Meet Steven Feldman - Libertarian Party of North Carolina Candidate for U.S. House, NC District 10

Steven's Website

Bent Toward Justice, by: Steven Feldman

Talkline with Zev Brenner with Congressional Cand Dr. Steven Feldman

The Political Freedom Fighters Podcast - Episode 34 (Introducing Steven Feldman)

Leave other countries alone!, by: Dr. Steven Feldman

Viewpoint Disparity on the Deaths in Minnesota, by: Dr. Steven Feldman

The Black Powder Podcast: Libertarian North Carolina Congressional Candidate: Steve Feldman

 

Steven's Interview with the Tar Heel Libertarian:

Tar Heel: As a physician and scientist with an M.D. and Ph.D. from Duke University, how has your medical and research training shaped the way you approach federal policy decisions?

Dr. Steven Feldman: The influence goes back farther to a college econ class at the University of Chicago, a Midwest school for nerds where I learned about incentives and their influence on the economic decisions people make.  After dermatology training, I became a psoriasis expert, burgeoning field, where I got to interact with patients, patient advocacy groups, other physicians, pharmaceutical companies, insurers, regulators, and even lawyers. My clinical activities also took me to smalltown North Carolina (Mount Airy, the town Mayberry was based on), and my academic lectures took me to many countries, including Japan, Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Colombia, Mexico, and a host of others.  I came to find the people in other groups were always caring and well-meaning even though often people in my group would denigrate the people in the other groups—people of different occupations, religions, whatever. I have an optimism about people—including other politicians— and know they all want to make the world better.

 

Tar Heel: What experiences in medicine or scientific research most convinced you that limited government and individual liberty are the best path for the country?

Feldman: I find myself to be an outsider in many ways. I grew up in an orthodox Jewish community, and so I feel strongly that we shouldn’t try to impose religious beliefs on others through government fiat.  I also saw how those economic incentives that I learned about at the University of Chicago play out in medicine. We have a system where the people consuming health care are generally not directly responsible for all the costs that they incur. The third-party payment system insulates people from the cost of their decisions, and so they don’t seek out lower cost high-quality care (and typically they don’t even have easy access to the prices).

For example, my son had scoliosis and his orthopedist suggested we could get an MRI just to make sure he didn’t have a cancer in his spine which the doctor said would be most unlikely. Being a dermatologist and being able to afford it I thought OK, better to be safe than sorry. The test cost $5,000 of which an insurance company was paying 90%. I didn’t shop around for a lower price.  If I’d been paying the whole $5000, I probably would have, and the providers of MRI services would’ve been competing on price for my and other people’s business. The price of the MRI would likely be dramatically lower if everyone was searching for a low-cost procedure.

On top of all that I’m fiscally conservative. I love our great nation. We are so fortunate to live in this country. When I was in scouting as a youth, I was indicated with the belief that we should leave things as good or better than we found them. I want our children and our children’s children to have the same benefits, so I’m appalled that we may be leaving them a bankrupt country. We desperately need to reduce federal spending to eliminate federal deficits and get the debt under control.

 

Tar Heel: Why did you choose to run specifically for North Carolina’s 10th Congressional District, and how does your Winston-Salem-area perspective inform your federal priorities?

Feldman: I chose to run for North Carolina’s 10th Congressional District because the well-meaning, caring congressmen we’ve had in our district have missed the boat on several critical issues.  They campaign on reducing the deficit but then vote for legislation that increases the deficit.  Let me say that one more time: They campaign on reducing the deficit but then vote for legislation that increases the deficit.  It is not sustainable.  We have great people across the political spectrum in our state and in our country, but too often political leaders on each side denigrate the other creating needless animosity. We should recognize our shared goals and be working together.

Just as an example, one side wants voter ID to assure that only eligible voters can vote while claiming the other side doesn’t want fair elections; the other side wants to assure that every eligible voter has easy access to vote and claims the other side doesn’t want fair elections. We ought to be able to see that citizens across the political divide want elections to be fair and could work together to assure that all eligible voters are able to vote and only eligible voters get to vote. In our modern world, it shouldn’t be too hard to do that.

Tar Heel: You’ve written the novel Bent Toward Justice, which explores themes of peace, justice, and coexistence in the Middle East. What inspired you to write it, and how does the book’s message connect to the reasons you are running for Congress?

