of the DNC/DCCC that they don’t seriously take on “Privatizing” Ryan.
He doesn’t have to live there. Morgan Griffith won where I live and he doesn’t live nearby at all. It was our best ammo against him, though.
Meh, I still support free trade, especially as technology gets better. As you said, our labor costs are high. There’s really no incentive to stay here without the cost of labor rising over there. More to the point, with increasing technological advances, it’s natural for an economy to be more service oriented; moving from Tiers 1-2 to Tiers 3-4. With that, we have a HUGE education gap here. We need more people educated. Even without this recession we would have had an unemployment crisis. It would have just been slightly down the road.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/what-happened-to-15-million-u-s-jobs–20110120?page=1
The problem is that those who most need to be working right now on increasing their education in order to be prepared for this new competitive global workforce are unable to afford the cost of that education. It is truly a catch-22. We will continue to fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world in the skills necessary for the jobs in cutting edge technologies that will be required to sustain a middle class in this country. Unless there is some kind of grand intervention of scale, we are quickly sliding away from even having a significant middle class. And, in the current political climate, the likelihood of the government playing a significant role in making this expansion of education at all possible seems mighty small to me.
Indeed. I don’t have the solution. Education is the issue I know the least about, and unlike stupid right wingers who don’t know shit about many issues, I don’t pretend to know the solutions. It’s why I really have no stances on education at all, except that vouchers as designed in the U.S. are not a solution.
Although I think the neoliberal idea of giving everyone guaranteed loans made things worse. It was another “using the government to achieve market aims” solution. They stripped funding from the states and colleges directly, giving LOANS, not money, but loans, into the hands of people in the name of freedom. Colleges probably just jacked up the price of education and took the money.
Don’t know about private colleges, but I can tell you what happened in Ohio to our public universities.
The state government slashed state funding for higher ed. Colleges replaced that revenue by increasing tuition – which required student to take out more loans. The state government came back again and slashed funding for higher ed – which again had colleges replacing that revenue by increasing tuition. Some day it will reach a point where the revenue the universities get from the state is so small that they will be better off turning themselves into private institutions.
Which is of course exactly what our Republican legislators probably want to have happen. How dare the state create a non-profit education system when a market-driven for-profit system would clearly and obviously be better. Because the market for education is EXACTLY like the market for US wheat circa 1770…
Add to that the skyrocketing cost of health care for faculty and admin and increase in size of admin for various reasons, some justified, increasing salaries for admin (not really justified imo)), deferred maintenance on campus bldgs, etc.
Yeah there’s all that too. The health care part is insane and taking care of that would knock out a big chunk of expenses.
And the admin salaries – yeah. The problem is that administrators make a convincing case that they should be paid like an equivalent position in a corporation. Not quite so much, they are working at a non-profit after all, but the salary discrepancy shouldn’t be huge because hey, they’re doing similar jobs.
The problem is that equivalent positions at corporations are insanely overvalued – in a system that is completely rigged by the high-level executives to basically steal money from their shareholders and from their employees. So administrators who are trying to “keep parity” are comparing apples and oranges (and, frankly, should just be told “get a corporate job if you want the money that badly” – good administrators are worth having, but few administrators are actually good enough to be worth the money they’re getting).
What would solve a lot of problems is if executive compensation could be ratcheted down to sane levels. About the only way I know to go about doing that (the “market” is useless for this because the execs are gaming the system to their advantage) is to do what was done in the Eisenhower administration – find a level of compensation that you want as your limit and say “fuck it – any income over this dollar amount will be taxed at 90%”. Income levels would drop pretty much immediately. Execs would find new “perks” to replace their old income, of course, but at least the salary comparisons would be back into the realm of sanity.
The same thin is happening in California. The problem is that people here want a strong public university system, but they don’t want to pay for it. So the state keeps slashing the budget, and the universities have to raise tuition to compensate. Soon the UC system will be effectively privatized, and most people in California will no longer be able to afford a good UC education.
But that system is not tenable, because the university system in California is predicated on the large number of people who want to attend. If it reaches the point where people can’t afford it, the system will collapse.
I’ve been thinking for a while now that higher education is a bubble that is going to pop. Mostly because in previous decades it was heavily government funded and that dried up in the 90s. Then it because heavily funded by bank loans to students. Like the housing market, that’s not a situation that is tenable for the long term and something is going to blow up.
I agree. I’m in $50k worth of debt, and I went to a cheap university.