Lincoln Chafee ’75 served as a US Senator (1999-2007) and the 74th Governor of Rhode Island


Brown Political Review: Starting with your personal background, you worked as a professional farrier for 7 years before entering Rhode Island state politics. What influenced you on your path from getting a Classics degree at Brown to equine hoof care and then onto politics?

Lincoln Chafee: I didn’t want to rush right into heavy duty responsibility after college. After four years of studying I wanted to enjoy working a regular 40 hour work week and getting a paycheck on Friday. …  I was lucky that I got to work for a blacksmith who really taught me the trade. I went to a horseshoe school and worked hard to find someone to hire me. Once I found someone to teach me the trade, I went off on my own and had a terrific seven years working on a racetrack.

BPR: What led you to switch from the Republican Party to become an Independent, and then later to the Democratic Party?

LC: I think the Bush-Cheney agenda coming in really pushed me out of the Republican Party. I did stay for my term in the Senate as a Republican, but it was very hard. Coming in on Tuesday when we would have our lunch to talk about the agenda for that week, I would find an agenda I just did not approve of. At the same time, I had to deliver for Rhode Island, and Republicans were in power in the White House and controlled the Senate and the House. It was a definite conflict. I was also considering, would the pendulum ever swing back to Eisenhower and Rockefeller style Republicanism where we just care about balancing the books and letting people live their lives? After time, I didn’t think [this type of Republicanism] would come back.

The South has become more Republican, they care more about social issues. This change was happening through the 1990s, but it was really amplified when Bush and Cheney came in the 2000s. They had a unilateral approach to so many issues that I disagreed with, so I realized it was time to go find another party. It was an evolution that took me a while, first leaving the Republican party to become an Independent and then later becoming a Democrat. It was a thoughtful process.

BPR: What was it like running Rhode Island as an independent governor? Did you find that it helped you govern more effectively or less effectively?

LC: I learned that it was harder. I thought that by being an Independent I would be devoid of the partisan squabbles (as small as the Republican Party is in Rhode Island), but I just found it hard, with a tough economy inherited and having to make decisions without having a party behind me. For example, the legislature only took half of my first budget  Had I been a Democrat, they would have taken more of my budget, and the economy could have recovered faster. I didn’t have anybody helping me defend it as an independent.

BPR: Why did you choose not to run for a second term as governor?

LC: A lot of it had to do with thinking about a potential presidential run. My wife and I were driving to Maine in the summer of 2013 and we had to make the decision of whether we continue the fundraising [for a gubernatorial race]. On that six hour drive to Maine, we were talking about what I ultimately want to do and I just kept talking about how I love international issues and really enjoyed being on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and my concern about what we were doing wrong in the world. In the conversation my wife said that it would be better for me to not be governor if I wanted to run for President. And that’s true; it was a good decision. It’s so hard to do both, especially with the challenges of being governor in Rhode Island and the challenges of running for President.

BPR: How do you view the current status quo in Rhode Island, and what can be done to improve it?

LC: Despite being an independent for much of my term as governor and some setbacks, I’m happy with how we ended up in Rhode Island.  Our unemployment dropped and was one of the best in the country. There are only three states from when I took office to today that did better in dropping the rate of unemployment. I’m very proud of that. Also when I came in, a number of our cities and towns were eligible for state intervention. Their finances were thus that they could lead to bankruptcy, and one of them did go to bankruptcy, Central Falls. Even our capital city of Providence was eligible for state intervention, as were Pawtucket and Woonsocket. We put the resources back into these cities and got them back on firmer financial footing. We took care of our distressed communities and I’m very proud of that. As governor, I did not ignore them and tell them to figure it out themselves; I helped them.

BPR: Are there any votes you took that you disagree with now?

LC: The repeal of Glass-Steagall as Senator. It was my first day as it turned out when I was appointed to the Senate. The bankruptcy came later. I wish I’d understood better the ramifications of my vote at the time.

BPR: Secretary Clinton is the leading frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. What advantages as both a presidential candidate and then later as President do you have over Secretary Clinton?

LC: Well as a candidate, our approach to foreign relations is one of the largest differences between us, crystallized by the Iraq War vote. She took the muscular unilateral “we know it all” approach to that region without doing her homework as to whether there really were weapons of mass destruction. Then as Secretary of State, she continued that top-down approach to foreign relations. That is the biggest difference in campaigning. As far as governing, I think my experience reaching across the aisle will be very valuable. Secretary Clinton is still seen as a polarizing figure and the Republican vitriol is going to be hard to overcome. It’s unfair in many ways, but that’s just the way it is.