Feldman: I’ve been chronically dissatisfied with the fiscal irresponsibility of our federal government, but what pushed me over the edge to run was seeing our government pour more gasoline on the fires of violence in the Middle East. My Hebrew school education gave me a moral foundation that I think all our citizens share, desire for peace and desire for everyone to be treated fairly. I have family in Israel. I’ve also visited Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim countries, and I visited in the homes of Palestinian families in the West Bank. Like medical experiences that made me realize people in other groups are generally good, I found Palestinian people to be the most hospitable and friendly people I encountered anywhere. We get such wrong ideas about each other, leading even smart, caring people to make terribly wrong decisions.

Nowhere in my Hebrew education did they tell me that our Jewish forces expelled entire villages of peaceful non-Jewish Palestinian families from their homes.  Making and keeping anybody a refugee from their home is antithetical to my American and Jewish values. Seeing us support Israel to slaughter helpless Palestinian refugee men, women and children cannot be the right way to achieve the peace we all want—all of us.  Having broken bread with Israelis and Palestinians alike and having internalized the lesson of the Holocaust to stand against all injustice, I wrote Bent Toward Justice.  Between this book and the campaign, I hope to get a message out that we’re far more likely to achieve the peace we all desire by being peaceful and friendly with others rather than by blowing up their homes or their children.

 

Tar Heel: The non-aggression principle is central to Libertarian thought. How would you apply it when voting on federal legislation involving force, taxation, or regulation?

Feldman: I think a good principle is whenever we see a problem we should ask, “Can we solve this problem with less government?” Where we have a housing crisis, we should be asking to what extent our government regulations limit the housing construction needed to house people and bring down prices. Where we have a drug problem causing criminal behavior, we should be asking if government regulations are creating the black market that causes everyone to suffer from the drug problems of others. Over 80% of the federal budget is accounted for by various healthcare spending, military and veteran spending, Social Security, and interest on the debt. If we’re serious about leaving our children a financially secure nation, we’re going to have to address these areas and not claim we can restore financial sanity by reducing waste.

The Libertarian philosophy is not about not wanting the government to interfere in my life; it’s more that you should live your life the way you want to live without me or the government interfering in it, as long as you aren’t hurting someone else. For example, medications that patients need are available at low cost in other countries, but our government “protects” us by preventing us from buying them. We ought to restore the right to buy medications from wherever you want. But remember, freedom comes with responsibility. You have to decide whether that medication is of a quality you will accept.

 

Tar Heel: In a polarized Congress, how would you stay true to principle without becoming isolated or ineffective?

Feldman: I think being independent of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress could make a person very effective as both Republicans and Democrats would want or perhaps even need that vote.  Having a representative that role models being collegial would be a breath of fresh air in Congress.  Such a person can serve as a bridge between the parties. The two parties denigrate each other, while I would do just the opposite, recognizing our shared goals and making every effort to help them work together to achieve our common aims.

 

Tar Heel: What does “fiscally responsible government” mean to you at the federal level, and where have both parties failed most clearly?

Feldman: A fiscally responsible government would have a balanced budget. The federal government’s been controlled by different parties over the past 20 years, and we haven’t had a single balanced budget over that time. The Bible teaches to save in the good times to prepare for the bad, but we’ve been spending like a drunken sailor even in the good times. Each party complains vigorously about the deficit and the debt when the other side is in power, but neither side seems willing to make the hard decisions that will make some people unhappy. Since I don’t care about being in office - I just want to see us be more peaceful and fiscally responsible - I’d be willing to take the hit for proposing legislation that would be a serious effort to bring federal spending under control.

 

Tar Heel: Your earlier book Compartments and your more recent novel Bent Toward Justice both emphasize seeing issues from multiple perspectives. How has that approach influenced your political philosophy and your desire to lower the temperature of public debate?

Feldman: I have close friends on both sides of the political divide. Each of them sometimes says the most horrible things about the other. Each side thinks that they’re right and that the other proposes policies for malevolent reasons.  Take minimum wage laws, for example. One side wants a higher minimum wage because they want to help people while claiming that the other side doesn’t care about those who are less well-off and just want the rich to be richer. The other side realizes that minimum wage laws might make it more difficult to hire poor people and claims that the other side doesn’t care about the poor and just wants their votes. I’m sure people all across the political spectrum want to end poverty in America. We differ in what proposals we think will be best for doing it, but there’s no reason to denigrate the motivations of other American citizens.

