A Beginner's Tour of the US Elections: The "Progressive Idea" and the Senate Race in Wisconsin

US Politics correspondent Lee Haddigan begins his pre-election tour of America with a look at the race for the US Senate in the Midwestern state of Wisconsin:

Wisconsin is famous in American pop culture for cheese and beer. The two come together in support of the state’s other renowned institution: American football's Green Bay Packers, whose fans are known as "cheeseheads" for their propensity to wear yellow-foam cheese wedges on their head, presumably after drinking lots of Wisconsin's other top product.

To historians, the state is famous as the home of the "Wisconsin Idea" and the progressive legacy of Robert "Fighting Bob" La Follette, a prominent Governor US Senator in the early 20th century. That brings us today, as many analysts are arguing that President Obama has alienated the progressive base that propelled him to victory in 2008. Understanding what progressives want, and why they believe Obama has not delivered on his promises, helps to explain many aspects of this year's Congressional elections.

The progressive viewpoint, the "Wisconsin Idea", is built upon the premise that human nature and society can be improved by government's efforts at reform. Experts can diagnose the problems that affect America and propose solutions, utilising scientific and statistical data to help government cure the faults in society. This approach is referred to disparagingly by many onservatives as "social engineering".

At the heart of the progressive approach is the belief that material improvement, such as better housing, wages, and health care, for an individual or family will benefit society as a whole. It is a form of economic determinism, where a person’s economic status determines their happiness. Hence progressive policies attempt to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the poor --- the progressive "income tax" --- and welfare measures that protect the disadvantaged from the harsh realities of an impersonal capitalist system.

Philosophically, progressives see mankind as good. Evils in society like poverty and crime are the result of corrupt institutions and interests perverting the natural inclination of individuals to live in a fair and equitable society. Eliminate the pernicious influence of the wealthy and powerful, progressives claim, and freedom will become a universal achievement.

This brings us back to the issue of checks and balances in the American system of government. The Founding Fathers distrusted the will of majority as a proper means of deciding who should rule, and what a government could legislate upon. The Constitution is a document that exhibits a profound disillusionment with human nature and the natural tendency of political power to corrupt flawed men and women.

Progressives, in contrast, have faith that the people are trustworthy and are capable of governing in their own interest. A century ago, La Follette and Wisconsin led the fight for direct democracy, the means whereby the electorate could overcome the institutional safeguards that concentrated political power in the hands of the few.

Direct democracy allows citizens to have an immediate say in the way they are governed, instead of seeing their views filtered through the opinions of their representatives. In Wisconsin, La Follette successfully ended the influence of a few party leaders by introducing the direct primary. Previously, party officials decided among themselves who was to be nominated as a candidate in elections, but now all the voters in the state chose who would stand as a candidate for a party in the ballot.

Another three of these nation-wide progressive measures deserve a brief explanation; the first two of which are known as the "Oregon System", after the state’s application of these principles (admittedly, after South Dakota had done) in legislation in the early 1900s.

Initiative (Referendum)

There is no scheme in place for national petitions or referenda. These practices are confined to the state level of government.

Petitions begin with campaigners for proposed changes in legislation or the state constitution who collect signatures. Once enough support --- the level varies from state to state --- has been obtained, the issue is decided by a public vote. The referendum is different in that it originates with the legislature putting a measure on the ballot for consideration in a public vote.

These two forms of direct democracy are also referred to as ballot measures or propositions. Propositions are especially popular in California, where Proposition 8 –-- a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage –-- is currently at the centre of a heated legal battle.

Recall

Eighteen states give voters the opportunity of firing their elected officials. Supporters of the measure raise the necessary number of signatures to force a public vote. The most notable recent incident of a successful recall occurred in California in 2003 when Governor Gray Davis was removed from office for his handling of the state budget. Some states also presently allow for the recall of local judges who thwart the wishes of the legislature and thus the people.  

Direct Election of Senators

The 17^th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1913 at the height of the Progressive Era, removed the power of appointing Senators from state legislatures and placed it in the hands of the electorate.

The original idea was based on the premise that voters could not necessarily be trusted, prone as they were to be swept up in the passions evoked by a demagogue, to elect a suitable candidate. The state legislature, supposedly composed of citizens of the better sort, would use their superior discernment to elect a Senator who possessed the virtues to be a responsible representative of the people.

For many, the form of direct democracy embodied in the 17^th Amendment appears a settled issue. The last year, however, has seen some voices raised on the Right calling for a repeal of the 17^th Amendment, and a return to the indirect election of Senators originally envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

This leads us to the 2010 Senate election in Wisconsin. For the Badger State is witnessing a contest that, in microcosm, reflects the struggle that is taking place in elections all over America between the progressive viewpoint and that of their conservative opponents.

Last year there seemed little likelihood there would even be a close contest in Wisconsin. The incumbent Russ Feingold is a Democrat who has been a Senator for eighteen years, in a state that has voted Democrat in the last six presidential elections (56% for Obama in 2008). Moreover, Feingold, co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Refrom Act, is a liberal politician known for sticking to his progressive values. He voted against the Patriot Act setting out internal security measures after 9-11, opposed the war in Iraq, and has been a consistent voice against the influence of money in elections. His campaign has not been damaged by any personal scandal, and the general reputation he enjoys is of an honest and independent politician in Washington.

And yet, the latest polls show him trailing his Republican opponent Ron Johnson by an average of 7% in the polls. The prominent FiveThirtyEight electoral website currently forecasts a 94% chance of a Republican win. This is all the more surprising because the Republican candidate has no record in politics, deciding to run for his first electoral office last year as a response to the health care reform that Feingold supported.

Wisconsin’s progressive past does not exclude the recognition that it is not necessarily a Democrat stronghold. It is, after all, the state that sent Republican Joe McCarthy of Red Scare infamy, to the Senate in 1946. And during the 1980s and 1990s Wisconsin introduced ground-breaking conservative welfare reform proposals.

But if there is a seat that an incumbent progressive Democrat should win, it is Wisconsin. That Feingold is potentially going to lose is a result of the current trend in American state elections to act as a referendum on policies enacted in Washington. The voters in Wisconsin, like companions nationwide, regard this race as their chance to let the politicians the national capital know that they are dissatisfied with the stimulus, with healthcare reform, and with the general tone emanating from the White House that government is the best means for solving the nation’s economic ills.

Ron Johnson, a successful businessman, has managed to turn the electorate’s disillusionment with the progressive ideology of President Obama to his advantage. Though not as nationally well known as Sharron Angle in Nevada, Rand Paul in Kentucky, or Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, he is fighting on the same platform that government is out of control, run by politicians who regard the people as their servants instead of the other way around.

A full explanation of why conservatives abhor the progressive ideology, and an examination of the Tea Party movement that is fuelling the opposition to liberal ideas, will be covered in the Kentucky race later in the week. But it is Wisconsin that best illustrates the nation’s discontent with the progressive view of government.

Ron Johnson has made no specific policy proposals to indicate how he will change the culture in Washington. In a recent interview he declined to offer any ideas on tax cuts or reform of social security. Instead, his campaign is built upon generalizations attacking big government, and Washington’s attempts to curtail traditional individual freedoms in America. As he sees it, his election will help usher in a period of “re-education in America” where individuals and families will relearn the conservative values of independence that progressivism, over the last century, has gradually replaced with “a culture of dependency” on government.  

Tomorrow, we begin a look at the number-crunching involved in this election by discussing the contest in Nevada where, Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate, faces a tough contest to retain his seat. The outcome of this contest will be significant in how the chamber conducts its business, deciding the boundaries of what legislative change Obama can hope to achieve, in the next two years.