Here & Now

Here & Now for October 4, 2019

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” U.S. Senator Ron Johnson on impeachment developments in Washington. An interview with the U.S. Agriculture Secretary followed by a conversation with Wisconsin’s Secretary of Ag. Then an inside look at what to watch for in Wisconsin as the 2020 presidential election heats up. It’s “Here & Now” for October 4.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

A first look tonight at the impeachment proceedings involving Donald Trump. While the Democrats in control of the House investigate the president, Republicans in control of the Senate are looking elsewhere. “Here & Now” reporter Zac Schultz caught up with Wisconsin U.S. Senator Ron Johnson to ask him why he’s once again looking at Hillary Clinton’s emails and whether we can trust what the president is saying when he tweets about a potential civil war.

Ron Johnson:

President Trump should not be using the types of terminology, talking about potential civil war. At the same time, I want to know the truth. And I think you certainly could take a look at his conversation. I spoke with President Trump before I went to Ukraine. I obviously was there with the President Zelensky. He indicated that no pressure whatsoever. He’s obviously concerned about the funding, as was I, but he’s come out today saying there was no pressure. So it’s very–from my standpoint, very reasonable to conclude what President Trump was really talking about as the chief law enforcement officer of the executive branch of the federal government, let’s get to the truth. What happened potentially in Ukraine as relates to 2016 election. I want to find out where did this Russian collusion narrative come that has really put this country through an ordeal that we probably shouldn’t have had to go through because there really was no basis. So the American people have a right to know. I’m certainly inquisitive. I can certainly understand and I’m sympathetic with President Trump wanting to find out what caused all this. Why was I wrung–why was my administration, why was this country wrung through this really damaging business?

Zac Schultz:

Given the president’s history with Twitter and the truth, can we trust what he is saying when he tweets out messages?

Ron Johnson:

Obviously, President Trump has an unorthodox style. He’s pretty loose with some of his tweets. I think most of his supporters that I talk to certainly agree with the direction of many of his policies, but wish he would tweet a whole lot less. I’d put myself in that camp.

Zac Schultz:

But has he damaged some of his credibility when he talks about issues like this?

Ron Johnson:

I think any public official when they get something wrong, you get it wrong too many times, you start damaging your credibility. From my standpoint, the most valuable quality a public official can have is credibility.

Zac Schultz:

Has the president lost credibility with you?

Ron Johnson:

There are a number of things that he’s tweeted that simply aren’t accurate and that’s not a good thing.

Zac Schultz:

Regarding your Homeland Committee, why are you investigating former Secretary Clinton and her emails again? What’s bringing that issue back?

Ron Johnson:

We want to find out some answers. The problem when you are conducting Congressional investigation when there’s also criminal investigation, we don’t have access to any information. I think we do these things backwards. From my standpoint, the public has a right to know if there’s improper behavior on the part of any elected official. That should start with a Congressional inquiry. We should have access to the information. We should hold hearings. We should write reports. Based on those reports, again we’re talking about public officials, if there’s a requirement for a criminal referral, we refer that to the Justice Department. If they can’t handle it because of conflicts, then they set up a special counsel. For the Russian collusion, it went completely backwards. And as a result, the American public still doesn’t know what happened. And we still don’t know everything that happened with the FBI’s handling of that investigation. So, again, all I want to do is get to the bottom of so many different issues. I have so many answers — or so many questions that I want answered because if something happened, the American people need to know it. If nothing happened, the American people need to know that so we can move on. We have enormous challenges facing this nation. We got serious issues. We need to concentrate on those and get the past behind us. But until there’s a full airing, until the American people fully understand what did and possibly didn’t happen, it’s going to be difficult to move beyond this and we’ll remain in this partisan log jam.

Zac Schultz:

Democrats in the House say they’re being stonewalled by some of the president’s cabinet members and his employees. As a committee chairman, how would you feel if you were getting no response or being told that they weren’t going to come to testify before your committee?

