NEWSWEEK: You must be celebrating.
Marc Racicot: Not yet. We’re very grateful for the confidence that’s been invested in so many of our candidates across the country, and looking forward to getting to work on what we think are issues of great importance to the American people.
Are the Republican gains an indication that the nation has swung to the right?
I don’t believe that this signals any kind of movement like that. There were so many races that were so close. What it reflects is more and more independent people in the United States of America that wait and review very carefully what is going on throughout the electoral process and then draw a conclusion based upon the best information they have available to them.
I believe that what this race reveals is one, that we have a very, very competent and respected leader in the president of the United States who obviously was our best advocate; secondly, we had wonderful candidates who worked very hard; [thirdly,] that we had so many good and decent people across the country who worked to support them, and, finally, I believe the work that’s been done by the president and by Republicans in Congress to move an agenda forward. The people recognized that there was a competence and desire to do the kind of things that would benefit the country.
What were people voting for: Bush, the Republican Party or the issues?
I certainly think [the president’s] credibility and his leadership added great force to the success of our candidates. He told the American people: this is what we’re going to do if you give us the chance. We’re going to address energy, we’re going to address terrorism, we’re going to address one topic after another. And they know they can believe him, and they know they can trust him to live by his word. They know that he can work in a bipartisan fashion, and, as a result of that, they placed their confidence where they did.
But even though you’ve regained control of the Senate, you don’t have the 60 seats needed to prevent filibustering and delays. Does this mean legislative gridlock for the next two years?
For those who are sometimes concerned about equilibrium, clearly our system provides for the maintenance of equilibrium almost without exception. There’s always a legislative and executive branch tension that exists. The president’s proposals seem to get altered or mutated within the Republican House, reflecting their stamp. That is the way the system is designed. He has always intended to work in a bipartisan fashion and has a very strong record of that. The fact is that tax reform would not have passed, nor education reform nor trade promotion authority without the aid and assistance of Democrats being there and being relied upon. That’ll be the same approach. He’s just looking for willing partners and the ability to move the agenda for consideration and decision.
Outside the United States this will be perceived as an overwhelming endorsement for President Bush and what many see as American unilateralism. What effect will this have on international relations?
It certainly is an endorsement of the president, but he’s not displaying any unilateralism. He’s working diligently with the international community, he’s providing leadership for all freedom-loving people on the planet and trying to move forward with understandable initiatives that protect virtually all inhabitants of the earth. He’s done that with deliberation and a sense of firm conviction, but unquestionably is working with others as well.
So you don’t expect to see any deterioration in relations between Washington and foreign governments?
It would be my great hope that there would not be that misperception, that the vestment of confidence in [the president] signals anything of the sort. That’s not how he has proceeded with his representation and his performance as commander in chief.
In spite of the overwhelming importance of the issues in this campaign, such as concerns about terror attacks, corporate scandals and the faltering economy, it was often criticized as lackluster and lacking in passion. Why?
I don’t know that it was lacking in passion. For those of us who are at the center of the storm, we may have a different understanding, and I haven’t seen the voter-turnout numbers yet. [Analysts] were anticipating a low turnout and that’s a reflection of a number of things. No. 1, people’s lives are very complex and frenzied. As a result of that, finding time to make absolutely certain that you exercise the franchise is sometimes not [done]. No. 2, we didn’t have a lot of hotly contested primaries, which didn’t generate a huge amount of interest. No. 3, there is a challenge to us to make sure we get more our younger citizens engaged in the political life of the country. That’s a responsibility for all of us. I have been concerned as well about the lack of a fever pitch and I’m looking forward to seeing what the turnout figures are.
Could it be that voters simply feel there isn’t enough of a difference between the two main parties?
I don’t believe that’s the case, although this president has established that there’s a great deal of opportunity to move an agenda forward. I think there’s a growing number of independent voters in the United States of America.
Did the Democrats drop the ball by running a bad campaign?
I don’t perceive it in those terms. What I see as contributing to our [success] were those four things I mentioned: the leadership of the president, the quality of our candidates, the support they had in the field and finally, I think that we were very constructive in addressing the issues of the day-those that impact people’s lives. We didn’t hear any alternatives from the opposition, an economic plan that would address circumstances in this country.
We didn’t hear an alternative to the energy proposal that has been sitting before Congress for so long, or why the pension reform bill that was proposed by the president and approved by the House didn’t move forward, or why the prescription drug benefit for Medicare wasn’t approved–or at least why there wasn’t an intense effort to try and bring about a proposal that would be acceptable to both sides of the aisle. I can tell you plainly that that was within reach. It could have been done.
The approach they took, it appeared to me, was to be close to the president, which I think was genuine, on matters of defense, but to simply delay consideration on other issues until another day when they believed they would have larger numbers and a capacity to control the agenda.
Which result surprised you most?
The margin of victory in some of the races, notably the governors’ races in New York and Florida. [I understand] Governor Bush in Florida received some 56 percent of the Hispanic vote, which I find a matter of great inspiration to us to continue our efforts to reach every community in America. [These] were the most satisfying parts of the evening in terms of things I didn’t expect.