BPR: Turning to foreign policy – Before his re-election, Israeli PM Netanyahu spoke against a two-state solution (before taking it back later) and came and spoke to U.S Congress in a snub to President Obama. What do you believe are the next steps America should take in our relationship with Israel and ensuring a future peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians?

LC: Well the Israeli politics are Israeli politics. My preference would be is that they elect more of an advocate for a two-state solution, because I think that’s in Israel’s best interest. We all know the demographics of a growing Arab population and how democracy works. A two-state solution is better for their long term security as well.. You can’t just keep stirring up all those hornets in the region; we live in an age of nuclear weapons. We are worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons, while Pakistan is a country of 160 million Muslims and they have nuclear weapons and a sophisticated military.

BPR: Is there a problem with Muslims having nuclear weapons?

LC: No! It’s a fact. Pakistan is an Islamic country, and they have nuclear weapons. If we are going to be smart, in my view, we should try to denuclearize the region.

BPR: Israel is a majority-Jewish state with nuclear weapons. Do you see any difference between a majority-Jewish state having nuclear weapons as compared to a majority-Muslim state or majority-Christian state?

LC: No, no, I live by Realpolitik. I look at what the reality is.  These are just the realities; we can’t afford to have these things flying through the sky and detonating. That’s my view.

BPR: President Obama spoke about a “pivot to Asia” in America’s foreign policy. Do you believe this is the correct shift?

LC: I don’t think we needed a re-emphasis on Asia; it is not an area of great tension. I know we do with Russia and with Venezuela. [Our relationship with] Venezuela has ramifications throughout South America — Ecuador, Bolivia, some of the like-minded countries. I don’t see any necessity to pivot to Asia. I would instead put my priorities in repairing our frayed relationships.

BPR: How should the United States respond to the Ukraine crisis and manage our relations with Russia?

LC: Poor Ukraine is caught just like the knot in a tug of war. On one side you have Europe pulling and on the other side you have Russia pulling … My view is, why is there a tug of war going on? Bring Russia into the European Union. Europe goes to the Ural Mountains; the heavily populated part of Russia technically is European. Let’s start working together. NATO shouldn’t be a threat, the EU shouldn’t be a threat. Those days should be over, but they are coming back unfortunately.

BPR: In the short-term, what are specific actions America can take right now to respond to the crisis in Ukraine?

LC: Broker the integration of Russia into more European entities. As I said, open up any atlas of Europe, and it will include that heavily populated part of Russia west of the Urals. It’s not going to happen immediately, but there are economic organizations — I don’t have them at my fingertips — but that are incremental steps for joining the EU.

BPR: How do you propose the United States does that given that the current Russian body politic is significantly anti-EU and anti-West?

LC: Well [the Russians] shouldn’t be that way. They have energy and other resources for sale. The European market is right there. I think it’s totally unnecessary.

BPR: Regardless of it being necessary or unnecessary, that is the present state on the ground. How can we work with Russia given the current political situation?

LC: At the G8 Summit in the spring of 2001 not that long ago, it was all happening then. In my view,  America should not have started dictating what to do when Russia was at a time where their pride was tarnished after the Soviet Union fell. We didn’t need to rub their nose in that. Human nature being human nature, the Russians took a different path away from progressing towards the EU. At that G8 summit, Putin was there yucking it up with [Prime Minister Tony] Blair and [Chancellor Gerhard] Schröder from Germany and President Bush. I felt that, oh we had this. This is a good time right now, let’s not screw it up. Russia was right there at that G8 summit.

BPR: You are currently running for President in the 2016 election.  Why do you believe you would be the most qualified person for the job?

LC: Being qualified to run for president starts with your record of accomplishments. You need somebody that has a history of getting things done, and I’ve had that. Secondly a vision of  where you want to go. I’m passionate about how we can do better in the world and better at home. And then lastly, your character. I’ve had an impeccable run of public service, open to scrutiny. My motto has been “Trust Chafee” and it’s been accurate to my time in public service. You look at your record, you look at the vision where someone wants to take the community, and then their character, whether it is someone you can trust.

BPR: Why can we trust you?

LC: Because I have a record of being trustworthy. When I say something I do it. I didn’t just tell the immigrant community when I was running for Governor that I would repeal E-Verify because I needed their votes (which they expected, because they have been burned before). If I tell somebody something, I’m going to do it. I’ve earned the reputation of “Trust Chafee”.

Governor Lincoln Chafee took the political world by surprise last Wednesday, announcing his decision not to seek reelection in the 2014 race for governor. Chafee began his career as a Republican, but in May of this year he formally affiliated with the Democratic Party after serving most of his gubernatorial term as an Independent. Most political commentators viewed his decision to affiliate with the Democratic Party as part of a strategy to improve his reelection chances. However, Chafee’s prospects in the Democratic primary were dim: throughout the summer he trailed competitors State General treasurer Gina Raimundo and Providence Mayor Angel Taveras in fundraising.

