The road ahead US Senator Jack Reed offers an unvarnished look at the challenges facing the state and the nation BY IAN DONNIS

Like his unorthodox GOP colleague from Rhode Island, US Senator Jack Reed last year voted against the measure authorizing the use of American force in Iraq without United Nations support. Unlike some Democrats, though, Reed is immune to the "soft on defense" tag, thanks in large part to the respected voice — informed by his experience as a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger — he offers on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Elected in 1996 as the successor to Claiborne Pell, Reed joined the elite handful of men who have represented Rhode Island in the Senate for the last 100 years. Judging by opinion polls, which consistently rank him as one of the state’s most popular officeholders, constituents believe the 53-year-old senator is doing a good job. But as our conversation made clear, many of the problems facing the US and Rhode Island remain daunting.

Reed spoke with the Phoenix during a recent interview in his Providence office at the US District Court building.

Q: What were you doing 25 years ago?

A: That would be 1978? I had just finished commanding a paratrooper company in the 82nd Airborne Division down at Fort Bragg. No, wait, take that back — I’ve got to get my calculations right. Seventy-eight. In 1978, I was teaching at West Point. I was an Army officer and then I left the service in ’79 to go to Harvard Law School, but I was teaching in the department of social science at West Point.

Q: Did you anticipate getting into politics at that juncture in your life?

A: No, I think at that point what I was considering was, if I stayed longer in the military, past 10 years, there’s such an incentive to stay for 20 and a pension. So I was saying, well, what else would I do? And you know, maybe public service of some kind. In order to do that, I have to have a career to support myself. So I said, law, maybe I could do that. This is all very sort of vague ruminations, and then I got accepted to Harvard Law School — so that convinced me I should go to Harvard Law School.

Q: What has most changed about Rhode Island in the last quarter-century?

A: I think there’s been a tremendous improvement in the urban space here in Providence and Newport. Back in the mid-’70s, you had the end of the rapid de-industrialization that was going on, the Navy had pulled out about ’73 and [we were] still in the wake of that, so we were a country, a city, a state, that was changing dramatically. The economy was changing. I think there was a lot of trepidation and concern, but through the efforts of many people we’ve come back, the urban spaces particularly. That’s probably the most remarkable change to me — the physical appearance of the city and not just Providence, but the whole state. I think also the continued sort of changes in the demographics, too. Back in the ’70s, South County was still a place that, at the end of Labor Day, people packed up and moved home, and it was a small community of year-rounders. Now, everyone lives there all the time.

Q: Let’s look at the other side of that question. What do you think remains most constant or unchanged about the state during that time?

A: I think there’s still a strong, strong sort of ties between people. There’s still a sense of neighborhood, still a sense of kind of family, community — I think that’s one of our great virtues. There’s still this sense of being a Rhode Islander, being in the smallest state, but being part of something that’s not anonymous and so huge and so big that you’re just sort of another cipher. You’re a real person, you have connections — you’re rooted into the community.

Q: The Cold War defined the US global outlook for a half-century after World War II. How long do you think the so-called global war on terror will be our defining international paradigm?

A: Oh, I think it will be another generational effort. Given the nature of the problems we face with committed and ruthless terrorists who are still out and about — but also the social forces that are working. It’s not an organized ideology as Marxism was, but it represents the emergence of ancient sort of hatreds, now supercharged with modern technology. And also these problems at their core are not completely solvable by military force. It has to be economic, and diplomatic, education. So, in effect, you’re looking at a generational struggle.

At this point, initially, we’re buying time, we’re striking out with military power — I think appropriately in terms of Afghanistan, certainly — to give us the time to pre-empt our opponents. But if we don’t follow on with the kind of international cooperation, international collaboration, investment, resources, to raise standards of living, but also the perceptions of people around the globe, then we’re going to be battling this and just holding our own.

Q: Is Rhode Island’s reputation for corrupt politics overstated? And what steps do you think would be most effective in helping to bring about a cleaner degree of politics in the state?

A: I think, because Rhode Island is really a city-state, what happens in municipal affairs is magnified tremendously. You know, you can read about situations all across the country. Apparently, the mayor of Philadelphia found wiretapping gear in his office the FBI put in there, so that’s a Philadelphia story; it’s not Pennsylvania. If something like that happens in Rhode Island, it’s the Rhode Island story. So I think it’s something we have to root out. We can’t accept it as, Oh, that’s just the way that things go. But I think the perception is because of a lot of things that take place in other states are so localized that they don’t color the character of the state. Here, it goes right to our perception of the state.

What we can do to ensure that it doesn’t proliferate? We check it. I think it goes back to civic action. It goes back to individual citizens. It goes back to the ballot box, it goes back to voting, you know, it goes back to getting engaged and getting involved, and asking for accountability. That’s what I think is tremendously important. We’ve seen changes in Rhode Island that were a combination of many things, but ultimately people went in and voted for candidates who they felt were going to provide direction and leadership.

Q: How has the relationship between politicians and the Rhode Island media changed — or not — during your time in public life?

A: I think what’s happened, and this isn’t just the Rhode Island media, it’s all media — there’s been this migration from news, just the facts, to entertainment, you know, just the opinion. That’s colors everything. It colors everything nationally, it colors everything locally. It’s been a more competitive market for media, in the sense that 25 years ago, you still had one dominant paper as we do today, but you had basically three television channels and you didn’t have the same kind of role of talk radio. Now, you’ve got a proliferation of different media outfits, national and local, and they’re competitive, they’re looking for news, and it’s the old story — the sensationalism gets people hooked in.

