In a state whose symbol is “The Independent Man,” a Whitehouse victory could spell a political sea change. Whitehouse, who was formerly the state’s attorney general, has campaigned on an aggressively national platform, saying not just Rhode Island’s future but “the structure of power in Washington” is at stake. Opponents have criticized Whitehouse for telling people to vote for the Democratic Party without presenting any specific platform of his own. Chafee, for his part, has touted his independent voting record—with limited success—and analysts have said a Chafee loss could signal the decline of the distinctly northeastern brand of Rockefeller Republicanism.
As part of NEWSWEEK’s ongoing Face Off series, Lee Hudson Teslik interviewed both candidates. Excerpts:
Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee
NEWSWEEK: In the past you’ve taken some heat from your own party, essentially for not being “Republican enough.” You voted against Alito, against the Iraq war—even against the president himself in 2004.
Lincoln Chafee: And his tax cuts. Don’t forget that.
And the tax cuts, right. Given all this, was it surprising to have the Republican Party come out so strongly for you in your primary?
No, I’ll take help from anybody who offers it. That was a tough primary, and I’ve worked hard at having good relations with my party, despite having differences on some issues.
Were you contacting them or did they reach out to you?
Well I just think that due to the relationships that I’ve worked on over the last six years, they wanted to help. They realize that I’ve voted my conscience, but they respect that.
Rhode Island isn’t a particularly Red State. Does it worry you that support from leaders of the Republican Party could hurt you?
Well my message to the Rhode Island voters is that I excel at working with everybody. I work with Democrats, conservatives, liberals and independents, and that pays off for Rhode Island.
But there are three times as many Democrats as Republicans in the state. You don’t think people could react negatively when they see the national Republican leadership so strongly in your camp?
Yes, Rhode Island is arguably the most Democratic state in the country, so I understand what you’re saying. On the same token, I vote my conscience and I’m able to develop good relations with everybody and deliver for Rhode Island when it counts.
There are Democrats in the Senate with more conservative voting records than you. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is an example. Why do you consider yourself a Republican?
Well we northeastern Republicans are what I call the original Republican Party. Fiscal responsibility, that used to be a Republican issue. Certainly caring for the environment, that is a Republican issue. Supporting personal liberties, and the freedom of people to make very personal decisions on their own—I think that’s traditional Republicanism; an aversion to foreign entanglements, that too. And we’ve been successful in the northeast at electing Republican governors, when you think about it. New York has had a long string; George Pataki has had a long run; the mayors of heavily Democratic New York City, first Mayor Giuliani, now Mayor Bloomberg; Connecticut has had a string of Republican governors, Massachusetts, even Vermont has had a Republican governor. So in the northeast, our brand of Republicanism is maybe different from the change that has swept the [national] party.
Given this shift, is there a future for these northeastern Republicans—some people call them Rockefeller Republicans. Are they dying out?
Well I think this election is going to be important to make a stand, to say we want people governing from the middle. Certainly my candidacy is one that’s in the spotlight on that.
People have said that Sheldon Whitehouse, your opponent, is telling people to vote for a party, not a man. Do you think that’s a legitimate criticism?
I think eventually Rhode Island voters are going to want something more from the candidates than just to vote for a party. He has no other message. I call it the Peggy Lee campaign: “Is that all there is?”
Rhode Island has more voters registered as “unaffiliated” than Republicans or Democrats—more than 350,000 of them. Why are there so many?
That’s another thing that has changed with the times. People here don’t register with parties as much as they used to. Before coming to the Senate, I was mayor of my city, and the board of canvassers office was right near the mayor’s office, and I’d check in every once in a while to see how people were registering. It was overwhelmingly, as we call them in Rhode Island, “unaffiliated.” They like the freedom to make their votes on primary day in the Republican primary or the Democratic primary. In the old days, these people were much more aligned with parties. I know when my dad [Sen. John Chafee] served in politics, in the ’60s, the party endorsements were so influential in the outcome of elections, and that’s just not the case now.
Have you ever considered billing yourself as an Independent?
No, you have to caucus here in the Senate with one party. And so once you make that decision, you run under that label. And in Rhode Island, Republicans are seen as the party of reformers.
Democratic Challenger Sheldon Whitehouse
NEWSWEEK: Senator Chafee’s father, John Chafee, was a Rhode Island senator before him, and the family has very prominent roots in the state. In a way you’re running not just against Lincoln Chafee, but the family name and all the weight it carries in Rhode Island. Has that been frustrating for you?
Sheldon Whitehouse: I think it’s an asset for Senator Chafee, and it’s one that I’m very familiar with, as our families have been very friendly over the years. I knew his father extremely well. But in this particular race, I think that the voters in Rhode Island are so concerned and upset about the direction in Washington, that the question that will be in their minds in the voting booths won’t be, “Is Senator Chafee a nice guy, and was his father a good guy before him?” but rather, “Is our country going in the right direction?” And clearly the answer to that question is no.
