An Interview with Senator John Fetterman

Editor’s Note: Associate Editor of The Dartmouth Review Alexander C. Koch (TDR) interviewed Senator John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) (JF) on October 23, 2024. The interview was conducted during the Senator’s visit to campus as part of the 2024 Election Speaker Series, co-sponsored by the Rockefeller Center and Dartmouth Dialogues. 

TDR: Senator, I really appreciate it that you took the time to interview with me. It’s such a nice day on Dartmouth campus. I hope that you’ve been able to experience the fall wonders of it all.

JF: It’s amazing. I was joking earlier with them, it’s like I’m walking around on a Hallmark Channel movie set. It’s, yeah, idyllic and it’s beautiful and people have been—I can’t stop saying wonderful things. It’s just been a hundred percent positive.

TDR:  That’s great. And the first question I have is specifically regarding the fact that this is an Ivy league school, Dartmouth, and you are a Harvard Kennedy school graduate. So that being said, what is your perspective on the current value and role of an Ivy league education? Especially given the ongoing debates about elitism and accessibility in higher education.

JF: I mean, the whole thing about whether it’s Harvard or the Ivy League, you know, it’s had a rough kind of hit on some of the perception after October 7th, how there’s been that kind of reaction. 

And I ended up here at Dartmouth because I really responded well to their response here and how they handled that. And so, it’s like the value in an education. I don’t hold it against someone if they have an “elite” kind of education. Or, I wouldn’t not hold, or even hire somebody if they didn’t have a fancy degree. I don’t have any kind of judgment. 

It’s just on the person. I don’t judge somebody on how they dress or those things. It’s all about the person. And, I do think there’s value in a college degree, but I don’t think that that should exclude you from having plenty of paths where it may not be necessary to have a college degree.

TDR: No, absolutely. I agree. And you already mentioned it: the response to Israel on October 7. My second question is leading into you being a pro-Israel Democrat. How do you view the current tensions within your party, the Democratic Party, regarding U.S. policy towards Israel? And this, in particular, in the light of recent events and shifting attitudes among especially the younger Democratic voters of the party.

JF: It’s possible. And I understand that there might be a protest here for the event. And they have the right to. That’s part of and that’s what’s great about our nation too. 

You have the right to protest and you have free speech. And I’m also going to give an example. My friend, who’s actually very much in their camp in terms of policy. But he’s my friend. He’s a Senator from Vermont. And he said: “Hey, I hear you’re coming out, but I want to hang out”. So we are members of the Democratic Party and our caucus, and we can disagree on that issue. 

But I will embrace him warmly, and he’s the nicest dude in DC. So I think that’s a great example of: “Hey, you know, we can disagree”. But that kind of disagreement or aggression or anything is never coming from me. 

I’m not offended by someone’s views on that. I just happened to disagree with them. And my voice and my views on this haven’t really changed. And I’m not sure why that view would offend anybody, but I can easily understand if somebody has a different view. 

Certainly I’m not going to show up at someone’s house to try to make that point or those kinds of things. But people can agree to disagree on these kinds of things, but for the Democratic Party, I understand that politically that might cost you something. But I’ve always been, and I’m going to be, in what I think is on the very right side of this.

TDR: You got it. All right. Well, thank you very much for those two questions. Now shifting topics to another topic that has been very much in the news and it’s about labor strikes. So my question is, how would you assess the Democratic Party’s response to the recent wave of labor strikes across the country? Has the party effectively balanced its traditional labor base with the other priorities it has?

JF: I err on the side of being, standing with the union. And I’ll give you a personal example: they announced that they’re selling the U.S. steel and I live across the street from their iconic mill and I’ve always been all about the steel workers. That was one of my very first endorsements during the campaign. 

I’ve always promised those men and women that my voice will follow you, whatever you want. And then now their whole career was just thrown in the flux. Nobody announced this or talked about that, including myself either. I jumped on my roof and I filmed a video saying: anything we can do, I’m going to do to jam that up because I’m going to fight for labor, whether that’s a strike or whether that’s even their entire livelihood that is put at risk. And that’s what I did. And I reached out to the White House. 

Now they jammed that up and that has forced Nippon Steel to invest billions of dollars to secure their futures working in the Mon Valley. So that’s the example of if there’s a strike, or some kind of a sale, whenever the way of life for unions is put at risk, I’m going to lean on that side for that. So I support those kinds of responses. But if, and they have said, if they say I want to be a part of that sale, or they don’t, whatever that is, I’m going to follow that, and same with strikes and those situations. I’m going to follow the union way of life.

TDR:  I understand, and this leads into our last question, which is kind of related to this topic as well, because it’s a question regarding your response to criticisms that the Democratic Party has seemingly shifted away from representing Working Joe, President Joe Biden, who hails from Scranton, to favoring coastal elites. And this is exemplified by the contrast between your background, for example, and our current Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, Vice President Harris, who is a former Californian attorney. What would you say to those critics?

JF: Well, I actually just had that question put to me. It’s like, there may be varying intensity or resonance, the same as with Harris and Biden. But there are also other kinds of constituents where that might be reversed. But I haven’t witnessed that there is less intensity or commitment toward voting for a Democrat on that. 

And I don’t think that there’s been widespread defecting to Trump, but it’s also undeniable that Trump has a strong position and a connection for voters in Pennsylvania. And you will see that in the polls. And we’ve witnessed that in 2016. And I’ve been claiming, and in some sense warning, that this is a very, very close situation. 

This is not even about the polls, or about money, or here or that. It’s really about, it’s a very gut-checked vote. And for one person that has already decided I’m on one team or the other, it’s like, what do I want for the next four years? And they just say, okay, I’m doing that. I don’t think it’s going to be the next commercial that convinces them.  Or I don’t really see Trump dropping a comprehensive white paper or some obscure thing on policy, you know? So here we’re 10 days out, and my gosh, for the last people that are still [on the fence], it’s really going to come down to what does my gut feel about the next four years.

TDR:  You got it. Alright, well then, thank you.

JF: I know that is not scientific, but yeah. I happen to believe that is true, and I think it is. I think it is, actually.

TDR: I very much share that sentiment. I think deep inside people just have a sense, like a feeling of some sort and they just go with that feeling. And we’ll see. It’s going to be happening soon enough. But, that being said, Senator, I thank you very much for your time. I appreciate you answering the questions. And thank you for the interview.

JF: My pleasure, my pleasure.