The relationship? I think the media is one of the great bulwarks of our democracy, that any organization that is not subject to questioning — and hopefully, it’s principled, careful, factual questioning — becomes aloof and misguided. I think the media plays a tremendous role. Sometimes it’s awkward, particularly if you’re on the receiving end. But without it, we wouldn’t have the kind of effective democracy we have. We’d be much, much diminished.

Q: There’s a school of thought that the Bush administration is intent on rolling back many of the social reforms and initiatives of the New Deal and Great Society. In your view, what are the stakes of the 2004 presidential election in terms of this?

A: I think the stakes are enormous. I’ve never seen a more irresponsible fiscal policy than what I’m observing in Washington today. You know, knowing that first of all we have a baby boom generation that’s going to enter Social Security/Medicare in just a few years, knowing that we have taken on these responsibilities internationally, and then to suddenly maintain these huge tax cuts, to me, it’s irresponsible. It has not produced the kind of economical revival that we all want. We’ve seen some growth in domestic products, but the job market is still laboring. Actually, it’s not laboring — that’s the problem. Most business people I speak to, not just in Rhode Island, but around the country, there’s very much uncertainty about the direction of the economy, about whether consumer demand will hold up, you know, what’s the next geopolitical shock?

We just talked about this generational struggle, which requires great attention, focus, and resources, and yet we’re undermining our capacity to do that. It is really distressing, and it seems to me that part of it is this notion that was sort of filtering through the Reagan administration — that you starve all these programs. You get to the point where you say, we’re so deeply in debt that we just can’t fund Social Security the way we want to; we have to quote-reform it-unquote, which means probably change it beyond recognition. Same with Medicare and Medicaid. We’re reneging on promises we’ve made to generations of Americans. And you know, it’s just not very good economic policy, either.

The best way to continue a growing economy is to provide people purchasing power, and frankly, Social Security, and not having to spend all your money on health-care, but able to spend it on other things is a good way to keep the economy. So I think the economic stakes are huge, and the international stakes are huge, too. The commitment to Iraq might very quickly become a strategic mistake, because we’re in a situation, we can’t afford to lose, and we can’t — it would be a huge shock to our esteem in the world and to our power in the world. Yet if we win, what do we win? We win probably 10 or 15 or 20 years of huge problems. So as a result, I think we’re in a very difficult situation and this [presidential] race is very important.

Q: How do you see the outlook for the Democrats?

A: I think we’re in a situation where we have not resolved our candidate yet. So that is always a tempestuous process. It is not particularly elegant — that’s the way we do democracy here. It’s a good way to do it. I think the president began to realize that his policies were landing like a thud around the country, the economic policies, employment rates; crisis in state budgets and local budgets, all those things. And then internationally, I think people are very, very concerned about not only what’s going on in Iraq, but why are we actually doing this? It turns that many of the justifications were misstatements. Many of the supposed objectives can’t be realized. They’ve not yet found weapons of mass destruction.

So as a result, I think people are beginning to sort of look seriously towards a Democratic candidate. We don’t have that candidate yet. When we do, I think the mechanics of the race will be, they will try with a lot of money to define that candidate as someone who is not consistent with American values. We’ll have to fight through that. But my sense is if the economy does not improve, does not improve dramatically — there might be some improvement. But if it doesn’t improve dramatically, and if the situation in Iraq continues to lurch forward as it is, with these terrible casualties we’re suffering in the young Americans, then I think people will be looking for a change.

Q: Closer to home, how would you describe the greatest challenges facing the state and the outlook for meeting them?

A: I think the challenges are several and they’re interwoven. The challenge is to continue to have a robust economy that generates jobs. I think we’ve been reasonably successful the last few years when other states around us have been showing a lot of pressure on their budget, because of many factors. One is that defense spending in the state has been robust. We’ve worked now for 13 years and the submarine construction at Electric Boat — Raytheon received a contract for a major new Navy ship. We’ve got a lot of small contractors around the state who are doing military work, and also the Newport facilities. That is sort of helping us in a difficult time.

But we can’t assume that the defense budget is going to keep growing and growing. We’re running $500 billion a year deficits and that’ll affect defense just as well as everything else eventually. But I think that’s one reason we’re doing reasonably well. But we do have to continue to keep our productivity up and also our economic base. One of the real areas of concern is the continued deterioration of American manufacturing. Foreign competition is absolutely ruthless. And as a result, we have to think of ways in Rhode Island, and nationally also to help manufacture. We can’t impose tariffs — that would basically be illegal given the free trade regime. But there’s support I hope we can give to manufacturing.

The other issue that’s related to all of this is the cost of health-care. It is, once again, taking off. We’ve got an older population which by definition consumes more health-care; someone has to pay for it. We are in a situation where that has become a significant challenge to businesses. That’s an issue we have to deal with, and they’re all interrelated. Finally, the way you not only provide for an economy but also provide for a civic culture is educating people so that they can be efficient and productive workers, but more importantly, participating citizens. They can read, they listen, they use their good judgment to make decisions about the direction of this state and this country. And so education is a major issue. These are all related and they all have to be dealt with.

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis@ phx.com