Former Republican senator and independent
Gov. Lowell Weicker has harsh words for his party -- and his replacement
By Josh Eidelson
Lowell Weicker served three terms in the U.S. Senate from Connecticut
as a Republican, before being defeated by then-Democrat Joe Lieberman –
with an assist from influential conservatives – in 1988. Two years
later, in a rare feat, he won Connecticut’s gubernatorial election as a
third-party candidate.
In a Friday interview, Weicker – now 82 –
slammed the modern GOP, scorched his old foe Lieberman, and urged an
upheaval in how America funds public schools. A condensed version of our
conversation follows.
What went down in D.C. over the past month – has it told us anything about the Republican Party that we didn’t know?
I
suppose the obvious answer is that the party is so far off to the right
that it can’t even come to grips with reality in America today. Now,
that’s the easy answer because it’s clear that the Republicans, through
their most extreme members, are showing that tendency. But I think the
time has come to focus the blame where it belongs, and that’s with the
American people.
You cannot have a government where 46 percent
vote for president, about 35 percent vote for Senate, about 25 percent
for congressmen. When you get to those total local percentages, that
means that any dedicated group within the percentage can have an
enormous weight, way beyond their numbers, on policy.
Why do you think it is that the conservatives you’re talking about have been able to wield that outsize influence?
Let’s
say out of the 35 percent of Americans that are voting for senator,
there’s 5 percent that are dedicated even, and that’s it … As the
conservatives stick together, then they can go ahead and outvote
everyone else …
The Republican Party started to purge its
moderates … starting in about ‘86. I was part of that purge in ‘88 when I
lost as senator. Now you’re left with the religious right and the rural
votes — and that’s it.
What do you think caused that purge?
A
bunch of dedicated conservatives. I mean, don’t forget you had back in
the ‘80s William F. Buckley and his conservative movement, and they
decided to — rather than be an independent party, they figured that they
would go ahead and worm their way into the main Republican Party. And
they did that very effectively.
If you were running for office again, would it be as a Republican?
Oh,
I don’t think so. I think that if the Republican Party stays as it is
now, I would still run as an independent, as I did when I ran for
governor. The problem would be that if I ran as a Republican, then I’d
be subject to Republican primaries and Republican conventions. Anybody
that runs has to kowtow so far to the right that they become unelectable
come election time.
What do you think is the solution to the voter participation problem you identified?
That’s
a very difficult question, and I’ve thought about it a lot. You could
certainly have mandatory voting … I’d hate to see that kind of mandatory
participation. But I think that we’ve come to the point where we’ve got
to get people out to the polls. Now I think it can be done, but it has
to be done by exciting candidates and intelligent candidates. And that
brings me to another point: Everybody is so down on politicians, and so
it really discourages young people from getting into politics … Rather
than condemn people that are politicians, I think we ought to encourage
them to go into public service.
You mentioned your own “purge” from office. What’s your assessment of Sen. Lieberman’s record in Congress?
I
know I’m not supposed to comment on my fellow senators or congressmen,
but I think Lieberman was a god-awful United States senator. I think
that he was all over the map as to what his beliefs were. And very much,
by the time he got out of politics, I think was totally irrelevant to
the needs of the people of the state of Connecticut. I think everybody
should understand, and I fully acknowledge, that Joe Lieberman beat me —
but with the help of William F. Buckley. So you had a sort of a
maverick fight a Democrat — but one who owed a lot to conservative
Republicans.
Do you have regrets about that race?
Yes.
I have regrets to the extent I don’t think I worked as hard as I did in
all my other races … In the ‘88 race I sort of rested on my oars,
feeling that the people of the state of Connecticut owe me a reelection.
Well, nobody owes anybody anything, as I found out to my regret. And
because I didn’t work, I lost.
Are there any “god-awful” senators serving in the Senate now?
I’m sure there are plenty of them.
What do you make of the calls to change the rules of the Senate, to change the filibuster, for example?
I
did my share of filibusters when I was in the Senate, mainly to stop
many of Ronald Reagan’s proposals, like prayer in school. I am very
protective of that tactic, because I think sometimes [the] minority has
to use it in order to preserve some very important principles.
What do you think about the way that it’s been used under leader McConnell?
I’ve
given you my viewpoint on it. It’s not a question of McConnell or
anyone else. It’s a question of — if it were me, I think you’d still
need two-thirds to close [debate] off. I think it’s down to 60 now. I’m
very much in favor of the filibuster.
The increase in
cloture votes on things like nominations, including nominations that
ultimately are approved by large margins — does that bother you?
Sure, it bothers me. Because it’s using this as a routine tool instead of something that’s very, very important.