Ron Johnson:

I’ve been stonewalled by both administrations. There is just institutionally, there’s a reluctance for any administration to share information with Congress. They don’t want to set different precedents. There is a reason, by the way, why you have executive privilege. There’s a reason why it’s very damaging now that another telephone conversation transcript has been leaked. And in this case, it was just basically offered because president wanted to exonerate himself. That’s incredibly damaging. World leaders, members of the president’s staff, have to be able to have candid conversations in order for a president to conduct foreign policy or to govern effectively. It’s an enormous challenge being a president of the United States. You need candid advice. You need to have candid conversations. There’s a reason you have executive privilege and why these transcripts really never should have seen the light of day.

Zac Schultz:

If the House votes to impeach, do you expect to see any action on your committee in the Senate?

Ron Johnson:

We have never stopped our investigations and our gathering of information. Now you’ll notice, I’ve never held a trial, for example, on Hillary Clinton’s email. I’m just trying to gather the information to get to the truth. I would expect that gathering of information investigation will continue. If at some point in time we require a hearing, we’ll hold one.

Zac Schultz:

Thank you, Senator.

Ron Johnson:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

By Friday, the Senator was doubling down with calls to look into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, as well as the Ukrainian company that Hunter Biden worked for. He also says he has no problem with President Trump calling on China to investigate. For her part, Democratic U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin sent out this tweet on the impeachment efforts. “This is your democracy and we should stand united and put our country first sending a clear message to Donald Trump and the rest of the world that we will not tolerate foreign interference from Ukraine, China or any foreign country in our American elections.”

Now to agriculture news and ongoing challenges for state farmers. Governor Tony Evers had some choice words for U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue in the aftermath of Perdue’s visit to Wisconsin this week. Evers said that Perdue “kind of put the pox on small farming and America’s Dairyland.” The governor was referring to comments Perdue made at the World Dairy Expo in Madison. Speaking about the size of farms surviving in today’s economy, Perdue said, “Big get bigger and small go out.” “Here & Now’s” Zac Schultz caught up with Secretary Perdue after the World Dairy Expo appearance. Zac asked him to clarify his statements about the decline of small farms, which last year, were shutting down in Wisconsin at a rate of two per day.

Sonny Perdue:

Again, what I see happening nationally, a lot of the smaller dairies who want to continue in the dairy business are doing value-added. They’re doing some of their own processing. Whether that’s a creamery, whether it’s ice cream or other types of products and they’re being very successful. That’s not for everyone. But the economy of scale in agriculture, particularly dairy today, the capital investment is so great. It’s pretty tough out there. I will note though that the new Farm Bill, the 2018 Farm Bill, provides a lot of help for smaller dairies that were not helped in the ’14 Farm Bill. I think that’s a big change. I would ask them to investigate that and certainly apply for that Dairy Margin Coverage Program as well as the Farm Bureau Insurance Program. I think it’s a risk management that helps them really have a minimum price for their dairy products.

Zac Schultz:

In a state like Wisconsin, there’s an emotional attachment to small farms. For economic reasons, do we need to put some of that emotion aside when understanding that some small farms will just have to go away?

Sonny Perdue:

Well, that’s an interesting question. In America, we’re not–whether it’s farming or any other small business, there’s no guaranteed success rate. That’s unfortunate because we do have a sentimental attachment to small family farms. It’s just that the economy of scale in agriculture and the economics of farming has become so tight in recent years that it’s very difficult to make farming on small herds or small acreage there unless you are a high-value type of crop. And many young farmers are beginning in high-value type crops. I was, last week, in Michigan in three-acre cut flower operation. There are ways to grow. We’re also seeing a lot of effort in the direct farm to table movement in the high-value crops, specialty crops that young beginning farmers are active in. But the commercial idea of getting out here and having the finances to buy 1,000 acres and do commercial scale farming is difficult these days.

Frederica Freyberg:

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue. For reaction to Secretary Perdue remarks, as well as his own approach to sustain Wisconsin farms, we turn now to State Secretary of Agriculture-designee Brad Pfaff. Thanks for being here.

Brad Pfaff:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

As you know, Secretary Perdue caused some consternation during his Wisconsin visit this week by saying farmers may have to get bigger to survive. How true is that?

