It is no secret that the past 13 months have seen a massive shift in political tone in Wisconsin. Since the debates over collective bargaining last February, the state has been supercharged with heated political rhetoric, bitter partisan division and an petulant aversion to compromise more suited to cliques on a middle school playground than the state Capitol.
But along with this vocal turn away from negotiation and toward headstrong partisanship, there has also been the encouraging call for a return to political decency. Analysts and editorial boards—this newspaper’s among them—have penned many columns decrying the state’s loss of compromise and respect, calling for a return to a Legislature that valued bipartisanship and moderation over blind party loyalty.
But as we call for that change, some within the state seem more willing than ever to chip away at whatever piece of bipartisanship still remains in our state politics.
State Sen. Dale Schultz, R-Richland Center, is one of the few moderate representatives who still hold office in Wisconsin. He does not follow in lockstep with his party, having been the only Republican to vote against Gov. Scott Walker’s collective bargaining reforms, as well as a GOP-backed bill that would have eased restrictions on mining in northern Wisconsin.
Schultz is exactly what Wisconsin, and democracy as a whole, needs right now: someone who will vote for what they feel is right and who puts their constituents and his or her conscience before political party. And because he breaks the mold of hyper-partisanship, Schultz is also a target.
Earlier this week, conservative group Citizens for Responsible Government filed papers to begin the recall process against Schultz and state Sen. Bob Jauch, D-Poplar. The reason for recalling Jauch is predictable—like the rest of his party, he opposed the same mining bill Schultz did—and speaks to the “recall fever” that has been Wisconsin’s norm as of late.
But Citizens for Responsible Government is targeting Schultz for being too moderate. They want to replace him with a more extreme Republican, one that will conform to their warped world view, where compromise is a dirty word.
This is the point, to borrow a phrase from television, where the recall efforts jump the shark. This is where the petitions and the elections stop being an extraordinary response to extraordinary times, and instead become a tool to perpetuate the division that has become all too common in Wisconsin.
There is no legitimate reason to file for a recall of Schultz. He did not flee the state for weeks like Senate Democrats last year, nor did he push through legislation in a way that shirked compromise and cultivated a poisonous, anti-democratic (lower-case “d”) atmosphere in the Capitol like Senate Republicans.
He is, in fact, a model legislator, a voice of reason and cooperation willing to cross party lines and work toward bipartisan consensus. We need more legislators like Schultz in Wisconsin. We need more legislators like Schultz in the nation as a whole. The last thing we need is to threaten the few people still willing the work across the aisle or to make negotiation and compromise grounds for intimidation.
We acknowledge some hypocrisy in saying that this is the point where the recalls run off the rails, as Jauch and Schultz become the 14th and 15th senators targeted for elections, along with the governor. It’s fair to ask why—when groups start to target legislators we like instead of ones we do not—this is wrong but others are right. But there were real reasons to put those senators, and the governor, on the ballot for recall: reasons that do not exist for Schultz.
And now is as good a time as any to ask if these recalls, and the prolonged partisanship they help sustain, is good for Wisconsin. Will they lead to better debates or more productive legislative sessions? Will they foster a better political environment and restore reason and decency to Wisconsin politics? When the recalls stop being an extraordinary occurrence and start being an effort to crush what little remains of bipartisanship in our state, we can see the answer is no.
