Sanford D. Horwitt, Simon and Schuster, NY July 2007
16-7 Previously, the city fathers’ governing philosophy, such as it was, was “the epitome of fiscal conservatism,” and that government should do “as little as possible.” Janesville’s teachers were often among the lowest paid in the state, schools were overcrowded and the city streets and sidewalks were frequently in bad repair. All of this changed in the new, post-GM Janesville when Janesville adopted a city manager form of government and hired Henry Traxler as its first city manager, in 1923. He served in the post for twenty-eight years, the longest of any chief administrator in Janesville history.
Traxler, a Jew born in Milwaukee in 1899, was trained as a civil engineer. His engineering background helped when Janesville embarked on long-delayed public works projects, but he also brought to Janesville a view of government that was typical of the Wisconsin progressive tradition. Improved public services were high priorities, but so, too, were carefully managed, parsimonious (Webster’s: frugal to the point of being stingy) budget.
96-7 For millions of Americans, Robert M. La Follette, more than Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, was the most inspirational leader and personification of the Progressive Era in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Muckraking journalists such as Lincoln Steffens portrayed and promoted La Follette as nothing less than the savior of American democracy. After La Follette’s first two historic terms as governor, the title of a Steffens article in 1904 captured the adoring attitude: “Enemies of the Republic: Wisconsin: A State Where the People Have Restored Representative Government.” Indeed Wisconsin under the gubernatorial leadership of La Follette and his successor, Francis McGovern, helped make Wisconsin arguable the most progressive state in the country by 1911.
106-7 Russ Feingold was anointed as the new progressive torchbearer by non other than the esteemed editor of the Capital Times, Dave Zweifel. “State Senator Russell Feingold has been in the office less than three years,” Zweifel began, “but already he as demonstrated the kind of dedication to the progressive tradition of this state that sets him apart.” And what set Feingold apart, Zweifel saw, was the same combination of political values and personality traits that had set La Follette apart: an affinity for the underdog, for smallness over bigness, for community over anonymity –and all supported by a sometimes “stubborn determination” to go against conventional thinking, majority opinion and to stand up, alone if necessary, for a worthy cause.
162-164 While Feingold was in Clinton’s corner during the big budget fight, he was soon a fervent opponent of the president when it came to a vote on a big trade issue in 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA, Clinton’s predecessor, George Bush, had negotiated the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, but it had yet to be approved by Congress. It called for creating a free market trading zone among Canada, Mexico and the United States and had the strong backing of major American corporations, congressional Republicans and the Clinton administration. Labor unions opposed NAFTA because they feared jobs would be lost to Mexico and wages depressed in the United States. In Congress, Democrats were divided. In November when the Senate approved NAFTA, twenty-seven Democrats were in favor, twenty-eight opposed. For Feingold, the split reflected not merely differences about trade issues per se, but it also symbolized a fundamental difference over the direction of the Democratic Party.
He was angered by the growing influence of corporate campaign contributions in his party –and those contributions, he believed, were a big factor behind the Clinton administration’s support of NAFTA. For him and other progressives and liberal Democrats, the influence of big money was a dispiriting trend that had started in the aftermath of Democratic election defeats in the early 1980’s, when moderate and conservative Democrats launched the pro-business Democratic Leadership Council. The corporate-backed DLC’s motto might have been, “If you can‘t beat ‘em, join ‘em.”
By 1993, the DLC, in collaboration with the Clinton administration, was a leading player in a massive public relations campaign to sell NAFTA in Congress. Feingold said: “I see the DLC as, to some extent, taking the soul away from the Democratic Party. And I see the DLC as having sold American workers down the river.”
226 The New York Times called the passage of McCain-Feingold “an extraordinary victory.” It was also something of a miracle because the legislation was not only opposed by the Republican Party leadership, but also by much of Washington’s lobbyist-business establishment, the AFL-CIO, and potent advocacy organizations such as the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union. On the other side, much credit went to the indefatigable Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, Meredith McGehee at Common Cause, and many other who sustained grassroots and newspaper editorial support over many years. But in the Senate, a leading opponent of reform, Phil Gramm of Texas, believed the key to success was not popular pressure but McCain’s and Feingold’s tenacity.
249 …there is his [Feingold] identification with Fighting B ob La Follette and Progressive Era reformers. Much of the major domestic agenda of that era continues to resonate because it addresses timeless tensions and challenges in American democracy –issues of corporate power and big-money influence on the political system; income inequality and support of workers’ rights; investment in public education, health and infrastructure; conservation and environmental protection; government efficiency, transparency and the rule of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment