Shrinking nation

For more than 20 years, John Chafee flourished as a moderate Republican, but now the atmosphere in Washington is so polarized, the political middle is quickly evaporating

by Neil Miller

In the last 20 years, the landscape of Washington, DC, has been transformed. Public cynicism about politics and politicians has grown dramatically, while both the Senate and the House have become so polarized along ideological lines that bipartisanship appears a thing of the past, even in the clubby and "gentlemanly" Senate. And now, on the eve of presidential impeachment hearings, whatever fabric of civility and consensus that remains is in danger of being further frayed.

John Chafee, Rhode Island's senior senator, has been a witness to all this change. Chafee was first elected to the US Senate 22 years ago as a moderate Republican during an era of like-minded Republicans -- Massachusetts's Edward Brooke, Tennessee's Howard Baker, and New York's Jacob Javits, to name a few. But as these names have faded into legend and his party has veered increasingly to the right, Chafee has stuck to his principles -- and to the shrinking political middle ground.

This year, Chafee was one of only seven Senate Republicans who voted to end debate on campaign-finance reform and to move toward a final vote. When President Clinton proposed his sweeping health-care initiative back in 1994, Chafee emerged as the leader of a bipartisan group of senators who attempted, unsuccessfully, to win support for a less ambitious but more politically acceptable plan. This summer, when Republicans and Democrats were at odds on the thorny issue of HMO regulation, Chafee put together another bipartisan compromise to try and break the deadlock. Chafee's plan failed, but the effort to find common ground and to forge consensus across party lines was vintage Chafee.

In many respects, Chafee appears frustrated by the difficulties in getting much accomplished in the present polarized atmosphere. But he still looks forward. He won't say if he will seek a fifth term in the year 2000 (he would be 78 then), but he insists he wouldn't have any trouble winning renomination if he runs. And although he worries about the future of the Republican Party -- especially about the increasingly dominant role of the religious right in its presidential nominating process -- he insists that he is optimistic. "We'll have good candidates," he says of the upcoming presidential election.

For some perspective on the current state of Washington, the Phoenix turned to Senator Chafee. The interview took place as Congress moved toward adjournment and just as plans for impeachment hearings heated up.

Q: Is it impossible to get anything done these days in Washington?
A: I wouldn't say it is impossible to get anything done. But the current situation clearly has been distracting to the White House. When we have the situation in which Congress is of one party and the White House is of another, it requires a great collaboration and consultation to get things done. There are all kinds of things that have to be negotiated, and when you have a matter like this hanging over the White House, it is a distraction.

Q: It seems like the majority of Americans want this whole impeachment matter just to go away. What should Congress do in a situation in which the public appears to want to drop the whole thing?
A: I don't think we should be guided by what is the public's view today, as opposed to what it was last week. We've got to go ahead. There is a procedure set out under the Constitution. And I say let's get on with following that procedure and see where it leads us. It is a long process and a very serious process. With great care, you have to decide whether or not you are going to remove a president.

That is why I have been awfully careful about refusing to comment when people ask me, "Do you think he is guilty? Do you think he should resign? Should he be impeached?" I'm a potential juror here. And I am not going to take a position on any of those questions. Let's wait and see what happens. There is a procedure for doing this, and I'll be there when we go through the procedure.

Q: Would you be open to the idea of the censure of the president?
A: There isn't anything about censure in the Constitution. At this point, it isn't an option.

Q: How do you see the long-term effect of this on the presidency and on public life in this country in general?
A: The country will survive. I think we have had great problems on many levels of government attracting people to run for political office. We are finding that, in some appointed positions in government where Senate confirmation is required, some people are declining to accept the appointment. They don't want a bunch of FBI agents charging through their neighborhood asking questions like "Does he use drugs? Does he treat his wife nicely? Is he disloyal to the country in any fashion?"

The current situation exacerbates those concerns. But having said all that, it is just hard to get candidates to run for office. We have a shocking situation in Rhode Island. Of 100 seats in the House, somewhere around 40 are going unchallenged. That is not a healthy thing.

Q: You have been a force for moderation and bipartisanship in the Senate. What is the effect of the Clinton scandals on the "shrinking middle." Does it increase partisanship?
A: I think it does separate out the parties. It does make bipartisan cooperation more difficult.

Q: That particularly seems so in the House. Is it a little different in the Senate?
A: There is a difference. In the Senate, when somebody comes in, they are there for six years. You get to know them pretty well. You have been through one storm or another with them. So you tend to weather these things out. This [scandal] tends to hurt bipartisanship to some degree.

Q: In recent years, there has been a lot of talk about how moderates like yourself have become an endangered species. Has that changed at all? Were those fears justified?
A: I do feel that the center has declined. You can't blame that on the current Clinton situation, though. That is a separate subject. A couple of years ago, I suppose we could put together 22 centrists, combining from both parties people who really want to get things done and aren't bogged down in the politics of the thing. Today, we would be hard-pressed to get that many.

Q: Why is the trend continuing?
A: It is hard to explain. People are becoming more hard-core. That is about all I can say. Why it comes about I don't know.

Q: But the American public doesn't seem more hard-core, does it?
A: I've found that people at home are longing for us to reach across the aisle and to set aside partisan differences to get something done. They want it. It's good politics.

Q: Speaking about navigating the political middle, I wanted to ask you about your bill regulating HMOs. Your compromise rejected the idea of allowing people to sue HMOs, something Democrats are in favor of.
A: The Democrats had this proposal which was absolute anathema to the Republicans because of its proposal to permit suits in the state courts against HMOs. We saw this as a bonanza for the trial lawyers. Our bill would not permit punitive damages, which I feel are a very unfair award by juries. The insistence by Democrats on those provisions were one of the factors that led to the demise of the whole effort.

Q: Is your compromise bill still a possibility?
A: It is a possibility. Maybe next year something will happen. Maybe it will not have all been in vain.

Q: A recent study showed that 16 percent of Americans don't have health insurance.
A: I'm deeply worried about that. But the HMO legislation wouldn't have affected that. If the costs went up because of this right to sue, you would have fewer people covered.

Q: But nothing is being done about all those uninsured.
A: Not this year.

Q: What about the prospects for campaign-finance reform?
A: That isn't going anywhere.

Q: Even though we seem to be on the verge of a world economic crisis, funding for the International Monetary Fund is still being held up. Any hope there?
A: The legislation passed the Senate. I don't know what will happen in the House. It is terribly important. The US contribution is just a building block. If we come in, other nations will. If we don't, other nations won't. So you are talking $60 billion, as opposed to a very modest amount.

Q: What about the global warming treaty that was approved in Kyoto last year? Will that come before the Senate soon?
A: Nothing is going to happen on it this year. But it is not going to go away. Hopefully, we will be able to bring it up next year.

Q: Could you comment on the growing influence of the religious right within the Republican Party? It seems as if every potential Republican presidential candidate is espousing what you would call hard-core positions.
A: I am concerned about that trend. It is not unique. As you know, the labor unions dominated the conventions and the nominating processes of Democratic candidates for a long time. It is Bill Clinton who broke the grip of powerful special-interest groups that were essential for nomination but death for somebody who wanted to get elected president. Now we are getting the same situation here for the Republicans, as far as the presidential nomination.

The pro-lifers and the Christian right are dominating this nomination process. There is nothing evil about that. They care enough to get out and vote, and that sets an example for all the rest of us. If we care, let's get out, too.