There Has to be a Place for Pro-Life, Pro-Family In GOP

By Curt Lovelace
May 2001

Robert Hedlund represents the Plymouth and Norfolk District in the state Senate. He was first elected in 1990, then was defeated in 1992, only to return in 1994. He grew up in Hingham and currently resides in Weymouth.

MassNews: Numerically at least, the decline of the Republican Party in Massachusetts is pretty well documented. How do you view the general health of the party?

Hedlund: On life support, close to flat-lining.

MassNews: Who’s dragging the party down?

Hedlund: I think we’re dragging ourselves down. I guess you can turn to the top of the ticket and start there, but I think everyone shares some responsibility. Everyone shares some blame. I don’t want to point the finger solely at the Governor. I think that even we in the legislature, and I’m just as guilty of it, but I think sometimes we in the legislature missed opportunities to distinguish ourselves from the Democrats and show a clear alternative to the majority party.

MassNews: How much responsibility should the Governor take?

Hedlund: There is some blame to be laid at the feet of the Governor. Both Weld and Cellucci made a great effort to take over the State Committee and given the fact that they took over the State Committee apparatus, I think they should both be held accountable for the State Committee’s performance. I don’t think the performance has been as good as it could have been.

MassNews: Is it fair to charge the State Committee with lack of support for Republican candidates?

Hedlund: I think the State Committee has done as well as they can do in supporting candidates. However, I do believe the State Committee has put itself in a position where they’re limited in what they can do. That is because there’s been a focus on the top of the ticket. If you look at the most recent election cycle I think there was an attempt to devote a lot of the apparatus toward the presidential race. We had staff working not only to go to New Hampshire but also working to recruit volunteers to go to New Hampshire on behalf of President Bush. Obviously, with a close race I’m glad we were able to eke out that victory.

MassNews: Was the state party damaged as a result of the presidential effort?

Hedlund: Yes, the effort toward the presidential campaign came at the expense of legislative races. I do believe that the key to our party’s long-term success will be building from the ground up.

MassNews: Have we lost our farm team?

Hedlund: Basically we have no farm team any more. Look at Plymouth County as a microcosm. We had a strong club. We had a strong county presence. We actually had a majority of Republicans from Plymouth county holding legislative seats and we’re all but decimated. There really isn’t a farm team any more to draw from in terms of local officials. That’s partly as a result of the focus at the top of the ticket in tight races.

MassNews: So, in your estimation, how do you build a farm team?

Hedlund: By focusing on recruitment and candidate support at the local level and legislative level and we have not done that.

MassNews: You’re talking about Boards of Selectmen and Council races?

Hedlund: Yes. We used to feel strong. Using Plymouth County as an example again, we controlled the majority of the county commission seats. We had a great grass roots organization with the Plymouth County Republican Club. There was backup from the State Party. We were able to field good candidates for those seats and it feeds on itself. The County Commissioner gets exposure and he wants to run for another office. By going in the reverse and relying on the Governor to fill a vacant Sheriff’s position or a DA’s position, we haven’t had much success in holding that position because it came from the top down rather than the bottom up, so to speak.

MassNews: Is it different than when you were first elected?

Hedlund: I contrast what we had in 1990, the year I first got elected, and looking at what the State Committee did then versus the type of operation that’s run now. Under Ray Shamie we had an excellent, excellent level of support provided for local candidates. More importantly than that, there was a theme that we were able to use. Now I know we had certain things happening in 1990 that we haven’t had since, a lot of unrest and a bad economy. People were looking for anti-incumbents and an alternative to the Democrat monopoly.

MassNews: Was it different under Ray Shamie?

Hedlund: I think the type of strategies we employed in the late 1980’s and 1990 were successful in building a common theme for Republicans to run on. I just don’t think I’ve seen that in recent years from the State Committee with the exception of the tax-cut last year. I don’t think the Governor provided a lot of opportunity for us to run on a united front.

MassNews: Following up on that, what does it mean to be a Republican in Massachusetts?

Hedlund: What it means right now and what it should mean are two different things. Right now I think it’s akin to scrounging for food on Survivor Island and basically just trying to survive. It’s bad enough that we have every handicap working against us to begin with, the registration figures in the state and the extremely biased liberal media from the major newspapers on down to many weeklies. I have some newspapers in my district that are owned by people who are active Democrats. Every two years they work against me and they own the newspapers in some of my towns. It’s bad enough that we have those impediments. It’s not a level playing field to begin with. So right now it’s really a struggle for survival.

