Senator Mark Hatfield
(R-Oregon). He worked closely with Dole in the Senate.
Interviewed July 10, 1996
FL:
One of the phrases used to describe Senator Dole is an expert deal maker.
And for most of the American people I think they may not have a sense of what
that means, what a Washington deal is about and what are Dole's singular skills
in pulling together all numbers of these senators....what are the skills he
brings to the table to make a deal happen...
HATFIELD:
When we have a pluralistic society and we have strength in our diversity,
sometimes we let it be a weakness, but basically the diversity, the pluralism,
is our strength. And the idea is, unlike a dictatorship, and unlike a
monolithic society, we have to get a consensus of many points of view before we
can move ahead or resolve an issue. Now that's deal-making. But somehow we
have not applied it to other parts of life in every community, a city council.
In every business, labor relationship, it has to be a consensus of diverse
points of view.
Now you take 100 Senators, and we have X number Democrats, X number
Republicans. But within each party, we have diversity. We have the moderates,
the liberals, the conservatives on both sides of the aisle. So we have not
just a diversity of two parties, we have many diversities within both parties.
In order to get 51 votes, in order to pass a bill, you have to get 51 people
from all parts of this great diverse Senate organization to agree. They say
that former governors have the most difficulty in adjusting to the Senate. I
was a governor for eight years. I could make a decision, move on, take on the
next problem. I came back to a legislative branch where I'd started my career,
but this time in the federal, I had to wait til 50 other people decided they
agreed with me, or I agreed with them in order to move something. All of that
is merely process, but it also means we're getting a consensus upon which we
can move ahead and make a decision.
Senator Dole has great expertise with this. First of all, he is an
information gatherer. In other words, he has to know where different members of
the Senate are coming from. He has to know them on this particular issue. Now
they say that many Senators are very predictable. But there are issues upon
which we're all inconsistent, in terms of our predictability on other issues,
so he has to gather the information, take a census so to speak, of where each
member stands on this issue, starting with the Republican side as a Republican
leader, maybe he has enough Republican votes to pass something. But if he
doesn't have, because of diversity within the Republican party, then he has to
move across the aisle, and find out who on that side of the aisle he can bring
together with those Republicans to pass a bill. Now that's the role of the
majority leader.
His style is different than LBJ. LBJ had a very powerful control, he
appointed the staff to the committees, he appointed the members to the
committees, he would not permit a roll call vote if he didn't want one because
they had to look at him to see if there were enough seconds to see whether they
could raise their hand or not. He had absolute power from the standpoint of
controlling that Senate. Bob Dole doesn't have that kind of power, in fact,
after LBJ, no Senator, majority or minority leader has had the kind of power
that LBJ had put together as a Senate majority leader. So they have to
persuade, they have to cajole they have to say come on I need this vote,
particularly for the next position we take, or whatever we made in the platform
of our party or so forth and so on, or the Contract with America as in this
session of the Congress, even though the Senate didn't have one, we still are a
Republican House, we have to work with the House.
Senator Dole has the additional problem of not just getting something through
the Senate, but of dealing with a Republican House which is the first time in
40 years we've had a Republican House. So consequently, his has been a more
complex job as he has been majority leader in this particular session. So
Senator Dole gathers information, Senator Dole has to know what kind of
obligations that he has out there that he can call upon sometimes referred to
as chips, political chips, and so therefore is a combination of information,
persuasion, cajoling, unlike LBJ, I'm not aware that Senator Dole ever
threatened, I don't think he ever threatened. I know he never threatened me.
And I'm not sure that I have ever heard any one of my colleagues say he'd
threatened them. LBJ was physical as you indicated, and he could use a threat,
he could use the persuasion, but he also could use the club. Senator Dole is
not that type of leader. He's a consensus builder.
FL: It's been said he can have people working in different rooms and is quite
quiet, a style of going from room to room to room, is that a unique style, and
the humor he uses too in that intense situation......
HATFIELD:
Well, let me make a comparison. When I came here, Senator Dirkson was the
Republican minority leader. Senator Dirkson at that time represented the club
within in the club. In other words, Republicans had been a minority for so
long, they worked with LBJ. LBJ and Senator Dirkson had a very close working
relationship. And as a consequence, they did things on a bi-partisan basis
within a very elite group.