Chafee’s poor prospects and his decision to drop out of the race can be attributed to factors beyond his ideological footing, first and foremost being Rhode Island’s high unemployment rate and his low job approval ratings. However, the governor’s choice to “effectively [end his] political career,” as characterized by the New York Times, brings attention to the dwindling number of centrists in politics. The past decade of Chafee’s career provides ample evidence of the no man’s land that moderates must contend with in the current political atmosphere.

Chafee’s tenure as Republican senator from Rhode Island from 1999 through 2007 was an anomaly for today’s Republican Party, and it was his persistent incongruence with the GOP that drove him out of it. Chafee regularly deviated from the party line on the environment, taxes and foreign policy. According to the National Journal’s 2006 vote rankings he was the most liberal Republican in the senate – more liberal than Democratic senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. What was most distinctive of Chafee as a Republican senator was his stubborn criticism of President George Bush, particularly the president’s action in Iraq. Chafee was the only GOP senator to vote against the 2002 resolution giving the president authority to invade Iraq and he denounced Bush’s unilateral approach to the war.

Despite his regular policy disagreements with his party and the president, Chafee reconciled his label as a Republican by citing the similar voting patters of fellow moderate Republican senator, John McCain, and by arguing that Americans want centrist government.

Chafee’s time with the GOP eventually ran its course, however. As Bush’s first term came to a close Chafee criticized the president’s agenda of “energizing the far right-wing base,” and called Bush’s actions divisive. In November 2004 Chafee publicly considered leaving his party and did so in 2007, becoming an independent in his run for governor after losing his senate seat to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse.

What should be understood is that Chafee was not out of place in the GOP when he was first elected to office in 1986 to the Warwick, Rhode Island City Council. Growing up with today’s congressional politics, observers assume representatives will either hold a Democrat or a Republican party line position on major issues – the environment, gun control, oil. This rigid approach to legislation breeds for-or-against-politics and makes for poor governing because it drives out moderate legislators. Chafee did not fit the mold for the GOP of today, making his time in the Senate and his reelection campaign contentious. Republicans (like Chafee once was), and moderate Democrats are going to become rarer and rarer in politics as they are either ousted or become fed up navigating political waters that insist on conformity to party templates.

In 2005 Chafee was a member of a bipartisan coalition of middle of the road senators referred to as “the Gang of 14.” The group successfully negotiated an agreement that put an end to an organized Democrat filibuster of Bush judicial nominees and prevented a senatorial vote on the “nuclear option,” or the elimination of filibustering as a strategy to stop judicial confirmation votes. Like Chafee, a handful of both moderate Democrats and Republicans of “the Gang of 14” have struggled to keep their seats in the senate in recent years due to their moderate ideologies and voting records.

A Democrat member of the gang, Ben Nelson, announced his decision to retire in December 2011 instead of waging an uphill battle for reelection in red-state, Nebraska. Despite his popularity and having one of the lowest rates of voting with the Democratic majority when he left the senate, Nelson received flack from his conservative constituency for supporting Obama’s healthcare overhaul.

Mike DeWine faced similar struggles to Nelson when he ran for reelection 2006. After serving one term as Ohio senator and nearly two decades a representative in the House he lost his seat to Democrat Sherrod Brown. Though he lost to a Democrat, during his campaign DeWine was criticized for not being sufficiently conservative.

Joe Lieberman left his party to become an Independent after losing the Democratic primary for senate in 2006. The highly liberal primary electorate rejected Lieberman’s support of the Iraq War and chose anti-war Ned Lamont. “The old politics of partisan polarization won today,” he said following his loss to Lamont. Moderate Lieberman was successful with the voters of the general election, however, and retained his seat.

Republican senator from Maine Olympia Snowe chose to retire in 2012 despite high chances of reelection. Snowe is a moderate, liberal on social issues and one of the few Republicans to support abortion rights. She cited intense partisanship in Congress and frustration with take-it-or-leave-it showdowns as her reasons for retirement.

Lastly, Chafee’s circumstance for Senate reelection in 2006 also followed the disadvantageous pattern of many Senate moderates. Conservative Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, challenged him in the Republican primary, and though Laffey’s chances of winning the general election were negligible, Chafee only won 54 percent of votes in the primary after a hard fought campaign. In the general election Chafee lost to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, falling victim to the trend of individual senators being held culpable for their political parties in national referendums. Chafee was more popular with Democrats than Republicans in Rhode Island and he was still ousted with a party he scarcely identified with.