Brad Pfaff:

Well, we’ve all had economics. We understand what economy of scale mean. But we also understand what we have here in Wisconsin. We have the Wisconsin way. Our farms are not New England and our farms are not California. Our farms are created here in Wisconsin. They’re of all sizes, shapes and scales, to be honest with you. We also have a system of agriculture in this state that is built upon value-added, differentiation of product. We can take the milk that is produced from our high-quality dairy cows in the countryside here and we can make it into high-quality cheeses that are enjoyed by consumers from around the world. That provides value along the supply chain. It also employs people not just on the farm, but also within our small towns and our rural communities. Anytime that anybody makes a comment saying you gotta get big or get out, that doesn’t sit very well with our family farmers. And quite frankly, it also–we need to better understand really what is happening within the countryside. And so there is pressure on the countryside. We all recognize that. But rather than saying you either have to get big or get out, I think we need to look at new ways in which we can make sure that we can continue to keep our farms profitable going forward regardless of their size or scale.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of global markets, how badly have federal trade and tariff policies affected Wisconsin farmers?

Brad Pfaff:

Well, they definitely have. Our farmers have been hit with a triple whammy this year. We’ve had very difficult weather. We’ve had five years of low prices and then we’ve also had this international trade uncertainty. Everybody’s being impacted in the rural communities, quite frankly, when we do not have markets that are open. China is the second largest market for Wisconsin agriculture products. We need to be able to find more markets for our agriculture products. I am happy to say in 2018, Wisconsin agriculture products were shipped to and enjoyed by consumers in over 200 countries. But having said that, we need to recognize what happens when one of the largest trading partners all of a sudden their market says no more. We don’t want your product. What are we going to do? And that has had a dampering effect on our farmers and our rural residents.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s take another listen to U.S. Ag Secretary Perdue on this very matter.

Sonny Perdue:

President Trump has been very generous last year and this year with $12 billion and $16 billion trying to tide us through these trade disruptions. But let’s not count on that. I think every farmer would rather have a good crop at a fair price than a government check and let’s plan on that. It may be a time where we don’t have the optimum profitability we would like. We have to settle for just able to do it next year. That’s what we need farmers to do. Plan for the market, just like they always have and if nothing happens in trade, maybe we can see some help in the future as well.

Frederica Freyberg:

What can you tell us about the billions of dollars of direct aid and how they have reached and helped Wisconsin farmers?

Brad Pfaff:

Well, first of all, the federal taxpayers have provided $28 billion worth of trade assistance to our family farmers. There’s not a farmer that I know that would not rather sell their product than receive government aid. Now, we appreciate the assistance that the federal taxpayers have provided, but these farmers did not ask for this. Farmers want to be able to sell their product. We understand that there’s global economic pressures taking place. We recognize the fact that we need to have a partnership and a trading relationship with countries that is fair and balanced. China has not been fair with what’s happening here. But why? And I still ask this question. I haven’t got an answer. We understand the fact that China and technology and they’ve been taking American technology and they need to be held responsible for that. But why are our family farmers here in Wisconsin and around the Midwest being held responsible for that? Let’s address the issue that’s taking place with China. And I will also say this. Why is America doing this alone? Let’s do it with our partners, may they be in Europe or elsewhere in the country, because what’s happening is China is still buying agriculture products. They’re just buying it from other countries. And so we need to address the China situation. But the thing is is right now the American farmers and the Wisconsin farmers are paying a price for this.

Frederica Freyberg:

How far down did those billions of dollars go to the reach of maybe small farmers in Wisconsin?

Brad Pfaff:

Well, it’s based upon the–it has been based upon your production history. So again, it’s based upon how much corn or soybeans you grow or how much milk you produce. Again, it is capped at a level. So if you’re a very large farm, you will only receive a certain amount of money. But the rest of the–if you’re a smaller scale farm, it will be based upon your production history. And so, again, the assistance is appreciated, but again, much rather sell to the marketplace.

Frederica Freyberg:

Can Wisconsin recover from lost global markets?

Brad Pfaff:

We can, and we will continue to find new markets. This is a growing world, and it’s a protein-hungry world. People want a protein diet. We are a protein-rich state. We feel we have an opportunity to sell our product throughout the world. And we have to build upon the successes that we have. We need to improve our logistics. We need to improve our supply chain. We need to continue to invest in our farmers but also within our processors and the entire supply chain to be able to continue to feed the world.

