Countdown

Home > Interviews > Jeanne Shaheen

Jeanne Shaheen

Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, was a three-term governor of New Hampshire and the first woman to hold that office. An unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2002, she is currently the director of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. She was the national chair of John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign and has run numerous statewide campaigns in New Hampshire.

Sara Fritz interviewed Shaheen on April 13, 2007.

You have a remarkable story of starting as a volunteer and kind of working your way into serious politics. Can you just briefly go over your history in presidential campaigns? What you have done over the years? The first time I met you, you were working for Gary Hart.

Yes. I actually got involved in politics in 1975 with Jimmy Carter’s campaign for president. My husband [Bill Shaheen] and I had gone to school in Mississippi in 1970, and the first year we were down there I taught school. It was the first year of integration in Mississippi. And Jimmy Carter had just gotten elected governor of Georgia and given his famous speech about the need to end segregation in the South. And it was so different from what we were hearing from the political establishment in Mississippi at the time that it made a real impression. And so when he started running for president, we were back in New Hampshire, and my husband and I went to the first organizational meeting that the Carter campaign had in New Hampshire in 1975.

Oh, wow. And that was your first presidential campaign?

It was.

And you have been involved in pretty much every one since then, have you not, in one way or another?

Almost every one. I sat out in ’88 because I was working for somebody who was running for governor at the time, and I didn’t want to get involved in that race because I was working on the gubernatorial race.

So just review the candidates you have helped in New Hampshire.

Well, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart. I supported Bob Kerrey, actually, in ’92, [but] didn’t do too much on that campaign. And of course, Bill Clinton in ’96, Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004.

Do you have a candidate yet this year?

I don’t. And I probably won’t have one publicly because of my job here at the Institute [of Politics]. I have to work with both parties and all of the campaigns.

Is it hard to stay out of it, with all of this experience?

Well, it’s a different role. We are doing a variety of things around the election here at the Institute of Politics. And so it gives me a different view of what’s going on.

Having been involved in so many of these campaigns in New Hampshire, are there certain things that you have learned that if somebody came to you and said, “What do you know as a result of this?” you would say, “I know this.”

One of the things that I always say about New Hampshire and the New Hampshire primary, the conventional wisdom from me, is that there is no conventional wisdom; you have to look at every campaign differently. Each one is new and distinct. And you can’t run this campaign based on the last campaign.

And now we are into a year where the primary process is really changing. What do you think is going to be the impact of all of these changes, all of this frontloading?

Well, there is the potential that we could have a nominee after February 5 and have a very long general-election campaign. My hope is that’s not the case, because I think not only does the electorate benefit by having an opportunity to see candidates over a period of time, but [also] I think the candidates benefit. The more somebody has to campaign, the better you get at it. And the more whoever turns out to be the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee have to go around the country and talk about why they are running for president and what needs to happen in the country, I think the better it is not just for the country but for them and for whoever potentially wins the presidency.

We had the top strategists for a number of the campaigns here in the last month. And one of the things that came out as part of that discussion is that the primaries and caucus season, our nominating process, is not supposed to be easy. It is difficult because the job of president is difficult. And I know, from having run myself, that the more experience you get in campaigning, and talking about your ideas, and responding to questions from people, and hearing constituents’ thoughts about what is going on, the better you are. And I think it would be unfortunate if we lose that aspect of our nominating process by designating a candidate at the third week of the cycle.

A lot has been made, over the years, of the retail politics that occur in New Hampshire. And I would assume that this process is going to deprive New Hampshire and Iowa of a lot of that time. Is there an obvious impact from that change, in your mind?

Well, it’s interesting, because that’s one of the questions we ask all of the top strategists who are here, on both the Republican and the Democratic side. And virtually every one said, “The effect of the changes that have been made to frontload the process by individual states makes Iowa and New Hampshire even more important, not less important.”

Can you explain?

Sure. I mean, the impact of those early victories, and the momentum you get from them, are more important, going into a whole bunch of contests.

But will it mean that they can’t spend as much time in Iowa and New Hampshire because they have this huge commitment coming up?

I think so far we have seen the candidates spend a fair amount of time in both Iowa and New Hampshire. So I don’t think that’s changed.

What were the other things that really jumped out at you as a result of these seminars that you have been doing, that really sort of captured the essence of what’s happening in this presidential cycle?

Well, that it’s going to be a long cycle. And just because the polls show ‘X’ or ‘Y’ today doesn’t mean that’s what’s going to happen 10 months from now. And so having one day’s poll played as if it’s the end of the race, I think, ignores what history has been.

What’s the chance that we get a nominee in February, and these nominees look pretty awful by the time November comes around?

Well, that’s my point in saying that we all benefit. Candidates, the electorate, the vision for the country all benefit from having a longer process where voters can scrutinize candidates and see how they do over time, see how they do in different parts of the country, see how they do with different constituencies.