In his speech announcing he will not seek reelection for governor, Chafee said he would rather devote the rest of his time as governor to the challenges facing Rhode Island, than focus on a time-consuming campaign. Perhaps Chafee’s stated dedication to governing over ensuring reelection demonstrates his position as a moderate – namely his distaste for trying to appeal to a party base in order to sustain a political career. The unfortunate paradox is that if moderates don’t start to pander more aggressively to voters – of both moderate and extreme ideologies – they will continue to disappear from public office.

The following is a statement by the Brown University Democrats. The opinions expressed are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Brown Political Review. 

The state of Rhode Island did something incredible over this past April and May. Our public officials answered the support of sixty percent of Rhode Islanders and extended the fundamental rights of marriage to same-sex couples in the Ocean State.

Gov. Chafee signs marriage equality into law.
Gov. Chafee signs marriage equality into law.

We would like to thank all of the Brown students who showed up in force to make sure that the side of equality and justice won the day. We could not be more grateful.

Through months of phone calls and one-on-one conversations, you reached out to 4,600 Rhode Islanders and mobilized 1,900 supporters of marriage equality. You worked through poor weather, put aside schoolwork and came prepared to fight difficult odds, all because you refused to give up hope or let apathy stifle the possibility of progress.

With the help of your efforts, gay couples will enjoy all the legal benefits provided to straight couples, and will no longer carry the demeaning status of “separate but equal.” Rhode Islanders will have one less source of discrimination weighing them down as they navigate a society that still has a long way to go in cultivating acceptable attitudes towards the LGBTQ community.

But just as importantly, passing marriage equality sends a powerful, beautiful message to youth across America. Through your actions, you have promoted a message of love and equality to gay children and teenagers that might help them feel a little less alone, a little more secure or a little more self-confident to fight back against the discrimination that plagues their lives.

This is a big deal. And you helped make it a reality.

We say this because it is often easy to lose faith in our political process. One of the most common ways politicians deal with problems is to do nothing at all. When changes are finally accomplished, after months of bickering and interminable waiting, they are often watered-down and scattered with loopholes and sweetheart deals. Supporters are disappointed, opponents are enraged, average citizens are alienated due to a lack of transparency, and politics delves even further down into the depths.

This leads many people to feel that they don’t really have any political power at all, and that their voice is not going to be heard unless they are wealthy, a lobbyist, or one of the elite few already entrenched within our institutional structures.

But this recent battle for marriage equality should remind us that we as students can wield considerable political power if we choose to do so. For whatever issues we feel passionately about, whether they are education, the environment, homelessness, women’s rights, military intervention or LGBTQ equality, we can make a difference if we stand together with activists across the state and demand change. When the future of civil rights for our LGBTQ friends and family members were on the line, students of all political persuasions came together, organized, and helped make American history.

We have power. We must not forget that. And we need to keep using it.

Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee, currently an independent, announced this week that he will become a Democrat. This move culminates his political metamorphosis from a liberal Republican who served as mayor of Warwick and senator, to an independent who narrowly won a three-way race for governor, to an unpopular governor who will soon face off in a Democratic primary.

Gov. Lincoln Chafee (from Wikipedia; public domain)
Gov. Lincoln Chafee
(from Wikipedia; public domain)

Chafee has always been an unusual politician. A classics concentrator at Brown, Chafee shoed horses for seven years in the US and Canada before returning to RI to enter politics. Chafee has never been a natural politician, and seems like he would be more at home in a college classroom than the campaign trail. His father, John Chafee, served in the Senate for 23 years, and Lincoln Chafee’s desire for public service apparently derives from his father.

If you were to argue that Chafee’s shifting party affiliations is a sign of political polarization, you’d be partially right. Chafee and his father were two of the last moderate (some would say liberal) Republicans in Congress. Many of his policy positions, including his opposition to the war in Iraq, put him at odds with a party that increasingly demanded purity.

But there is undoubtedly a great deal of political calculation in Chafee’s switch. A poll from Brown University’s Taubman Center put Chafee’s approval rating at 25%. If he runs as either an independent or a Democrat, Chafee will be counting on eking out another win in a three-way race. As an independent, Chafee would face the Republican candidate and a Democrat, either General Treasurer Gina Raimondo or Providence mayor Angel Taveras. Both are more popular than Chafee and stronger candidates than Frank Caprio, who Chafee beat in 2010. Raimondo has already raised $1.7 million (compared to $358,000 for Chafee and $561,000 for Taveras). Running as an independent, Brown professor Wendy Schiller notes, would allow Chafee to sit back as Taveras and Raimondo beat each other up in the primary.