When Senator Dirkson wanted to persuade the Republicans he took to the
platform, he came to the floor, and he would put on one of his great orations,
that people heard all over the Capitol, Senator Dirkson is orating, they'd
crowd in the galleries. It was a, it was a show. It was also his way of
saying to each Senator, I'm speaking, it's going to be reported, it's going to
be broadcast, it's going to be televised, it's going to be on all forms of
media, of how I asked you for your vote and you're going to have to then tell
the people of Nebraska or whatever state it might be, why you didn't support
me, because everybody loved Senator Dirkson, I mean if nothing else, for his
drama. And they, you know they would say Oh, he's great they should vote with
him, sort of as applause for his drama, not necessarily for the merits of the
case. So he used that great skill he had.
Senator Dole is not a great orator. He'd be the first to say he's not an
orator. That's not his style. But Senator Dole will put people in rooms and
say now look, you hammer out the difference between you. If I can be helpful,
fine, I'll come in and be helpful. But I'd like to have you stay in this room,
not locked in, but just stay in the room and talk to each other and find out
where your differences are and where you can make concessions to get this
resolved. So it's a behind [the] scene type of thing. It's not secretive in the
sense that we don't want the public to know what's going on. It is a style of
leadership. There are times when a quiet personal conversation can resolve
more misunderstanding than a public debate on the floor. So Senator Dole
has specialized in that sort of non-embarrassing role of putting the total focus
and the total spotlight on an individual or a philosophy within the party. I
think that would be my way of saying that Senator Dole has that additional
skill and I think he chooses his environment to fit his skills.
FL: Senator Dole came to you directly, tell us about that, what it reveals
about his style of operating.
HATFIELD:
Well this had to do with the so-called constitutional amendment to balance the
budget. And it had passed the House of Representatives, it was part of the
Contract with America, it was a vote that was expected to pass, because there
were six Democrats who in their previous year had voted for the balanced budget
amendment. Interestingly all six were running for re-election, and the balanced
budget amendment had a great deal of public support in those states. So the
assumption was, in the early planning for the balanced budget, that those six
Senator had voted for it, just the previous year, even though I had voted no on
the previous year, and therefore they could be counted, as those who would vote
this time, even though they'd been re-elected. And so consequently, when it
became clear, and I said from the very beginning I voted against it last year,
I'm going to vote against it this year. It's not a matter of whether I believe
in a balanced budget, I do, but the point is it would take seven years under
the average of getting an amendment put through to the constitution. We can't
wait seven years. I believe that we knew what to do, we just had to have the
guts to do it now instead of waiting for seven years to get something to cover
our backside, to tell our public and our constituents, well I had to because
it's in the constitution.
Well, that was sort of the brief outline of the situation. Well, then it came
to be known that those six Democrats were going to vote the other way. They'd
gotten re-elected by being for a balanced budget amendment, so now they could
vote against a balanced budget amendment. And it came down to one vote. It
was that close. And it became clear that one vote, if one of those six Democrats
who had voted for it the year before, should repent and decide that they'd
gotten re-elected on that position, therefore they owed it to their
constituents to vote the same way now that they were re-elected, would change
their vote, that would be then sufficient to pass the amendment. But none of
the six would do that. So consequently, the focus then came upon the only
Republican that had said that he would not vote for it. And there were other
Republicans that had voted against it the year before, but they had changed
their mind and were pressured into voting for it. So you had Republicans and
Democrats switching positions from the year before.
Senator Dole, on the very day of the vote, asked if I could give him some
time, I said yes, I'll come to your office, as my leader. No he says, I insist
on coming to your office as the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. It's
just downstairs from the Senate chamber. So about an hour before the vote was
to be taken, Senator Dole came and told me why it was so important to him to
have this vote and to win on this. Not only as a member of the Senate, not
only as the Republican leader, but as a probable, potential Republican nominee
for President. So he gave me a very calm analysis of why this was so vital to
him. I said I can not support it. And he asked if there was anyway I could
think of in which I could vote for it. And I said no, the only feeling, the
only answer I can provide is that I could resign at this moment in time, making
99 instead of 100, and you would have the sufficient vote. Now, well people
say well were you serious about resigning. Yes, I was serious about resigning.
