Douglas Alexander
DemocraticQ1 America has a growing artificial intelligence (AI) industry, supporting cutting edge innovation and reshaping businesses, but raising concerns about education, ownership, and security. Application of AI technology has increased the demand placed on data centers, controversial for their resource use (such as water and land) and raising utility costs. What are your policy positions in regards to data centers and AI? What sources of evidence informed these positions?
Approaching such issues I have a calm confidence that this can all be done successfully and appropriately. However, I myself don’t have the time to study all the details myself. My intuition and life experience lead me to believe it will take time for us as a society to work out the best approaches.
There will be mistakes along the way. In some instances, actors will rush in and go too fast, and make mistakes. Hopefully we will all learn from those mistakes. It’s important the press, and those involved, are willing to recognize mistakes, and share with us so we all learn from them.
In other situations delays caused by the public, etc. may prove costly, and once the Data Center is up and running, they will look back and wish they have done so 18-24 months sooner. That lost efficiency is costly, but it’s all part of the scientific process.
Ideally we all–owners, users, local communities–sincerely try to get it right. People innocently created asbestos, and many innocent people paid the price with their health and lives; we all now pay the price financially. Let’s all seek to avoid similar innocent mistakes in this new era of AI and large data centers.
KEYWORDS: mistakes, scientific process, asbestos
Q2 Making the US competitive in the bioeconomy (using technology applied to renewable biological resources to produce food, energy and industrial goods) requires innovation and investments in business, academia and government. Please describe policies you will support, if any, that relate to workforce development in Wisconsin’s strengths such as agriculture, biotechnology, and energy; and explain their rationale.
First, policies that relate to workforce development are implemented on three different governmental levels: local, state-wide, and federal. I believe most such policies should be implemented by local authorities, and state-wide when it makes sense. I’ve not studied this in depth–I’m willing to–but I don’t know of any workforce development policies that should be implemented by the federal government. As such, although I’m glad to participate in brainstorming and discussions about wise or foolish ways to proceed, I don’t think Congress should be voting on any workforce development issues. (Perhaps some safety requirements are so universally recognized they could be enforced federally, but if they are universally recognized, then each state should pass regulations that best fit their state workforces.)
Folks, this is not a wimpy answer from a slippery politician trying to avoid saying anything significant. This is an important distinction you don’t often hear a candidate make!
Read Article 1, sec. 8 of the US Constitution: Congress is delegated no power over workforce development. Now read the 10th amendment. Our country will operate more efficiently if the federal government removes itself from areas it has no business being. It’s not just because they tend to muck things up; it’s because big power brokers don’t want to have to deal with every state legislature/educational institution to get their way. Instead, they buy up a few key members of Congress, and get laws passed the effectively routes $millions or $billions to their company, at the expense of smaller, local, businesses that are better suited to the unique workforce development needs of their local area.
That corruption needs to stop. Our current Congress doesn’t care about that corruption–they benefit from it. But if we institute term limits on Congress, the career politicians won’t be able to stay, and citizen legislators–like I would be, like many of you readers would be–would not cow-tow to the big power brokers.
KEYWORDS: local, state, federal, 10th amendment, corruption
Q3 Wisconsin’s public K-12 education systems have seen a significant decline in the past two decades, with more than 600 public schools closing and statewide student enrollment dropping 7%. These impacts have been especially pronounced in Wisconsin’s many rural counties, where opportunities for STEM education are already fewer. What policies, if any, would you support to improve K-12 education for students across Wisconsin?
First, policies that relate to workforce development are implemented on three different governmental levels: local, state-wide, and federal. I believe most such policies “Wisconsin currently has ~800,000 public ed students. That means two decades ago they had ~60,000 more statewide. Obviously the rural decline is a function of economic realities that one local school cannot prevent. But when they sadly must close, those students are going elsewhere. A lower birthrate may explain a small drop, but there are clearly other factors at play. Jumping to the question, here are policies I would support to improve K-12 education in WI:
First, stop the Big Lie. The Big Lie is that schools are “telling” many of their students that he or she passed, but in reality many have not met the standards set for their grade level! They are, in reality, “approaching” those standards, or–worse–merely “developing.”