Now, obviously because of the frontloading, money is extraordinarily important. We already have people like Mike Huckabee and Tom Vilsack saying it’s just simply unfair. Do you agree?

Certainly the way the process is unfolding this cycle, where we know that a number of the top candidates have already said they are not going to abide by our campaign-finance law. I mean, the campaign-finance system that’s currently in place no longer works for the presidential election. And so I think and hope that Congress will take a look at that and do something about it. The effect of McCain-Feingold was not to reduce the amount of money in the process, it was to actually increase it. And whether it’s fair or not, it seems to me, is not a relevant question at this point because the system is the way it is until somebody does something about it. I think it’s unfortunate that there is so much money spent on elections. And I would hope that we would see Congress address it. But it doesn’t appear that they are going to do that, certainly not before the 2008 election.

But you are a believer in public financing?

Well, I believe that, in order to make the system fairer, we have to make some changes in it. Now whether public financing is the best way to do that or not, I think there is a question. When people got asked that, again, at our strategy sessions, one of the things that got thrown out is giving people free airtime. Most of campaign budgets go for media now, although that may change with the expanded use of the Internet. So one way to address the tremendous amount of money in campaigns would be to provide media time for all of the candidates who pass a certain threshold. And that, probably, would be as effective as public financing in some ways.

The other question is whether we limit spending. In New Hampshire, we had a campaign-finance law when I ran for governor that limited the amount of money a candidate could spend. Now ultimately that got struck down by the court, but in all three cycles when I ran for governor, I abided by the state’s campaign-finance law, which limited the spending in that race. Now my opponents abided by it, I think, in the first two races; in the third race, my opponent didn’t. But that’s another way to deal with spending. 

To get around the constitutional problem.

Right. But it seems to me that’s the problem we’ve got with all of this.

So those are the possibilities you would consider, either free airtime or limiting spending? Anything else?

Or public financing. I mean, that’s the other.

Well, you remember the old days when people in New Hampshire would drive rental cars in from Boston and other places just to get around those limits.

Right.

That must have been pretty frustrating as well. Not so?

Well, the issue was, it was the same for everybody. You assume that everybody else had the same limit, and so part of the challenge was figuring out who could be most effective in what we did with that money.

Is there something intrinsically wrong with big money in a political campaign? I mean, with the more money you get, is there something that changes about that campaign?

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I don’t abide by the belief that a lot of money means there is going to be corruption, or that it means that candidates aren’t going to pay attention to average voters. But what it means is that candidates have to spend so much time raising that money that there is not as much time to do the other things that are important: developing your issues, meeting with experts about how to address particular challenges facing the country, meeting with voters.

Yeah, it really does take away from that. To change the subject a little bit, you were apparently the target of one of the most interesting examples of dirty tricks in recent years, with the phone-jamming. And I am wondering whether you have any perspective on that side of politics, whether that is simply more of the same, or is there an increase in that kind of activity?

I think campaigns have certainly become more negative, and that some of the things that seem to be accepted in campaigns today would have been viewed with much more distaste and probably would have been prosecuted. I think about some of the dirty tricks during the Watergate era. And I think some of those kinds of things seem to be accepted now as part of the process, and that’s unfortunate. And until we get candidates and campaigns who are willing to speak out very loudly to say that those tactics are wrong, and to step away from them, and to refuse to have them be part of their campaigns, then we are going to see that continue. Because we know that it has been successful.

I assume you think you would have won if that hadn’t occurred or . . .

No, I don’t know. And I haven’t commented on that one way or the other. But I think that anytime you try to subvert the electoral process — whether it’s by not counting somebody’s ballots, as we saw happen in Florida in 2000, where there was a real question about what happened, or whether it’s dirty tricks to keep people from getting to the polls — whatever it is, that undermines our democracy. And all of us who care about this country should be outraged when that kind of activity occurs.

Have you seen other examples, in recent years, of dirty tricks that compare to the Watergate era?

Well, I think push-polling, the same kind of thing. And that’s done pretty regularly. I think some of the independent expenditures that take place, where there are lies said about particular candidates. We saw this in the 2006 election cycle where there were ads put on the air that were really lying or playing on particular images of candidates or campaigns in a way that were unfair and disappointing in a democracy.

I am getting ready to go to Nigeria next week to observe their elections.

That will be interesting.

I have done several of these observation missions. And some of the things that have occurred in recent elections in the United States we would put on our list in other countries and say, “Those elections weren’t free and fair.” And we need to do more about what’s going on in our electoral process in this country to disenfranchise people.

One of the facts of McCain-Feingold was to really encourage the development of the 527s, which have been largely responsible for a lot of these [problems]. How do you view that development?

Well, I think it’s like the primary/caucus system, one of the things that happen often are unintended consequences. They are not foreseen by the people, the drafters of particular legislation or particular efforts. And I think that’s one of the challenges that we have. And until we have a comprehensive overhaul of our campaign-finance system, and our electoral laws as the HAVA Act [the Help America Vote Act] tried to do and as several commissions have tried to do, then we are going to continue to see these kinds of problems occurring.