First of all, I had only these few months left in this term, and secondly if it
were that important and his presidential hopes and so forth were riding on this
and other arguments that he made, I thought it was important enough that I
would honestly resign. And he said no, we, I won't accept that, that is not
the way to respond or not the way to answer this issue. And that was our
conversation. No arm twisting, no persuasion that reached a point of
threatening or of enmity that would result by my vote, severing any kind of
friendship or any kind of relationship. It had nothing of that implied
whatsoever.
FL: So what was revealed of the man and his style in that very important vote?
Did you learn anything about him that surprised you or was it sort of typical
of the way he operates?
HATFIELD:
I believe that I would have to say that's the first time that I've had that
experience of one on one with Senator Dole as the leader, other than a comment
in the well, when we go down to the well when we're voting. And he would say,
"We sure need your vote on this," sort of a casual, we'd like to have your vote
on this issue. This was over a period of 20 minutes, where it was just one on
one, with all of the various arguments and positions of why he felt this was so
important. And that's the first time I've ever had that kind of experience,
the only time with Senator Dole. And it was a unique experience for me, and I
hated to disappoint him. But on the other hand, I would resign before I would
have abandoned my conviction. And I think he respected that.
FL: The struggle to reduce the deficit in 1985....a quite dramatic struggle in
which Senators were asked to vote in a difficult way to give up certain things,
everyone's entitlements were gone into, it was pretty much across the board,
Just tell a little bit of that story. Do you have any memories of that
particular struggle and its drama?
HATFIELD:
Well, I think that was a very high moment of drama, because that was the first
time in my legislative career in which a serious proposal was made to get
control of the runaway deficit. And to address the fastest growing component
of that deficit, namely the entitlements. Entitlements have been the
sacrosanct. The Democrats have demagogued frequently on the entitlements, and
they did on this occasion. Republicans have demagogued on other issues. [I]t's
not a matter of a partisan statement I'm making. But the idea that somehow by
freezing the entitlements for that one year, not reducing them, not abolishing
them, not cutting them, but just freezing the entitlements for that one year
until we could get a handle or a strategy on how to begin to bring them under
some kind of control in their rapid growth in their escalation of taking higher
and higher percentages of the total budget. In fact by the year 2030 or 20, or
somewhere along that line at the current rate of growth they'll the whole
budget. There won't be money else in the budget all lines being in the same
positions they are in now. [?]
So Senator Dole made this a keystone, of Republican fiscal responsibility. As
I recall, he had 50 Republicans, and Senator [Domenici] as Chairman of the
Budget Committee and myself as chairman of the appropriations committee, were
working hand in glove with Senator Dole to get these votes to freeze those
entitlements. We got one Democrat I believe. Senator Zarinski, as I recall,
of Nebraska. And that gave us an opportunity to let some of the key
Republicans running for re-election in those areas of high density of retirees
such as Florida, Arizona, and so forth, to not vote for it because it did
include Social Security and that's the hottest button of all. The minute that
passed, there were speeches being made on the Democratic side, the Republicans
are taking your Social Security away from you. And that became a theme song
throughout that election and we lost those key states, in part because it was
played against those Republican candidates who had voted, or against the
Republicans generally who had voted for that freeze.
Interestingly, it wasn't just the Democrats on that, but President Reagan
entered the picture and opposed the proposal of freezing the entitlements. And
he had said at the year at which the inflation had not risen high enough to
have a CODA, Cost of living index increase for social security, "Oh give it to
em anyway because they've earned it." Now that kind of rug pulling by
President Reagan along with the Democrats demagoguing the issue the Republicans
are taking your social security away from you, created a major part of our
defeat in losing the Senate in the election in 1986.
FL: Do you have any memories of that final dramatic night?
HATFIELD:
As I recall, we had to extend the time of the vote. As you know the votes are
supposed to end in 15 minutes. I don't remember how long we extended it. But
there was a lot of perspiration. There was a lot of agonizing by members who
knew the right vote was to vote for it, and yet, who were facing the political
challenge of re-election. And everything conceivable was said in effect, look
better to vote right and go down if we can save our country, it's a sacrifice,
but nevertheless, this is a time when duty calls. And we used all these
arguments.
