David Michael Miller
Former Sen. Russ Feingold will be Sen. Feingold again. I’m pretty sure of it.
Consider that Feingold’s personal popularity never took much of a hit even as he was going down to defeat in 2010 against newcomer Ron Johnson. Feingold simply got overtaken by the tea party tsunami, which should be more than cancelled out in the presidential year of 2016. The Democrats should do well, and Feingold is a Democrat.
Then there’s the weakness of his opponent. Incumbent Sen. Johnson has an incredibly high percentage of his constituents (about a third) who don’t know him well enough to have formed an opinion about him. That’s bad news for a candidate who has been in office for five years because it gives his opponent a chance to define him.
So, liberals shouldn’t have to worry about damaging Feingold’s chances by pushing him on the issues, especially gun safety.
Feingold’s record on guns may surprise you. In 2010, Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a major gun control group, was quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel as saying, "He hasn't really voted with us in the last five years on anything. Even before, it was a mixed bag.”
In fact, in his last election, Feingold tried to get to the right of Johnson on guns, even running radio ads claiming that he, not the very conservative Johnson, was the truer friend of gun owners. "I have been one of the true leaders in fighting for a greater right to bear arms," Feingold told the Journal Sentinel at the time.
He wasn’t lying. Feingold voted against renewal of the assault weapons ban, for a national form of concealed carry, to allow guns in national parks, to allow guns on Amtrak trains and to repeal Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns.
On this issue Feingold shares a weakness with Bernie Sanders. In the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was able to get to Sanders’ left by hitting him on his votes against the Brady bill. Sanders’ defense might be similar to what Feingold would offer: He comes from a rural state where gun rights are cherished.
But there are three reasons that argument might not stand up this time.
The first is the principle bind. Sanders and Feingold are similar in branding themselves as men of high principle. This gives them less leeway to then turn around and make a stark argument of political expediency. Sanders is essentially saying that he couldn’t do what he felt was right on guns because he had to pander to his pro-gun constituency. For most politicians that’s understandable. But when you portray yourself as a high-minded truth teller, that kind of dodge seems especially off-putting
The second reason that liberals might not settle for a weak position on guns is that taking what passes for a strong position won’t hurt their candidate. Currently, 85% of Americans — and 87% of Americans who own guns — support universal background checks. Now, in reality, that’s only a small part of what needs to be done, but it’s really the only live proposal on the table right now, and it’s immensely popular. Moreover, the 15% who would oppose even this sensible measure would never vote for a Democrat in any event because of a host of other issues.
But the final reason that Feingold might get pushed on guns is the most important. Gun safety proposals fail not because the public doesn’t support them but because all the passion is with the small percentage of Americans who are rabid pro-gun zealots. Because liberals give their candidates a pass on this issue, they feel free once in office to cave to the NRA. That’s why President Obama, after the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, said that those on the gun safety side of the issue need to become “one-issue voters.”
In fairness, Feingold’s record on guns is mixed. While speaking often in favor of the Second Amendment and voting for some pro-gun legislation, he has also earned an “F” rating from the NRA for other pro-safety votes that he’s taken. His strategy appears to be to take enough pro-gun stands to keep the NRA from investing heavily against him even while they endorse his opponents. But he might rethink that calculation this time. Sen. Johnson voted against even the mild reforms that were pushed after the Newtown massacre, and that likely will earn him the strong support of the NRA regardless of what Feingold says now.
Since that horrific shooting of 20 young kids and their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary only three years ago there have been 140 more school shootings. The carnage from gun violence far outpaces acts of terrorism. The gun issue is different and much more urgent today than it was six years ago. Times have changed for the worse, so liberals might start demanding that the politicians they support change for the better.