Winning a Democratic primary will still be an uphill battle, but is the smarter route for Chafee. He’ll rely on his name recognition and state and national experience, and hope for a messy primary in which both Taveras and Raimondo trip up. If he is able to secure the Democratic nomination, he’ll be able to use the Democratic apparatus to campaign and fundraise, which would give him a good chance at another term. A danger for Chafee is that primary voters are often partisans and party loyalists, and these people might be disinclined to support someone who so recently became a Democrat.

Chafee will also be banking on the endorsement of President Obama. Chafee endorsed Obama early in his 2008 presidential bid, and campaigned for him in RI. Out of loyalty, Obama refused to endorse Frank Caprio, Chafee’s 2010 Democratic opponent for governor. Obama’s national approval ratings have been slipping, although he his still fairly popular given recent scandals and continuing gridlock. Still, the party of the president tends not to do very well in midterms, at least nationally, so Chafee might not get the bump from Obama that he expects.

A January 2013 poll by Public Policy Polling noted that Chafee’s support in a hypothetical election was about 22% if he ran as an independent facing a Democrat and a Republican, but around 33% if he was the Democratic nominee. The latter poll had Chafee losing to his Republican challenger, which is actually not that surprising given Chafee’s unpopularity and RI’s history of electing Republican governors (the last Democrat was elected in 1995).

The most important number for Chafee is probably RI’s unemployment rate, which currently sits at a four-year low of 8.8%. This is worse than the 7.5% national rate, and the highest in New England. Chafee should still take hope: some political scientists argue that the actual rate matters less than the rate of the decline. If people feel that the economy is improving, they will vote for incumbents. Brown’s poll found that in January that 63% of Rhode Islanders thought the state was heading in the wrong direction. If these numbers don’t change, Chafee is doomed, regardless of his political maneuverings.

Governor Lincoln D. Chafee ’75 is the 74th Governor of Rhode Island. Elected in 2010 on a platform of increasing government transparency and economic revitalization, Chafee will likely face challengers from both the left and right in his upcoming reelection. During a live filmed interview, Chafee sat down with BPR’s Interview Director Emily Gelber to discuss his time at Brown, gun control in Rhode Island and his upcoming chances at reelection in 2014.

Brown Political Review: Thanks for sitting down with the Brown Political Review. I wanted to start with your experience at Brown. Were you politically active when you were a Brown student?

Lincoln Chafee: No, although [during] those years — I graduated in 1975 — everything was very politically active on campuses all over America. When the 1972 presidential election occurred, which was Nixon against McGovern occurred, there was just a lot of involvement with students. Then Watergate came after that so there was a lot of involvement with students and the issues of the day.

BPR: Do you think it’s different today, that students are involved in politics like they were then?

LC: I pick up The Brown Daily Herald frequently and it seems like they are always asking for letters. Back in those days the letters would flood in [with] different opinions. You didn’t have to pull teeth to get someone to send a letter in. But it’s an ebb and flow. Other interests that are occurring might not be politics. With the Obama election, students were critical to his success across the country and I’m sure that’s true on the Brown campus. And I know here in the Statehouse, Brown students will be involved in political issues so there’s not a complete absence of activity.

BPR: Do you think this generation is distrustful of the government? Some people believe that there was an effort to stop students from voting, and students are really dealing with debt; is there a different sentiment towards government now?

LC: I don’t think so, and I don’t want to speak for you, but I don’t think there is a complete distrust. I think there is a little bit of discontent. You mentioned student debt, [the] disparity of wealth the students are seeing out there. I think the Occupy movement was an expression of disparity of wealth but I don’t think there is distrust yet. It is more that we have to stay vigilant and watch out for those that are looking out for themselves instead of the common good, and it’s always the idealism that young people have.

BPR: The Occupy movement has been criticized for having no central leadership and fizzling out; was there any change that emerged from this movement?

LC: It was a good statement. It came out of nowhere from my perspective, and all of a sudden, whether it was Manhattan or San Francisco or Providence, there were people making a statement. It occurred right as winter came on so it lasted much longer than I thought. I thought that the statement still resonates; I still see bumper stickers or signs that say “99 percent,” “I’m part of the 99 percent.” And so it was a strong statement coming as it did, without forecast.

BPR: You’re big on reducing student loans and making college more affordable. What is the meaning of a college degree now?

LC: Well, I do think that going back to my experience after World War II and the G.I. Bill and the strength of the state universities across America — whether it was Missouri or Arizona or Montana or Illinois or California — the strong institutions of affordable public higher education coupled with the G.I. Bill, that’s what made America strong. People just were able to go to that community college or go to that four-year institution and get a degree. And now we’re seeing that more and more debt, even at public institutions of higher education, just makes it more difficult.