 

Tar Heel: The Libertarian Party has long held that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that government should not infringe. Why do you believe the Libertarian Party is the only major political force that consistently and fully protects that right?

Feldman: I’m a nerdy data driven guy and don’t know the statistics on which parties most consistently protect the right to bear arms. I know that all Americans want people here to be safe, especially our children. One side claims that we need to get rid of guns to make our children safe and that the other side doesn’t care about children. The other side claims we need more guns to protect our kids and that the other side doesn’t care about children. We all care about children!

I may be a weird Libertarian, but I don’t own guns. I don’t think having a gun in my home would make my home a safer place. But I have the humility not to know what’s best for others. If they’ve calculated that they need guns for safety or like guns for their recreational purposes, that’s their business not mine. People in the government are just people and should have the humility to leave the citizenry to live their lives as they see fit as long as they’re not hurting others.

 

Tar Heel: Senate Bill 50 (“Freedom to Carry NC”) would have established permitless concealed carry. Governor Stein vetoed it, the Senate overrode the veto, but the Republican-controlled House has failed to complete the override—even while overriding other vetoes. What does this failure reveal about the gap between Republican rhetoric on the Second Amendment and actual results?

Feldman: I’m not going to take the bait to denigrate politicians. Let’s consider the most optimistic view, that they have reasonable, heartfelt concerns about the bill. Yes, the U.S. Constitution says there is right to bear arms, and rights come with responsibility. Republicans who didn’t support the bill may have thought that the requirement to be trained to use a weapon is a good thing, as is the assurance that people with strong histories of violent mental illness should be restricted from obtaining a deadly weapon.  

 

Tar Heel: As a federal candidate, how would your approach to Second Amendment issues in Congress differ from that of the current Republican incumbent and the broader GOP, given their inability to deliver constitutional carry in North Carolina?

Feldman: I’m not a gun owner and base my opinions from listening to both non-gun owners and to avid gun enthusiasts. The enthusiasts have told me that gun owners should be educated about using weapons and that violent mentally ill people’s access to deadly weapons should be limited. That’s all ok by me. I’d want the gun enthusiasts to be involved in whatever legislation is proposed. The current incumbent is more than an enthusiast; he manufactures weapons and has supported their use by our military. I’m a big believer that we need to defend our borders, not use our military to dictate to other people how to live their lives, to be peaceful, to trade with others, to strengthen our economy and bring down prices, and to influence others by being a role model that others want to emulate. Force is usually not, maybe never, the best way to influence others. 

 

Tar Heel: How do you respond to public-safety arguments against permitless carry while remaining faithful to the principle that law-abiding citizens should not need government permission to exercise a fundamental right?

Feldman: I take public safety arguments seriously. It may not be unreasonable to try to make sure people are law-abiding citizens before giving them easy access to weapons. That said, legislation often has unintended consequences, and legislation that makes it difficult to get a gun legally is likely to be a big hurdle for law-abiding citizens and much, much less of a hurdle for those who don’t obey laws.

 

Tar Heel: You have been a consistent voice for non-interventionism, writing pieces such as “Leave other countries alone!” and opposing recent military actions. What personal experiences or observations most shaped your strong anti-war stance?

Feldman: I think a moral foundation in the Golden Rule and the realization of its practicality drives a lot of my thinking. If we are attacked, we respond with anger and violence. We shouldn’t be shocked that when we attack people in other countries, that just foments more anger against us. We wouldn’t want their troops in our country; I can’t imagine they are happy seeing our troops in their streets. I believe strongly in American values, like democracy, yet we support dictators in other countries out of our addiction to their oil. I think too few Americans are aware that we helped overthrow Iran’s prime minister in the 1950s and installed and supported a dictator there (the Shah) and his dreaded secret police, the SAVAK. Iran has a history of civil rights that goes back more than 1,000 years before the Magna Carta. They have pictures of their love poets on their currency. We can influence them more by being their friends and engaging in commerce with them that helps both their people and ours than by engaging in violence against them that causes them to want to have a nuclear deterrent or by placing crippling economic sanctions that make Iranian families suffer.

 

Tar Heel: In Bent Toward Justice and in your public statements, you emphasize making friends rather than defeating enemies, and you have spent time in the homes of both Israeli relatives and Palestinian families. How do those experiences inform your vision for U.S. foreign policy?

