Man In the middle As one of the few remaining moderates in the US Senate, Lincoln Chafee charts his own course BY BRIAN C. JONES

Lincoln D. Chafee is a mystery and a frustration to his fellow Republicans in the US Senate. A self-described "centrist," he at once enables the GOP to maintain its narrow majority in the upper chamber; but at the same time he casts key votes against his party’s programs. Born to wealth and celebrity as the son of the late Senator John H. Chafee, he is enormously proud of his seven-year stint as a professional racetrack horseshoer; his education, in addition to Phillips Andover prep school and Brown University, included time at Montana State University’s horseshoeing school.

After serving on the Warwick City Council, Chafee was elected mayor in 1992 and he went on to serve three more terms. When his father died in 1999, Chafee was appointed by then-Governor Lincoln Almond to complete his dad’s term, and he then won his own six-year-term in 2000. At the time of this interview, Chafee had just returned from a tour of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is an edited transcript of our conversation.

Q: What were you doing 25 years ago?

A: I graduated in ’75 and then went to the horseshoe school. And by the time 1978 — 25 years ago — I was in Alberta, at the racetracks, harnesses race tracks, and we went between Calgary and Edmonton.

Q: And what exactly were you doing?

A: Shoeing horses.

Q: And what did that entail?

A: Well, you try and get some trainers to have faith in your abilities, and to bring horses to you, and then to pay you. I was very fortunate. I had worked for somebody good, and he really taught me well. And my horses performed well, and so I kept business. I was very fortunate. I had trainers who would bring their animals to me.

Q: How have you changed in the last 25 years?

A: Well, my experience from working on the track gave me a lot of confidence. If I could survive in that environment — I didn’t know a soul when I went to Alberta, Canada. I just walked onto, got onto the track, kind of had to sneak in because the race tracks are kept secure, but I was able to get on, and meet some trainers that said, "Yeah, get your license, and I’ve got some horses here." And just to survive — I spent seven years there and to make new friends, being able to do the job adequately enough to make a living — it gave me a lot of confidence. And now, as you mentioned, I’m involved in important work. I think without having had that experience, I wouldn’t be able to do what I’m doing now with the confidence that it needs and deserves.

Q: What has changed the most in Rhode Island over the last 25 years?

A: I think the transition out of the old mill economy. It seemed like Rhode Islanders were down, all the companies were leaving, all the big employers, whether it was Leesona, or Gorham Silver, or Narragansett Brewery, Brown & Sharpe. There seemed to be steady news of companies moving south, or closing, or whatever. And I think now we are seeing Amgen come to Rhode Island — they are on [Interstate] 95 — and Fidelity, and it just seems to be more good news. Rhode Island’s hot.

Q: In looking back on the last quarter-century, what is the best thing that has happened to you?

A: I waited a long time to get married. I actually told myself, "I’m going to try to wait until I’m 40." I didn’t make it until I was 40, but that’s the best thing to happen. When I finally got married, I was, I am very lucky. I’ve got a good wife and couldn’t be happier — and three wonderful children — so that’s an easy one.

Q: In asking just the polar opposite, senator, what is the worst thing?

A: None of us live forever, but certainly I wish my dad were here to see some of his grandchildren grow up. He had a great life. But, as I said, none of us live forever, we can’t expect the impossible, but I suppose that stands out — [he was] such a figure in our lives.

Q: I think everybody is still sad about the death of your father. And ironically, that created the vacancy which you now fill. How do you like your new life in the Senate?

A: I love the work. There’s no doubt that it’s a difficult life. I have to try to be here at my job in Washington and also in Rhode Island as often as I can. And I do have a young family — they want to spend time with me, at least now in this stage of their lives — and I want to spend time with them. And when I was in a previous job as mayor, I didn’t have that third pull on my time, of having to be in a different place. I could do my job and spend time with my family much easier. So that’s difficult. But I love the work, and I have no regrets.

Q: You are in the minority, but very important position of being a moderate in the Senate. That’s difficult for you, isn’t it?

A: Yes, it is, because there’s a lot of pressure to support the Republican agenda, and I am a Republican. And I don’t support a lot of the agenda, and I can’t. So it’s, I guess, lonely is a good word to be in this position, as the Republican moderates have dwindled to really — there’s three or four of us. When my dad was here, there were 20 or so . . . So it’s difficult. But I believe that most Americans want us to govern from the center, and I have faith and confidence that that’s what the people really want [from] us. They don’t want us to govern from the extremes.

Q: How do you get treated by the conservatives, both in Washington and Rhode Island?