You have said many times that your race could be a key to Democrats regaining control of the Senate. Some critics have said that you’ve put this goal over anything specific to Sheldon Whitehouse. In other words, that you’re telling people to vote for a party and not a man. Do you think that’s unfair?
It’s inaccurate if you actually look at how my campaign has developed. We’ve put out very clear policies on fixing the prescription-drug plan that is harming so many seniors. We’ve come out with a very specific new energy strategy. We’ve spoken extensively about the need for health-care reform and the role I would like to play in health-care reform. We’ve put forward a specific plan for shoring up Social Security. We’ve really been out there strong on the issues.
Senator Chafee has the most liberal voting record of any Republican in the Senate. Indeed, there are some Democrats who have more conservative records. Shouldn’t those conservative Democrats be more of a concern to you than someone like Lincoln Chafee?
The game plan that Democrats will pursue in Washington is radically different from the failed course that the Bush administration has pursued. Whether individual senators might not be totally on board with every element of that game plan, that’s really the ultimate determination here. Who sets the agenda, and what direction it takes us. And there’s a colossal difference between what Democratic leadership would do, and what Republican leadership has shown us.
Senator Chafee voted against Samuel Alito for Supreme Court, he was the only Republican to not vote for the Iraq war—in 2004 he didn’t even vote for Bush for re-election. Is it at all disingenuous to pin him too closely politically to President Bush?
Not a bit, because the key factor is that he votes to put the Republican leadership in charge that drives that agenda. He may have voted against Iraq, but we are in Iraq notwithstanding. He may have voted against Alito, but we have Alito on the Supreme Court notwithstanding. The ultimate decision is who’s driving. Democratic leadership will lead us in a much better direction.
You’ve argued against the Republican course in Iraq and have argued for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. What kind of timetable would you want?
I think we need to announce as soon as we can that that’s what we plan to do. Then it’s a matter of troop safety, and getting them out as rapidly as makes practical sense, again with troop safety in mind. I think that creates a very significant diplomatic opportunity once the insurgency sees that we’re not there to occupy their country, once the factions see that time is short and they’re really going to have to get serious about making the decisions they have to make about their own country, and third that the international community sees that in fact we are on our way out, and it invests them in a whole different way in participating in a resolution of the Iraqi conflict. But I think the immediate thing that needs to happen to put all those things in motion is a clear and unequivocal decision that we are going to start withdrawing our troops as rapidly and sensibly as troop safety will permit.
What happens if when we’re ready to go, to use a hackneyed expression, the mission isn’t complete; if things are still going haywire over there. Should we still pull out?
Well the question you have to ask is: “Is the present strategy likely to lead to a better result?” My answer to that is no. Recently we’ve seen that confirmed by some of the internal reports that have been developed by analysts within the administration. I think we are on a path that leads toward a disaster over there, and it is pure stubbornness that keeps the administration from changing to a more effective policy.
You have a personal connection to these diplomatic issues—your father was a Foreign Service officer. Where were you when you were growing up?
Cambodia, South Africa, Congo, although they were shooting at each other then so the family stayed home, Guinea on the west coast of Africa, the United Nations, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.
Quite a list.
It was interesting. I’ll tell you one thing that stands out from my time in Vietnam. You could see intact in Saigon essentially all the infrastructure that we’re trying to build now in Iraq. Political infrastructure, utility infrastructure, public safety and military infrastructure: it all was there when I was living there with him in 1973. It wasn’t too long later, less than two years I believe, that we had pulled out. All that infrastructure intact, and yet this happened. I think it’s the kind of thing that should have given this administration a lot more pause before it ventured on its misguided war in Iraq.
Let me ask you about the war on terror. There hasn’t been a major attack since 9/11, and some people say we’ve disrupted the financial networks of terrorist organizations. How do you think we’ve done on this front?
No president following 9/11 would not engage in trying to fight the elements that want to produce terror acts in the United States of America and elsewhere. But I think a lot of the judgments that have been made—in terms of failing to fund border, container and port security; in terms of putting so many resources into the Iraq war and taking them away from Afghanistan, which was a front where we seemed to be winning—I think there clearly was a better way. We’ve now really compromised our military capability and the asset of our standing in the world without really improving our standing in the war on terror.
So how do we move forward?
Extracting ourselves from Iraq will help. Shoring up the effort in Afghanistan will help. And focusing really hard on the terror cells, a lot of which requires working behind the scenes with other nations. But this requires better relations than we’ve been able to maintain, and a more thoughtful and aggressive diplomacy.