For the Madison Metropolitan School District in 2024-5, those tested for English scored as follows: 1) whites: 78% either “Advanced or Meeting” standards; 22% were either “approaching,” or “developing.” 2) blacks: 16% meeting standards; 84% not meeting standards
For Math: 1) whites: 73% meeting; 27% not meeting 2) blacks: 12% meeting; 88% not meeting
To find these scores, go to https://dpi.wi.gov/accountability/report-cards Then the green box “click here for school and district report cards.” Then search on a school district, or an individual school.
A result of the Big Lie is by the time they reach high school, only 73% of white students, and only 12% of black students, are in position to succeed in STEM classes.
I’m running out of room to go on, except to say that a major reason schools are perpetuating the Big Lie is they are afraid to crack down on the ~10% of the student body that is not serious about learning, and more interested in showing off, causing trouble, and having fun. If the schools got serious about building a healthy culture of respect and discipline, half of those 10% would get with the program. The other half should be sent to a special “locked down” public school where class sizes are small, there is a no-nonsense approach, and where students could earn the right to go back to their previous school–where all of their friends are–with a week (or more) of good behaviour. See my website for more details.
KEYWORDS: The Big Lie meeting, not meeting, 10% not serious
Q5 If elected, in what capacities would you refer to scientists when you are deciding how to vote on a policy?
I trust science. Science does not lie. Science is, by definition, consistent. If an element or an experiment cannot be consistently replicated, then it is not recognized as anything more than a failed proposition.
I do not trust scientists any more than I trust other human beings. People are flawed. “The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” There are scientists who have been bought out by powerful companies who want their products to be deemed safe, when they are not. There are scientific journals that have been compromised by the influence of Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big tech, who approve “peer reviewed” articles that do not meet the standards of rigorous, long-accepted standards of testing and review.
All of this to say, if elected, I will most definitely consult scientists when appropriate. But I will verify the veracity of their testimony, just as I will any other person’s testimony.
KEYWORDS: replicated, flawed, human, verify
Q6 In 2025 alone, the National Institute on Health (NIH) awarded over $575 million for research grants and contracts to Wisconsin universities and hospitals, which directly supported over 6,500 jobs and generated an estimated $1.37 billion of economic activity. However, federal funding cuts for science research and agencies like the NIH and National Science Foundation leave the future for scientific research less assured. What policies, if any, do you support or plan to implement to promote continued funding for scientific research?
My quick answer is that yes, there is research necessary, that for-profit companies cannot always underwrite by themselves. In those cases, it is in the best interest of the public to public fund such research. How that is done is where it gets murky.
Referring back to the 10th amendment, Congress has no authority to control scientific studies. It has taken control–no doubt about that. But such initiatives belong to the states. I’m not insisting every state has it’s own mini NIH. Citizens, and states, can collaborate with each other very well without the imposition of the federal government. There are many examples of this: Hollywood built its empire without the “help” of Congress. Walt Disney create his empire without the “help” of Congress. Cisco Systems basically build the internet without the “help” of Congress. Many large corporations have arisen without the “help” of Congress. However, more and more large business interests have thought: “Hmmm…We don’t want to have to go to each of the 50 states to set policy for our product…We’ll just go to Congress and see if we can get them to pass a law that paves the way for us to be successful in all fifty states at once!” When a particular state does not approve of the advantage Congress has given to a big corporation, it is an expensive and heavy lift to try to alter what Congress has done.
There is also a “middle man” dynamic that is costly. I prefer to see much more of our tax dollars kept by the 50 states, rather then letting the federal government take them, then dole money back to the states, universities, Scientific entities as Congress deems best. That process is rife with opportunities for fraud and corruption. If each of the states kept the tax dollars that would go towards research grants at the state level, they could ensure it either goes to institutions in their state, or would go to collaboration among many states they knew would benefit the universities and end users in their states. All of this could be done without Congress being involved. Currently, large, powerful and wealthy Corporations throw their weight around at NIH and NSF to ensure they get a larger share of the grant funding, cutting out smaller but probably more important research that an individual state would recognize as important, and fund. In short, it does not serve the smaller, less political scientific entities in Wisconsin to have to apply to NIH and NSF. If they were applying to the state of Wisconsin, there would be a more personal touch, better access to the decision-makers, and overall more efficient use of grant money.
KEYWORDS: 10th amendment, collaborate, middle man,