Last week in honor of ABA Mediation Week, the DR Society here hosted former Senator Russell Feingold for a talk on Civility in Public Discourse. We had a wonderful off-the-record hour (so I can’t tell you all the good stories!–here is me cracking up at one
) but what I can say is heartening in terms of supporting our students. Feingold noted that the most persuasive negotiators in the Senate were those who were passionate and had conviction and would also know when to work out a deal. You could trust that they would keep their word. When I asked him about the “argument culture” that seems to pervade Washington, Senator Feingold urged our students to fight against this mentality–stay civil, be humble, keep your word. In reflecting about his long-term interactions with Senator McCain on the campaign finance reform bill, Senator Feingold pointed out that these cross-cutting relationships are crucial–after all, you don’t need to make a deal with those who already agree with you. 
Over his 18 years in the Senate, he noted how the atmosphere had changed where a senator was part of a joint enterprise with an honored history and esprit de corps–these days politicians get elected by running against the idea that you need to work together. In focusing on Wisconsin–which has been an incredible battleground in the last year over labor rights, the Supreme Court, and other issues–I will note at least two state senators that seem to be taking a page from Senators Feingold and McCain. Dubbed the Common Ground tour, these two senators are touring their respective districts stumping for common issues. (For more on the Common Ground tour and to hear directly from these state senators, you can click here to watch our own Mike Gousha interviewing them as part of Marquette’s “On the Issues” series.)
This was a great presentation by Senator Feingold and it was one of those speeches where the audience, I believe could have listened to Senator Feingold talk all day. The question I had which was unable to be answered because of time limitations was how an experienced negotiator such as Senator Feingold learns to deal with so many different interests at the same time. As Senator Feingold pointed out there are so many different things that a negotiator in his position has to be concerned about, including unintended consequences with relationships. In any sort of politics the relationships are important and it seems that a politician has to be an expert on not anticipating consequences but how to start a new negotiation to smooth over hurt feelings. As Senator Feingold noted you have to continue seeing those people day in and out and it seems if you can’t figure out a way to smooth over the rough spots you will never get anywhere.
Professor Feingold’s discussion of civility and public discourse was on point and insightful. This topic was ripe for discussion given the contentious tone currently pervading both state politics—recall attempts on Governor Walker and public feuding amongst Justices Prosser and Bradley—and federal politics—the rise of the occupy and tea party movements. These political developments evidence the “argument culture” which we studied this semester in ADR. The “argument culture” states that our society has become locked into an adversarial, win-lose, mindset. This theory is applicable to current American ideology, which feels increasingly like a contest to see who truly has the most patriotic values, and less about confronting real issues. Beyond being annoyed by its pettiness, my concern with the war of words generated by our argument culture is that it drowns out voices of reason. There are real challenges to deal with in politics, and we need intelligent and charismatic individuals from all views to come together to solve them. I personally hope that our political discourse will find a way to become both competitive and honorable. However, this is unlikely until we address the argument culture we have been sold out to. Hopefully, the shining example of bipartisanship, which Professor Feingold and Senator McCain forged in the United States Senate will not be lost amidst the shouting.
I have always thought that successful politicians are those who are able to portray a hardline persona in public for their constituency, while also able to be genuine, compromising people on the job. Sure, everyone loves to vote for the person who will fight tirelessly for what they personally want. However, as we have seen lately, when extreme ideologies are elected specifically for the purpose of not compromising, everyone suffers. Leadership in politics entails adapting to an ever-changing landscape to reach the ultimate goals of one’s constituency. I think the problem with the current crop of politicians in Congress is that they were elected for their ideologies, not their leadership qualities.
I really enjoyed Professor Feingold’s talk on Civility in Public Discourse. Our nation’s political discourse is driven by positions. However, it would be intriguing and potentially beneficial to re-examine this foundation. Professor Feingold offered insight on moving towards an interest-based approach to political discourse. Prof. Feingold’s own record in the Senate evidences both the landmark successes (Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform Act) and the challenges (See 2010 Election/Tea Party Movement/etc) of living out this type of approach.
I personally find myself wondering as Prof. Feingold did in his talk whether our current political climate is receptive to this message. Now, more than ever, people are more polarized in their views. However, problems such as the economic crisis facing our nation affect broad spectrums of people and the need to examine and bridge interests is profound.
Senator Feingold hit the nail on the head with his comments and observations. It is sad that more people at the local, state, and federal level don’t act in this way. Politicians seem much more concerned with keeping their jobs than they do with actually making changes that could help the economy get back on track or implimenting meaningful social changes that could better the US. “Arguing over positions produces unwise agreements” in negotiation as well as in law-making.
It is nice to see that a few politicians are trying to reach across the aisle on the state and federal level, but I wish that was the norm and not something that is even newsworthy.
One of the things I always liked about Senator Feingold was that he stood-fast in his beliefs, especially on the tough issues, like Iraq and the Patriot Act. But, as you point out, he was great (maybe the best of his time) at bringing opposing sides together on movement for the good of society. I am sad that he is no longer one of Wisconsin’s senators, but it is great to have him at Marquette Law School and still working to make a positive impact.