Feldman: We should get to know people before we bomb them.  Once we know them, it’s very hard to think of them as an enemy. I have Israeli relatives I love, and I’ve visited the homes of Palestinian families in the West Bank who treated me - a Jewish American stranger with more warmth than I had any right to expect. North Carolinians tend to be a lot friendlier than folks in New York City, but the Palestinian hospitality I experienced firsthand was off the charts. We can love our Israeli friends and our Palestinian brothers and sisters in completely equal measure.

Most of the world’s conflicts run on belief that people on the other side are animals who can only be managed with force. My experience says that’s always wrong. People everywhere want their children safe, their work respected, and to be left alone to live their lives. A foreign policy built on that recognition would support free trade, solving our own problems so we could be an even better role model, and reserve our military for defending our own country and not policing others. We spend enormous sums making enemies and then more of our treasure—not to mention giving up our civil liberties— protecting ourselves from the enemies we made. I’d rather spend far less on making enemies and make friends instead. It’s cheaper, it’s more moral, and a better, safer world for everyone does a better job of keeping Americans safe.

 

Tar Heel: You argue that war is immoral, counterproductive, and costly, and that Congress—not the president—should hold the power to declare war. What specific steps would you take in the House to restore constitutional war powers and reduce foreign military interventions?

Feldman: Sending Americans to kill and die is the gravest thing our government can do, and the founders of our Nation recognized it should require the open assent of the people’s representatives, not the decision of one person.

In the House I’d work to repeal the open-ended Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that presidents of both parties have stretched to justify wars Congress never voted on. I’d vote against funding hostilities Congress hasn’t explicitly authorized. I’d co-sponsor War Powers Resolutions to force floor votes on the conflicts we’re already in, so that members have to go on the record. And I’d push to require a formal declaration or specific authorization before we commit troops anywhere we haven’t been directly attacked. None of this is radical - it’s just the Constitution as written. 

 

Tar Heel: How would the principles in your book and your broader anti-war activism translate into concrete votes on sanctions, foreign aid, military spending, and ongoing conflicts?

Feldman: I’d bring one question to every one of these votes: does this make Americans safer, or does it just make someone angrier at us while foisting more debt on our children.

Sanctions punish ordinary people, strengthen the regimes we’re targeting, and rarely change behavior in a direction we like, so I’d oppose sanctions. On foreign aid, I’d end aid that buys weapons and funds wars, including military aid that lets other governments wage them; humanitarian aid is a separate question worth debating on its own merits. On military spending, I’d defend our borders and our people robustly while cutting the vast sums we spend policing the globe. And on the wars we’re in, I’d vote to end U.S. participation in fighting Congress never declared, and to stop shipping the weapons used to do it. I’m running to change how we act in the world.

 

Tar Heel: From a physician’s perspective, what federal healthcare policies have done the most harm, and what reforms would you support that expand choice and reduce government control?

Feldman: The biggest issue is the massive cost of healthcare, caused by promoting health insurance programs that insulate people from the cost of their care. If we started by making all the Federal plans high deductible plans, patients would have an incentive to use healthcare resources wisely and providers of care would be competing on price. Prices would drop, making healthcare more affordable for everyone. 

Healthcare needs the same market forces we have in other segments of our economy. If we treated food like healthcare, insuring nearly everyone to get whatever they wanted from the grocery store, apples would cost $100 each, and the uninsured would starve. We don’t need grocery stores to be more like healthcare; we need our healthcare system to be more like grocery stores.

 

Tar Heel: How should Congress approach issues of free speech, privacy, and civil liberties in the digital age without creating new surveillance powers?

Feldman: Free speech is fundamental to the American way. Government should not regulate speech. You should be allowed to say whatever you want (as long as you aren’t hurting others, so don’t falsely yell “Fire” in a crowded theater). I’m sure legislators and regulators who imposed electronic surveillance on us mean to protect us from harm, but it would be better if we weren’t doing things in other countries that make people angry at us and got rid of surveillance without a well founded warrant.

Tar Heel: Running as a Libertarian against an incumbent Republican and a Democratic challenger is difficult. What is your strategy for persuading voters in District 10 who are frustrated with both major parties?

