Here & Now

Race for Governor: Phil Anderson

Frederica Freyberg:
He’s a third-party candidate and he’s running for governor. In tonight’s inside look, we give Phil Anderson a say. Anderson is a Libertarian candidate for governor. He lives in Fitchburg and is a realtor. He’s from Wisconsin and graduated from UW-Madison. Phil Anderson joins us now. Thanks for being here.

Phil Anderson:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
First off, how do you differentiate yourself from the major party candidates?

Phil Anderson:
We have a philosophical commitment to small government and returning government to the most local level as possible and to the people. Oftentimes you see Republicans and Democrats, certainly in this election cycle, talking about ways the government can solve problems. We talk about ways to put government back in the hands of individual people in their neighborhoods, their families, their county boards, their local city councils. That’s just not a commitment that you see from Democrats and Republicans.

Frederica Freyberg:
You’re polling at 3% in the latest poll. What do you say to people about why they should vote for you when it’s clear that someone else will be governor?

Phil Anderson:
Well, we have a primary goal and secondary goals. This is my third time running for office. I ran for Assembly in 2014, U.S. Senate in 2016. Knowing how difficult it is for third party candidates to break through into the media coverage, to break through into getting a sizable number of votes, and having a really good shot at winning, the primary goal is always to win when you start out. Because you have to feel that way when you get up in the morning and spend your day, your time and your money running for office. But the secondary goal is at least to bring issues to the forefront, to offer an alternative for people that’s different than Republicans and Democrats. When you cast a vote for me, you’re making a statement that the government that the Democrats and Republicans are offering just isn’t good enough and we need some change.

Frederica Freyberg:
You say you’re hearing from people that you should throw your support to one of the major party candidates. What’s your response to that?

Phil Anderson:
It has been a flood of people through on social media, through our website, asking we can’t have four more years of Scott Walker. Please consider throwing your support behind Tony Evers or vice versa. My response is heck no. My supporters are going to vote for me because they believe in what I stand for. If they’re Libertarians, they support me as a candidate or they support our party. I would never do them that disservice or that dishonor of thinking that it was okay to swing our support, even if they would listen to me, that it would be okay to swing our support behind another candidate because we are radically different than the message they put forth and what they’re probably going to do if either of them are elected.

Frederica Freyberg:
Health coverage and coverage of pre-existing conditions has risen to the top among people in the state this election. Would you favor repealing the Affordable Care Act and those protections?

Phil Anderson:
Well, let’s remember that those protections aren’t necessarily — you know, you don’t only get those protections in the Affordable Care Act.

Frederica Freyberg:
Right.

Phil Anderson:
That’s what Scott Walker is at least promising that he’s going to do. We’re not in favor of getting rid of any social safety nets right away. We prefer that the free market have answers and that we change the very nature of health care and health insurance so that it’s more affordable and more accessible. I’m not against repealing the Affordable Care Act. I prefer that it would be repealed because it’s a monstrosity of a bill written by the health insurance industry to make money for the health insurance industry. But in the short term, we can’t repeal things that people depend on, because we don’t want to throw the economy or people’s lives into chaos.

Frederica Freyberg:
On education, you favor school choice and local control. Would you cut the budget, the state budget for K-12?

Phil Anderson:
What we would do is end up cutting the budget on its own. Our program is called Universal Open Enrollment that would allow people to take the money that’s currently assigned to them via open enrollment, usually between $1800 and $2500. If you want to, say, transfer your child from the Verona School District to a Madison School District, and allow them to completely opt out if they want, another school district, a private school, homeschooling. That puts parents in charge of education. The thing that’s different than Scott Walker’s voucher program is his voucher program requires that private schools have Common Core standards before they can accept vouchers. We would just let the parents choose what education is best for their kids, whether that’s public, private, religious or homeschooling and let them use the tax money that they’ve paid into the system to do that.

Frederica Freyberg:
You say that the higher education system in Wisconsin needs reform. How so?

Phil Anderson:
Well, we need to have a more market-based approach. Right now you see a lot of competition for the university and a lot of ways that education can be delivered via distance learning, different schedules, all that sort of thing. I think we need to make a commitment to look at the university system in a way that provides and meets the needs that people have and not just be committed to four-year or more institution, everybody in the same spot, all the issues that come along with that.

Frederica Freyberg:
You want to legalize marijuana as well. Why?

Phil Anderson:
First of all, people should be free to do so. But second of all, it’s a very important component to criminal justice reform in Wisconsin. We know that we’ve got a vast difference in the amount of black people and white people that are incarcerated and a lot of that has to do with the war on drugs, the racist war on drugs. We know that it’s racist in intent and that’s how it’s been carried out since the very beginning. So to have a program of criminal justice reform requires that we look at the reasons that people are unjustly incarcerated. And that’s a big one.

Frederica Freyberg:
You’d like to privatize public assistance? How do you do that?

Phil Anderson:
Well, that’s more of a program in a long term. We need to not necessarily privatize it right away, but look at ways that local communities can be more involved in helping their people that are needy as opposed to, again, the state or the federal government being involved because anytime something goes to the state or federal level, oftentimes there’s corruption and inefficiency involved. I believe that when those problems are dealt with at the local level, not only is there more efficiency and transparency and accountability in those programs, but in the giving and in the receiving of assistance there is charity and there is dignity in the receiving. When it’s a massive government program, that’s not there anymore.

Frederica Freyberg:
We need to leave it there. Phil Anderson, thanks very much.

Phil Anderson:
Thanks for having me.