The skills that are needed out there do take a lot of education to match the demands that companies have for higher technology, and if you are graduating with this tremendous student debt, one of the things it stifles is the chance to do something alternative, which I did after college, and what many were able to do like join the Peace Corps or Teach for America. You just can’t do that because you have student loans that you have to immediately start paying back and you want, I think, graduates to go out and get a little dirt under their fingernails in different ways and learn the ways of the world and make contacts that might take them into different paths of life that are very valuable. You cannot do that once you start having children and mortgages and all the pressures that come with those responsibilities. I mean Steve Jobs and other that have done different things profited greatly from those years of not having a high student debt.

BPR: I want to talk a little bit about your opinions on gun policy. Is there federal influence on the ability of a state to create gun legislation?

LC: It’s a mix. Certainly, we would prefer to have the federal government pass some common-sense gun safety laws. When I was in the United States Senate, we were trying to close the gun show loophole…We were also looking at the assault weapons. We already have a waiting period to buy a gun; we’ve passed that. To buy a gun, you need a background check but you can go to a gun show and buy it there and walk out with it, no background check.

BPR: Why is that?

LC: Because [sellers] said that gun shows travel around. [The gun show] would be in one community one weekend and then in another community another weekend and there’s not a chance for someone to buy the gun and then come back a week after the background check and pick it up because they’ve moved.

BPR: So it’s a matter of convenience?

LC: Yes, but there was a loophole and if you’re going to have the background checks, let’s stick to them universally. So those were federal laws. We were not successful. The Second Amendment advocates are very, very powerful and the NRA, we know about the power of the NRA. Also, hunters have an innate fear that the government is going to take away their guns. And even progressive states such as Vermont — Vermont legislators in Washington were very strong in fighting against some of these common-sense gun safety measures. Vermont has a big hunting population. There are a lot of deer hunters.

BPR: I didn’t realize hunters had such a big influence on gun policy. Do they have a huge presence in the NRA?

LC: Yes, so it’s a mix of true hunters that think that the government is going to take away their 20-gauge shotguns — and one thing leads to another, and pretty soon, they’re not going to have their bird-hunting gun or their squirrel-hunting gun or their deer-hunting gun.

BPR: And realistically, what do you think you could get passed for Rhode Island?

LC: We have a good package of bills. I think the ones that the law enforcement agencies really are strong on are the assault guns. Truly, what hunter needs an assault gun or a large magazine clip? I just think [Second Amendment advocates are] treating it as a step. First they take away my assault weapon, and then they take another. So we just have to fight back against that. This isn’t a progressive step of taking away guns. It’s just common sense; nobody needs an assault gun with a large magazine clip. You’re not allowed to hunt with them, so what do you need them for?

BPR: Many gun owners fear that “common sense” regulation like background checks and assault weapons bans will lead to more intrusion down the road. What do you say to that? Is that something that is just embedded in the American way?

LC: Well, I just know that being in politics, I went to a meeting that had nothing to do with guns — it was about fire districts in Coventry — but many of the people that were standing around were saying “Hey, don’t take away my guns.” Those are the buzzwords that come out, “Hey, don’t take away my guns.”

BPR: And is that a campaign from gun owners, catchphrases that people use to ignite fear?

LC: Well, we talked about distrust of government, and that it starts with that. They don’t trust the government [when it says] that this is common sense regulation. It’s not a subversive plot to take away every hunting rifle or shotgun that legitimate sportsmen need and have.

BPR: So, getting back to distrust of government, is political polarization in Washington increasing distrust of government?

LC: It certainly helps with distrust, the polarization that I witnessed in my time there, and it seems to have gotten even worse. Somebody yelled out at the State of the Union address at President Obama, “You lie.” A member of Congress in the middle of the State of the Union address — that to me crystallized the partisanship, such a phrase to yell out at a somber occasion. Unbelievable. We have to do a better job at coming together to solve our national problems. The two parties coming together at the table and getting the job done doesn’t seem to be working.

BPR: What do we need to do to get Democrats and Republicans to start working together on important issues?

LC: It’s a big discussion, what we need to do. They say as you get involved with these primaries — I think that is very accurate — that in order to prevail, as John McCain found out and Mitt Romney found out on the Republican side, you’re just pulled further and further to the edges. And they used to say it’s not as bad as the Democratic side, but [they are also] pulled further and further to the left. President Clinton was successful at saying, when he was running in the primaries, “I’m not going to be pulled way out to the left here. I know I have to run in November, and I think I can prevail in the primaries and still chart a more central path.”

It was in this last election when Romney’s campaign manager said, “Etch-a-Sketch, we take the primaries and shake it up and start all over again” and you shouldn’t have to be that way. You should be making statements that you’re going to be held to every day of the campaign, not shake it up and start over. Now we have a different view on immigration. Now we have a different view on international issues. Now we have a different view on guns. It shouldn’t be one position for the primaries and another one for the November election. It shouldn’t be that way.