Feldman: I propose to let the voters know that both the Republican and Democrat in this race are, like me, well-meaning people who want what is best for the citizens of our district and of our country. I hope to bring a breath of fresh air, reminding people we live in the best place to live, in the best of times, with other people, who, like us, want peace and security for all our children. We can have a government that fosters friendship at home and abroad and that acts fiscally responsibly.  

As the election nears, we will be inundated with messages that paint “the other candidate” as monstrous. It’s demoralizing. Tune that stuff out! The other candidates for the US House in District 10 - Pat Harrigan and Ashley Bell - are hardworking, accomplished, and caring. I admire them and applaud their commitment to making America a better place. I hope voters will look at the policy positions of the three candidates and vote for the one whose policies make the most sense. I expect voters will find my positions on the major issues - outlined in detail at https://www.stevefeldmanforcongress.com/my-positions —well thought out, sensible, and grounded in the fundamental principles that made our country great.

 

Tar Heel: When voters ask why they should choose a Libertarian over a Republican who claims to support limited government and gun rights, what is your clearest answer, especially in light of the stalled SB 50 override?

Feldman: The biggest existential threat to our country is not gun rights. It’s not China nor Iran and certainly not transgender kids in sports or what pronouns people use. The debt our Nation has accumulated is a large and growing burden on us and our children and our children’s children. Republicans know this. They campaign against it. Then they vote for legislation that makes annual deficits even larger. Rep. Harrigan’s candidate voter guide said, “Our national debt has surpassed a record breaking $34 trillion in debt, that we are handing down to the next generation of Americans. Steps must be taken to reduce our national debt and that starts with not adding more debt to each taxpayer” (https://ivoterguide.com/candidate/65072/race/1742/election/1090). He was right. But then he voted for legislation that continues to increase the debt.  It’s nearly $40 trillion now.  Nearly 40 TRILLION dollars.

The fault is not the legislators.  A Buddhist monk once said, “If the lettuce isn’t growing well, don’t blame the lettuce.”  It’s wise advice.   We’re the gardeners.  Our Constitution gives us the right to choose our representatives and with that right comes responsibility.  If we keep voting the way we have, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves for the results.

 

Tar Heel: Looking at the stalled SB 50 override and other recent legislative outcomes, what does the performance of the major parties say about the need for a consistent third option in Congress?

Feldman: The roughly $40 TRILLION in debt - about $120,000 for each and every American man, woman, and child - and growing, says all you need to know.

 

Tar Heel: If elected, what would be your top two or three measurable priorities in your first term?

Reduce Federal spending.

Promote civility at home and abroad.

Encourage people to live their lives as they see fit as long as they are not hurting others.

 

Tar Heel: How would you stay accountable to constituents and resist the institutional pressures that often pull House members toward the status quo?

Feldman: Being involved in one of the major parties may constrain House members. I wouldn’t have any of that pressure. And because I want to fix things in Washington and then come home, I won’t be spending all my time seeking campaign donations from special interests or compromising my positions to fund the next campaign.

 

Tar Heel: For voters in District 10 who value both personal freedom and practical problem-solving, what concrete differences would they notice if you were their representative?

Feldman: That I have the humility to know that I do not know what is best for them and will not try to use the government to tell them how to live their lives.

 

Tar Heel: Looking beyond one election, what long-term change in federal policy or political culture—particularly regarding war and peace—would make you feel your campaign and the message of Bent Toward Justice had been a success?

Feldman: Seeing a growth in civility would be wonderful. I’d love to see legislators discuss policy disagreements while recognizing they have common goals. I’d love to see us bring all our troops home and just defend our borders. I’d like to see our leaders meeting with leaders of all countries to discuss how to promote free trade, lower prices, and a stronger economy instead of calling them enemies and bombing their people and infrastructure.  I’m very optimistic.

In my life, I saw institutionalized racism end in America, I saw the Berlin wall come down, and I saw Apartheid end in South Africa. Vietnam is now our friendly trading partner.  It’s a great world, and we can make it even better.

 

Tar Heel: If you could leave District 10 voters with one clear message about why the Libertarian approach - especially on the right to bear arms, fiscal restraint, non-intervention, and limiting government power - is more reliable than what the two major parties have delivered, what would that message be?

Feldman: I think Libertarians, Republicans, and Democrats share a common desire for a strong America and a great future for all our citizens. Libertarians may have a greater dedication to the principle that we can achieve this by allowing people to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they aren’t hurting others.