The question of an income tax played
a great role in your [gubernatorial] campaign and your time in the
governor’s office. Has there been a change in the way voters and
politicians talk about taxes, wrestle with taxes, in the U.S.?
No.
No, there hasn’t been. Because very frankly, we’re far outspending our
revenues and that’s the reason why the United States is in trouble, and
it’s the reason why so many states are in trouble.
Who should be paying more in taxes now, if anyone?
You
should have a progressive income tax where the wealthy pay more, and
you should certainly have corporate taxes that are commensurate with
what that community demands of government. So I stand where everybody
stood when the income tax was first devised in the United States, which
was it was to be a progressive situation, in order to go ahead and
protect the poorest of our people.
Given your role
in the Watergate investigation: We often hear things compared to
Watergate or presidents compared to Nixon. How good do you think the
media and elected representatives have been at accurately assessing the
seriousness of various scandals and allegations against politicians?
I
don’t think the media does half the job that it used to do going back
to the time of Watergate. Watergate was unique in the sense that you
were confronting a president of the United States in a way that had
never been done before, so you had the best of the media doing the best
of the reporting. Now it’s just become very easy to slap the Watergate
label on anything. And indeed the media I don’t think does half the hard
work that was involved with Watergate. Now probably part of that is the
fact that your print media has gone way down, relying mostly on the
electronic — either on the television tube or on people’s computers or
whatever have you. But I think investigative reporting should once again
go back to the days when you had real hard workers doing the
fact-finding.
Connecticut has some of the greatest income
inequality in the United States. The state Supreme Court decades ago
told the state that education funding was illegally unequal. There’s now
once again a lawsuit to try to force the state to equalize education
funding. Is that something you support?
Absolutely.
You’ve gone from racial inequality to economic inequality — in other
words, the result is the same when it comes to education and many other
things … I think the racial part has been solved. But as long as you
have the huge disparity in economics, you’re going to end up at the same
place that you were 20 years ago. So I’m all for a challenge.
When
improving education in the U.S. is talked about, a great deal of the
conversation is about standards, and teachers’ working conditions, it
seems – much less of it is about funding and inequalities in funding for
schools.
Yeah, I think that’s true … In Connecticut, of
course, the problem is that you have each community responsible for much
of the education budget. Well, clearly there’s a huge difference
between, let’s say, Greenwich, Conn. — my old hometown — and let’s say
Bridgeport, Conn., which is a blue-collar to poor town. My feeling on
that is that you ought to eliminate local funding and have total state
funding, thus equalizing the amount of money that’s put into education.
And when you say “the racial part has been solved,” are you concerned by the levels – in some cases, increasing levels – of racial segregation in the school system?
I
have to disagree with you on that. I think gradually that problem is
being solved; that doesn’t mean to say that it’s just been totally
solved. All you have to do is take a look at the graduates coming out of
our colleges, and post-graduate degrees, and the improvement made at
the high school level; I mean, we’re making progress in that area. But
the problem is that more often than not, poverty is associated with
race, and so in that sense you haven’t solved the racial problem. And
it’s mainly an economic problem.
So what do you think is the way forward for the Republican Party?
I
think it has to become involved with social issues … Where I have my
problem is on all the various social issues, mainly those that address
women and minorities, gay people — I mean, I go right down the list —
there’s a total disconnect on those issues between reality and the
Republican Party. And until they reform in that area, they’re not gonna
win anything. And I think one-party government is horrible. So it’s
essential both at the state and national level that the Republicans pull
back and make themselves relevant to the important social issues of the
day.
When you say a “disconnect” from reality, what do you mean?
When
I talk equality, it’s men and women. When the Republicans talk
equality, they don’t dictate anything to men, it’s all dictated to
women. And the same holds true on other fronts in the social area. I
mean, take a look how long it took for Republicans to come around to the
view that gay people should have every right that everybody else has.
They’re Americans! And that’s the only thing that matters … Take a look
at the minority populations, whether it’s Latino or whether it’s black —
none of them vote for Republicans. Why? Because Republicans don’t
relate to the issues that particularly impact upon those racial
minorities.
Given what you’re saying, how prevalent do you think sexism or racism are within the Republican Party?
Oh,
I think it clearly shows. I mean I don’t know what the percentages are,
but it seems to me when I hear Republicans talking, I hear a lot of
sexism, I hear a lot of racism …
Barry Goldwater was a very good
friend of mine. And Barry Goldwater told me this was back in
nineteen-ninety-whatever-it-was: He said, “Gosh, I’d be considered a
liberal right now by the Republican Party.” That’s the direction the
party has gone, and has been going for a long time. And it will continue
to go that way until moderate people stand up.
No comments:
Post a Comment