And Senator Dole was very non-demonstrative. Senator Dole is not an overly
demonstrative person to begin with. And anybody watching from the galleries
knew there was a lot of activity down there, but they didn't see fists being
shaken in front of peoples faces, they didn't see scoochied up faces and all
that. It was a very dignified, a very professional kind of logic that Senator
Dole was enunciating for the rest of us. It was hectic, but I don't think you
would have seen the full emotional impact by viewing it from the gallery.
And that's another thing about Senator Dole. Senator Dole is not basically
an emotional person, in terms of showing his emotion. He has emotion. I
remember the night he wept tears in introducing President Bush after the
election when the Senate Republicans had this dinner party for the Bushes. And
he was speaking about their relationship, their working relationship. And he
choked up on that occasion. But that's one of the few times I think that any
of us have seen that degree of emotion. So you wouldn't have caught it from
just observation, but there was strong emotion down there in that well.
FL: Do you remember Pete Wilson's appearance........
HATFIELD:
And then they brought Pete Wilson in, who looked like he was not sure whether
he was headed back to the hospital or back to the mortician. He was a very ill
man at the time. But his duty called, and we were trying to say, even poor
Pete, poor Pete is coming here sacrificing his life to vote right. So what can
you do, able bodied, standing here in the middle of this well, what can you do
other than likewise.
FL: We were talking about Bob Dole's complexity. What does it mean to you, the
complexity, the contradictions......
HATFIELD:
Well, I think first of all, it's almost an incongruity to say that Bob Dole or
any politician is a very private person. When you're immersed in a public
profession like politics, how can you retain any sense of privacy. And yet he
is a very private person. I consider myself a very private person. I don't
know, maybe that's why we are attracted to the political, to offset our being
basically introvertish or private person. I think the culture of politics
lends itself to that too. Answer the question, but don't give any further
target, be brief, not because it's television, but be brief because the more
you talk, the more you expose yourself. In other words,
there's a reluctance to share beyond just a yes or no. Mike Mansfield was the
epitome of that. He'd go on one of those talk shows on Sunday and they'd have
to get two to three times the number of questions, because he'd say yep, nope
and that was the end of his comment. Well, that's part of the culture of
politics, it lends that sort of support to being a private person.
Senator Dole has had ambitions for President for a long time, and I think when
someone has in the back of their mind, an objective, a goal, whether it's short
term or long term, a person is a little less outgoing, a person who wants to
maintain a focus on the moment and not to divulge too much about the long term
objectives or ambitions. And I think Senator Dole has had that desire early
on, he was Vice-Presidential nominee as you recall with Gerald Ford back in
1976. I think Bob Dole is one of those people who came into politics saying
the White House is my objective. I'm speculating. I'm going to the House of
Representatives first, after my state legislature days, then United States
Senate, he's been a candidate for Vice-President, obviously the presidency has
been part of that evolution. So I think that's part of the complexity of a
person in politics is that their long term and their short term. I think Bob
Dole has also been wounded. I think his war injury, I think that can't help
but affect a person's life. You've been wounded and you have been healed in
many ways, physically, but that wound and that experience carries part of your
personality beyond. I think many of views I know were out of my experience in
bloody warfare. And being in Hiroshima a month after the bomb had dropped. So
I can say, empathize in that sense that once you have seen that kind of life
and you have suffered from it, it adds to the complexity of your personality.
And we of all people usually are the least wanting to talk about it or to share
it or to repeat or to relive it. We sort of want to flush it out, forget about
it. And yet many of your activities draw it out or focus on it in the way in
which you have to respond. So I think that's part of his complexity. And by
the way, I think a complex person is not necessarily a negative. And there's
nothing more to go. But I do think he's a thoughtful person, I think he does a
lot of intellectualism, that is to say I think he thinks through not only the
issue, but the strategy. And as a person who then thinks and takes internally
through his mind, and feeling and emotion, they're seen as more complex people
too.
web site copyright WGBH educational foundation