Frederica Freyberg:

There is some good news. It appears that milk prices seem to be in recovery. If farms are on the precipice of going under, will this allow them to hold on?

Brad Pfaff:

It will. Anytime milk prices go up, that is a good thing. But we also need to make sure we build for the future. We want to have a Wisconsin agriculture that is sustainable. There’s three important tenets to that. Number one, it needs to based economically sustainable. Number two, it has to be conservation sustainable. And number three, we need to build upon our tradition. The tradition that’s sustainable because agriculture is who we are as a people. It’s on our license plates. We’re America’s Dairyland. It’s what brings us together as a people.

Frederica Freyberg:

Brad Pfaff, thanks very much.

Brad Pfaff:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now to the 2020 race for president and Wisconsin’s role. In tonight’s inside look, we got a chances to catch up with FiveThirtyEight Senior Political Writer Clare Malone. Malone served as the Fall 2019 Public Affairs Journalist in Residence at UW-Madison. She talks about electability and identity politics. In our discussion, we started by asking about those terms and how they factor in the race for president here in Wisconsin.

Clare Malone:

When we’re talking about identity politics, we’re talking about how white people and black people and women and men see the same issue in very different ways. And I think identity politics can sometimes get thrown around as a bad term. But I do actually — or a term that’s meant to be derisive. But I do think it’s an actually important thing for all of us to understand about politics because we are often reacting to issues emotionally. There’s nothing wrong with that because that’s the way human beings interact with the world. So that’s what they are.

Frederica Freyberg:

How does identity politics factor into Wisconsin with its Obama/Trump voters?

Clare Malone:

Wisconsin is an incredibly important state. And in part because it has those traditionally Democratic voters who, as you say, voted for Obama and switched over to Trump. The interesting thing about Wisconsin is that we’re talking about the identity politics of white people. So those Obama/Trump voters tended to be white people without a college education, who had voted for Democrats for a really long time and something kind of changed in their party affiliation during the Obama years. During a time when, yes, we had a black president. I think about issues about race were talked about a little more frankly and a little more out in the open. And I do think that some people, you’ll hear people talk about PC culture, right? I think in some ways that’s a reference to the more open conversation people were having about race. And some of those voters saw that as, you know, you could say — you can call it racism or you can say it’s a reaction to what they say is a bad focus for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party should only be focused on economic issues, right, not issues of race. Those people ended up voting for Donald Trump. Now, voting for Trump, there’s a lot of reasons people voted for Donald Trump, but we do see in the numbers that there was a really big shift during the Obama era of white non-college educated people, who used to be Democrats switching over to the Republican side of things. And you can’t help but think that the first black president had something to do with that.

Frederica Freyberg:

How will those voters be won over in this next election?

Clare Malone:

Well, I think a lot of people on Joe Biden’s team would tell you that, first of all Joe Biden is the leading candidate with black voters and they would say that Joe Biden for those Obama/Trump voters who keep on asking or saying we want the Democratic Party of old. We want to focus on economic issues. They might find Joe Biden to be, A) maybe more of a moderate person in his ideology but B) he also kind of looks how we think presidents have typically looked, right? He’s an older white man. And I think that there is something comforting in Biden’s identity to maybe those Obama/Trump voters. Those people who were generalizing as white, non-college educated voters in places like Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. So the other candidates, I think you’ll see people make attacks on Warren or Harris or even Sanders for being too liberal, for one thing, and also being, you know, in the case of the women, reminders of Hillary Clinton and the 2016 campaign.

Frederica Freyberg:

So is all of that around electability?

Clare Malone:

Yes. I mean, I think that there is — electability is such a freighted term these days. What I think, you know, what electability has come to mean in this current election cycle is, it’s become a shorthand for who can win those Obama/Trump voters back in the electorally key states of Wisconsin, for instance. And I think it is an undeniable fact that those Wisconsin swing voters of a certain persuasion might be more inclined to like Joe Biden and his identity and to like Joe Biden and his more moderate policies. Because once you get into the zone of talking about say Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warren’s health care plans, which they’re basically running on. You know even a lot of Democrats don’t love the idea of Medicare for all and they might be more comfortable with Biden’s plan, which is Medicare for some or a public option. So I think you start to get into really interesting intersecting issues of identity politics but also just the Democratic Party is in an ideological flux. And some really people are running and then you’ve got someone like Joe Biden.