BPR: But isn’t it that more polarized and politically extreme people vote in the primaries?

LC: Yes, that’s one of the problems.

BPR: So how do we get more people to vote in the primaries?

LC: It used to be that there weren’t primaries — you went to a convention.  And then there was dissatisfaction with the smoke-filled rooms [of conventions]. Out of the convention comes a candidate that a few delegates have elected who is now our choice for president, and so [people said], “Let’s go to the primary system.” Maybe we need to go back — and it’s ever evolving, to elect delegates and they go to the convention and argue over who has the most successful chance in November, and we’ll pick that person rather than through the primary system where you build up and you’re committed to the winning of delegates.

BPR: I’m curious, what did you think of the Republican primaries in the last election?

LC: It’s amazing to watch the Rudy Giulianis and the Mitt Romneys and the John McCains who I know as moderate — they couldn’t get elected in New York City or Massachusetts. And I know John McCain was good on environmental issues, he was good in immigration issues, he was good on tax policy when I served with him and when he ran for president, he changed. [He] was completely different on the issues. Completely different. It’s sad to see.

BPR: What’s your prediction for the future of the Republican Party right now?

LC: Good question. They are going through a lot of soul-searching. One of the reasons I left the party is their focus on social issues that seem to galvanize the base, energize the base and that was part of their strategy whether it’s immigration or gay marriage, whether its immigration, or gay marriage or abortion —so many of these social issues that I don’t think the general public ultimately cast as priorities. I’d rather [have] us get the economy going, take care of health care and have good schools and low tuitions. These are the issues people are talking about [while] the Republican Party is getting into these social issues deeper and deeper.

BPR: You mentioned your time as a Senate Republican. How have your views changed since you left the Republican Party to become an independent?

LC: Well, my views haven’t changed and that is why I left the party. I stand behind my votes against the deep tax cuts even as a Republican; in fact, John McCain and I were the only two votes against the Bush tax cuts which favored the wealthy and brought back deficits. I’m proud of my vote against the war in Iraq, I’m proud of my vote against the prescription drug benefit before we reform Medicare, because we are adding another unpaid benefit to Medicare. These are all fiscally conservative, Republican-like policies. And that hasn’t changed since becoming governor. I like being an Independent governor, the only one in the 50 states, and I don’t know whether governing has been easier since being independent, but it has been interesting to be in this position. [There are] a few other independents now in the Senate, like Bernie Sanders, but they caucus with the Democratic Party, so we’ll see.

BPR: Is there any chance we’ll see you on the Democratic ticket in 2014?

LC: Well, certainly I think about that, when I left the Republican Party, I became an independent and I did support Sen. Barack Obama for president in 2008. I then supported him again in 2012; I spoke at the Democratic Convention and heard the issues that I cared about, whether it’s environment or even fiscal conservatism which used to be Republic and is now more of a democratic issue — no deficits, using the tools of government to help build up strong middle class, and personal liberties. Republicans are turning their backs on warrant-less wiretapping and some of our First Amendment freedoms. It seems that the Democratic Party has embraced some of those issues that I care about.

BPR: What’s your feeling on gay marriage in the Supreme Court? What are we going to see?

LC: A prediction? The Supreme Court ruled on the Affordable Care Act — President Obama’s healthcare bill — favorably, with Chief Justice Roberts being the key vote there. So I think they’ll see this as a constitutional right. Why should we be discriminating against two people that love each other and want to get married? I have some guarded optimism there. Our neighboring states have all passed it — NY, CT, MA, VT, ME, NH. It’s passed our House 5 –19 overwhelmingly and we’re waiting for a vote in the Senate. So although the Supreme Court is ruling, we’re also trying to get it passed here locally, here in our Statehouse and hopefully, that will be soon and successful.

BPR: So is the movement going to come from the states?

LC: Yes, it is.

BPR: Is that a more powerful force than the federal government?

LC: I’d like both. I think the Supreme Court should rule and that the states should pass it also.

BPR: So, my last question: Who’s going to be on the ballot in 2016?

LC: Well, it seems like we just got done with ’12, doesn’t it?

BPR: I know, but everyone is talking about it. Do you think Hillary Clinton is going to run?

LC: I do, at least that’s her plan right now. I don’t know whether the fatigue will set in, whether she can really keep this us. She’s going to do a book and then go on a book tour and eventually, it’s going to catch up to her. It seems like we just ended ’12 but that’s the sport that we’re in.

BPR: Are you going to give a name?