We saw just the other day, Sam Fox, who was one of the big funders of the Swift Boat [ads against John Kerry], being given an ambassadorship. Isn’t that encouragement to the people who would fund these sorts of things?

Well, I would say it is.

Do you think that’s an isolated case?

I don’t know.

OK. Maybe an unfair question.

Yeah. I haven’t really looked at this giving ambassadorships and giving rewards. It’s understandable that people in office are going to help those people who help them. That’s part of our system. What I think we need to do is to encourage candidates to disavow the kind of campaigning and negative tactics that were represented by the Swift Boat ads.

Do you sense that there is any penalty for that in terms of the electorate, the people you know? I mean, is there a downside to doing that? You know that it works a lot.

Well, there is a downside sometimes. I think virtually everybody who was under indictment or who had a scandal in the ’06 election got defeated. So I think it depends. When the voters get fed up, they get fed up and they throw you out of office. That, for me, was one of the encouraging things about the ’06 election, that we saw a number of those people who had been part of scandal and corruption either be forced to step down or lose their election.

A lot of the people you have had up there at Harvard have been consultants. And there has been a lot of criticism of consultants, that they tend to, among other things, do negative campaigning. But also not to act on their own instincts, but to do what works. Do you have a view on that subject?

I think campaigns are very much a reflection of the individual. When you have an individual who says, “I am going to run the campaign this way,” and the consultant wants to run it a different way, then the candidate can fire the consultant. So I think for candidates to say, “The consultant made me do it,” or “I didn’t know what was happening,” I don’t think that’s an acceptable excuse.

I have never had a consultant make me say or do anything I didn’t want to do. Let’s put it that way.

But of course, a lot of people do, just like they say, “the advice from consultants.”

Well, then I think you have to blame the candidate for that.

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the electoral process, as you have seen it develop in your 30 years of being involved?

I am optimistic. And I am optimistic again, after the ’06 election. Because I think the voters said, “We are tired of what’s been going on, and we are going to make a change.” And I think ultimately, in a democracy it’s the voters assuming that they have a chance to get to the polls and to vote. It’s the voters who decide. And they don’t always decide the way I want them to.

But they do have the ability to change their minds occasionally, don’t they?

They do. I am a supporter of the saying, “You can fool the voters some of the time, but you can’t fool them all of the time.” I remember when I was in college, during the Vietnam War, being very frustrated and saying to my political-science professor: “We have all of these people marching in the streets against the Vietnam War. And yet government hasn’t changed its policies, so it doesn’t work.” And he said: “No, you are wrong — it does work. When enough people get upset enough about what’s going on in this country, with the war in Vietnam or any other issue, then the country is going to change its policy.” And I am a believer that that’s the case. Now sometimes it takes longer than other times, but I do think democracy works.

That the government is responsive eventually.

Right.

A lot has been said about Internet fundraising, and people are saying, “This is a great democratization of the process.” How do you feel about that?

I think it’s great. I think the more people who have access to the process and to candidates the better. And I always feel like if you can get people to give, even if it’s five or 10 dollars, then they have a vested interest in what happens. I loved it when I got somebody who came up and only gave me $10 for my campaign. Because I knew that person was going to make sure they went out and voted, because they had a stake in what was happening. And I think the more people have access to the candidates, whether it’s online or any other way, the better for the country because the more people will have a stake in what’s going on. I think one of the most promising signs, in probably the last 20 years, is the reengagement of young people in democracy. That’s something we track at the Institute of Politics.

I noticed that your program up there has been spending some time on that. Is it actually happening, or is it a wish?

It’s happening. I mean, what we saw in 2004 was the biggest turnout by 18- to 22-year-olds than in any time since 18-year-olds got the right to vote in 1972. We had a million more people under 30 vote in that election than over 65. We saw it again in 2006: We have been analyzing the precinct and the vote count in Montana and Virginia, and it was young people in both of those states who elected [Senators Jim] Webb and [Jon] Tester. Without those young voters they would not have been elected in Montana and Virginia. And we saw an increase, again, in turnout — I think the highest turnout in an off-year election, among 18- to 24-year-olds, since 1982. So we are definitely seeing an upswing in young people’s interest in the electoral process, and in participating and voting.

They do demand more responsiveness, don’t they?

They do. And so I am very optimistic about that. I think it’s a really hopeful sign.

That’s for sure. And you see a lot of candidates actually coming up with some new ideas to try to appeal to these folks.

Absolutely. Look at the candidates’ websites and see how many of them have youth outreach coordinators. I mean, that was unheard of 10 years ago.

I know I said that was the last question, but I have to ask you if you are going to run for the Senate.

Oh, I haven’t decided.

I knew you were going to say that. But I needed to ask you that. It’s still an open question, right?

It is.