Frederica Freyberg:

In terms of the “electability” word, is it kind of fair or right to decide who to support based on electability?

Clare Malone:

Well, I think that a lot of Democratic voters are doing it. This is a first — and to a certain extent, yes. It’s a rational reaction to the realities of the world, right? I think Democratic voters, this is the first time in quite some time that Democratic voters have told pollsters I would vote for someone who I think has the best chance to win, even if I don’t really agree with him the most out of any of the candidates in the field. And I think that that’s a strategic way of thinking about the election, right? It’s a strategic way of understanding that we are a country that elects its presidents not by popular vote, but by Electoral College vote. And inevitably, certain states have more power in that process. Certain states like, again, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, that have specific demograph population — demographics in their population, right? They tend to be whiter, particularly Wisconsin, for example. So people are kind of bowing to the realities of, “Okay, this is who’s deciding the election. Maybe we should choose a candidate that will appeal to them.” Then I think you have the other side of the electability thing, which is should we be perpetuating these kind of — I think most people would agree that racism and sexism are bad things in the world. And so the idea of should we be perpetuating those standards that certain candidates are — only certain candidates should be the people who are our candidate because they are more appealing to racist or sexist people. That’s a really hard conversation to have. And I think Democratic voters do kind of find themselves in a moral bind, which is one of the reasons why I think you see people who don’t like Joe Biden who are Democratic voters really don’t like Joe Biden in part because what they think he represents about electability. In part because they think perhaps he’s a concession to Trump voters, who they as Democratic voters, more liberal Democratic voters, might see as having enabled a racist or sexist president.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there. Clare Malone, thanks very much.

Clare Malone:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Clare Malone has a story up on FiveThiryEight.com titled “The Front-Runner?” about Joe Biden and his strength with black voters.

Now for an update on the 7th Congressional District special election. The previously-announced dates for that election in the district that’s in the northwestern part of Wisconsin must be changed because federal law requires 45 days between the primary and general to allow for absentee votes. U.S. Representative Sean Duffy held the 7th until he resigned in September due to a family matter. Three Republican candidates are now vying for the open seat: State Senator Tom Tiffany, Army veteran and former political aid Jason Church and hobby farmer Michael Opela Sr. are all running for Duffy’s seat. No Democrats have yet announced. And as of today, new election dates have not yet been released.

Next week, Zac Schultz reports on one Milwaukee family’s long and ongoing recovery from an act of gun violence. Here’s a preview of that story.

Zac Schultz:

While Tyrese struggled in rehab, his mother struggled at home, taking care of her seven-year-old daughter and year-old son while visiting Tyrese and trying to keep her job.

Latoya Curry:

That’s what keep me strong, like the kids. And then I’m like, no, my baby’s always gonna be here. He ain’t going nowhere. All the bad news and good news, I’m like, I cry happy tears, sad tears.

Zac Schultz:

She moved out of her apartment fearing more violence and ended up homeless.

Latoya Curry:

I’m not gonna lie. Been like stressful and hard.

TV news reporter:

Now, his teacher is hoping the community steps up to help them.

Zac Schultz:

Tamika started a fund-raiser.

Tamika Johnson:

What I notice in our community is when we raise so many money for the funeral, but then when the children do survive, they’re by themselves.

Zac Schultz:

Tyrese spent most of his rehab an hour away from Milwaukee, so his mother could only see him once a week or when he had appointments in the city. Strangers who heard his story offered their prayers.

Woman:

We thank you for bringing Tyrese from a mighty, mighty long ways.

Tamika Johnson:

Once they’re shot, we pray. Let’s pray that they survive. And then when they do survive, they’re left by themselves.

Frederica Freyberg:

You can see Zac’s story about Tyrese Mosbey and his family in its entirety on next Friday’s program. That’s our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.