LC: The issues here in Rhode Island are just so intense. I have my own election coming up in 2014 so never mind 2016. My focus isn’t on 2016.


Virtuous action is rare in today’s political realm. Partisan divides are ubiquitous. These circumstances, however, are what make Rhode Island’s new legislation legalizing same-sex marriage all the more incredible. And it is because of these circumstances that I believe Rhode Island Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed is an American hero.

“Rhode Island Statehouse Capitol Building of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” by Max Binder. Creative Commons License.

For years Paiva Weed has stood as an obstacle to marriage equality. A hardworking Democratic politician, she sits as the first female Senate President in RI. She is reportedly conservative, raised Catholic, but has been private about her reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. Still, Paiva Weed stayed true to her vow not to kill the marriage equality bill introduced by the likes of Senator Donna Nesselbush from Pawtucket. As the powerful Senate President, she could have. But she did not.

Economy-centric in her policy, perhaps Paiva Weed saw that a new study done by UCLA’s pro-marriage equality Williams Institute found that legalizing gay marriage would add $7 million to RI’s economy in a three-year period. Perhaps she feared displeasing her constituents in Jamestown and Newport, RI. But as the Senate was the major test for gay marriage in RI, with the House unanimously passing the bill and Governor Lincoln Chafee enthusiastically vowing to sign it, her actions as Senate President are, in effect, the lifeblood of the marriage equality law we can expect to see pass this summer.

Politicians who act in their own interests, concerned with pleasing lobbyists  more than their constituents, should learn from Paiva Weed. Opponents of gun control should take note. She was on the losing side, but she preserved the democracy that guarantees her legislative hopes, when in the majority, from being derailed by a selfish few. For that, even if her vote was on the wrong side of history, we should celebrate her.

Last week, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) published a report that recommended changes to Rhode Island government intended to foster business growth. Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee commissioned the report in response to the collapse of 38 Studios, a video game company founded by former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling. The company was given a $75 million loan from the Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation (EDC), a quasi-state agency.

Rhode Island is in rough economic shape. The state’s unemployment rate in August was 10.7%, second worst in the nation. The average unemployment rate in the six New England states (including Rhode Island) is 7.4%, and the national rate is 8.1%. A July report from CNBC ranked the state last in a list of the top states for business in 2012. The top ten states in the CNBC ranking had an average unemployment rate of 6.3% in August.

It’s clear that action is needed. RIPEC advised creating an executive office of commerce, with a secretary who would report to the governor and oversee state economic policy. The EDC would stay a quasi-state agency, but be rebranded as the Rhode Island Commerce Corporation, and would fall under the new executive commerce department. Governor Chafee has not yet committed to any aspects of the RIPEC plan.

How much can the government really affect commerce? Conservative politicians like to argue that government cannot create jobs, but also like to claim credit for any jobs created on their watch. This irony extends to conservative Curt Schilling, who was happy to take a government loan after years spent decrying the excesses of government. This American Life devoted an entire show to the subject of job creation, and the conclusions were ambiguous. It’s extremely hard for states to promote job creation in the short-term, and any short-term measures come at the expense of long-term concerns (such as the improvement of infrastructure and education). Economic development at the state level consists mostly of stealing companies and jobs from other states.

Another frequent refrain is that government regulations destroy jobs. This is probably the rationale for RIPEC’s recommendation to move the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) under the new commerce secretary. There is evidence that government regulation does not play a large role in the job market. As the Washington Post reports:

In 2010, 0.3 percent of the people who lost their jobs in layoffs were let go because of “government regulations/intervention.” By comparison, 25 percent were laid off because of a drop in business demand.

While it’s logical to assess the economic impact of new regulations, making environmental protection subservient to commercial interests is a troubling move.

This seems like a no-win scenario: Rhode Island needs jobs but the government can’t do much about it. In fact, the best way for the Rhode Island economy to improve is probably to wait for the national economy to get rolling. But Rhode Island’s unusually high unemployment rate suggests there are systemic problems with state. Rhode Island is known as a corrupt, one-party state, and this stereotype is proven correct with disheartening regularity. Pointing out the problem is easy, finding a lasting solution is difficult. Rhode Island needs to change something fundamental, like how the state holds elections. A nonpartisan blanket primary system, in which all the candidates from all parties run in one primary, with the top two candidates advancing to the general election, could lead to more competition and allow moderate Republicans to emerge as a political force (or it could lead to general elections filled with only Democrats). Even if fundamental change proves elusive, Rhode Island should focus on improving the aspects of the state that already stand out, such as tourism and education. Regardless, I doubt that reorganizing how the state administers commerce is the real solution to Rhode Island’s economic troubles. RIPEC’s recommendations may be beneficial, but deeper reform is needed.