A: Well, at this point, I’m fortunate in that my vote is important here in the Senate — and for me to stay as a Republican. So the Republicans recognize that. And, in fact, I was invited on this trip to Iraq and Afghanistan by the assistant majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and there were only five Republicans that went. And I scratch me head — why is he inviting me? But I think he respects my positions, and knows that when I take a vote, it’s with some thought, and that I can defend it. He might not agree with it, but I think he respects it. And on these trips — we meet with a lot of ambassadors, and presidents, and the like, the prime minister of Turkey, the president of Afghanistan — and so I’m sure he had confidence that I’d represent the Senate well. So that’s positive. And back at home, I think also, especially with the way the war has turned and the deficits . . . . I mean those are the two big issues — "You voted against the president’s tax cuts, you voted against the war in Iraq" — and both of them have now, people are maybe saying to themselves: "We are back into deficits and this war hasn’t come as advertised" — that some of the criticism has been dampened because of that.

Q: Do you feel you are representing the majority in Rhode Island, Democrats as well as Republicans?

A: Yes, I do. But also what’s important when we are elected to these positions [is] to do what we think is best for our country, and our state, and for future generations, and I’m doing that. And at the same time, I think that most people do agree that these positions are in the mainstream and are the right positions to be taking.

Q: What’s your current thinking on the war in Iraq?

A: I think it’s right at kind of a turning point, where if we can, with this big investment we are making — I mean, it’s a huge investment, $87 billion — and with the opportunity of the people genuinely (and I’m having just come from there), genuinely being relieved that the Hussein government is gone, they tend to be supportive of us. And no one ever likes foreigners running their country, but if we can navigate our way to a government there that is Iraqi, then this could turn out more positively than I might have expected. I think one of the problems that could jeopardize that progress is that — certainly, what’s happening between the Israelis and the Palestinians is relevant in Iraq. And if that deteriorates, it could make our job in Iraq a lot more difficult. And it’s a rallying point for the extremists, the ones that are killing our soldiers there in Iraq. That gives me some cause for concern and dampens my optimism that we could turn the corner in Iraq.

Q: Would you have voted differently on the war, knowing what you know now?

A: No, because it was never presented to us as, "We are going to liberate the Iraqi people." The presentation was that there’s an imminent threat, and the weapons of mass destruction, and the means to deliver them. And if we had had the debate on whether we should liberate the Iraqi people that might have been a lot different. And whether we then would have had the United Nation’s Security Council resolution, that would have been more favorable. And what do we do in Liberia at the same time? If we want to liberate people from a despicable despot that threatens the stability of the region, then let’s have the debate over Liberia at the same time. And so I think it would have been a lot different if we had really faced the truth as to the real reasons for going into Iraq.

Q: What is your assessment of the current George Bush?

A: Well, I’m dismayed that the campaign turned out, when he was running for president, turned out so different from the policies. And as a politician, your credibility is everything. And to run as a compassionate person — and someone who said in the debate to the question — "How will you conduct your foreign policy?" — and he answered as a candidate, "It’s important to be humble, and if we are arrogant, countries will resent us." And then be the absolute opposite. I don’t think anybody would argue that there is an air of arrogance about this, about our foreign policy, it’s very deliberate. And so that’s my criticism: that if you are going to run, tell the people exactly how you are going to govern and don’t do something differently. So I think I have some legitimate criticism in that respect.

Q: Will you support President Bush in the next election?

A: I’m a Republican, and that’s my answer: I’m a Republican.

Q: Looking forward in the next 25 years, where do you see yourself in the next quarter-century?

A: Well, I’m 50 — I’ll be 75. I hope I’m still involved in decision-making that affects the future of our children’s lives in some capacity, whether it’s in private business or charitable organization or in government.

Q: Where do you see Rhode Island headed? You sounded optimistic as we opened our conversation.

A: Yes, I am. Everywhere I go, people mention that they might have visited Rhode Island and how much they loved it. And now, in this job, intermixing with a lot of military people, a lot of them have come to the Naval War College, and without exception, they rave about their experience. I hear it over and over again, and it’s, we’re just being discovered, we are getting back on our feet. Our economy is looking up, and it’s arguably the best state in the country: number one out of 50 states.

Q: An inescapable fact is that Rhode Island is the smallest state. Does that make your job in Washington more difficult?

A: Yes, in the respect that people do expect to see you in Rhode Island. They expect to see you at the hardware store, at the gas station — that’s just a fact of life in Rhode Island. But I also thank my lucky stars that I’m only an hour away by air, and some of these senators that also have pressure to get back to their states, as many of them do, surprisingly, whether it’s Nevada or Montana, take five-hour transits.

Q: What is the key item on the American agenda?

A: I think peace in the world is so important. And it is relevant, then, to prosperity, and in this age of nuclear weapons, that we’ve got to, we’ve got to repair our fractured alliances. I think that’s the biggest — and the trust that other countries had in us — I think that’s our biggest challenge right now. And even our adversaries, I believe we can repair our differences, and that it is possible.

Q: When you speak of our adversaries, whom do you mean?

A: Oh, from every, from North Korea, and Iran, to even those that are more, that might not be based in a country, whether it’s the Muslim extremists, that you have to believe that we can dampen down the hatred.

Brian C. Jones can be reached at brijudy@ids.net