MassNews: What should it mean?

Hedlund: It should mean the kind of things it meant in 1990. We are a viable alternative to the majority party. We stand for something, and that something should be responsible government, respect for the taxpayers’ dollars. I think we’ve lost a little of that, a) because of our own shortcomings, and b) I think the Democrats have done a better job of defining themselves in recent years.

MassNews: You mention the liberal press. How much influence has the mainstream press had in the decline of the party?

Hedlund: I think that’s certainly a significant contributing factor. When you have the elements in the major liberal media Ð I don’t want to make too much of a generalization Ð outlets puff up certain Democrats who certainly don’t warrant puffing up, it certainly helps them. It marginalizes Republicans, too.

MassNews: What’s your own relationship with the party leadership?

Hedlund: I’m someone who kind of came up through the grass roots. I never held any other office. I cut my political teeth working for other candidates. I had the experience in the 1980’s of serving on the executive board of the Republican State Committee. So I’m familiar with the inner workings of it. I think it’s fine. I think our relationship, any Republican legislator’s relationship should be good with the Republican State Committee because there aren’t that many of us to have to worry about.

MassNews: Was there ever a time when you were blacklisted, so to speak?

Hedlund: There was a time in 1998 when I was blacklisted by certain people within the administration. I wouldn’t say it was staff at the State Committee and I wouldn’t say it was State Committee leadership because those are people I’ve known and have had relationships with through the years. But certainly you could say that I had a little bit of a falling out in 1998 with the Governor and some of his inner circle.

MassNews: What did it mean that you were blacklisted?

Hedlund: Well, quite frankly I think there were some things done to hurt me.

MassNews: By Republicans?

Hedlund: Yes, for instance in the summer of ‘98. I represent a district that has a significant MDC and DEM presence. Both of those agencies put significant numbers of seasonal hires on and someone within the administration attempted to prevent me from getting any young people placed in seasonal positions that year. This obviously hurts me politically. So things like that happened.

MassNews: Do you have another example?

Hedlund: Also, Jim Kerasiotes. I was told by a senior staffer at the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction, the EOTC, that Jim Kerasiotes has me blacklisted and that any requests I send over to that secretariat would not be acted on. I went to the Governor and asked for his assistance in straightening out that situation and it never happened. A contributing factor for that situation was that I did not vote for the Big Dig financing scheme at that time, late 1997, which I feel vindicated about.

MassNews: One of your colleagues in the House recently told me that one of the reasons Republicans don’t prosper is that they’re too busy “eating their own.”

Hedlund: Absolutely. There’s an example of it. A cabinet official was going out of his way to hurt me politically, to hurt me in my district. And the Governor, after a personal plea from me, didn’t take action. That’s somewhat frustrating and that may be an example of eating their own.

MassNews: How liberal is Massachusetts?

Hedlund: That’s an interesting question because I think we still have a fair number of urban ethnic Democrats, many Catholics who hold traditional values on many social issues. At times when given a credible Republican candidate, they’ll cross party lines. I’m an example of that. In my district I’ve got significant support. If you look at the registration figures for instance in a town like Weymouth, it is overwhelmingly Democrat. But it’s a blue collar ethnic and many Catholics have crossed party lines to support me.

MassNews: Can you give us an example of crossover from Democrats?

Hedlund: They’ve gone for Bill Weld at times. They’ve gone for Joe Malone. They’ve gone in the past for Ronald Reagan. So when given a decent alternative, they’ll support that alternative over a liberal Democrat.

MassNews: How about fiscal issues?

Hedlund: You also have in suburban areas a lot of fiscal conservatives who will support Republicans. They may not be as conservative on social issues, but on economic issues they’ll gravitate to a Republican when given a credible candidate. But we do have built-in institutions here which tend to influence voting trends like the media. I think generally we’re progressive or liberal in a lot of areas. We do have those pockets, those anomalies that I just outlined.

One thing I have a hard time defining as liberal or conservative is the issue of civil liberties. I do think we have a good tradition, a good progressive or liberal tradition in the traditional sense of the word, of civil liberties in this state, even liberal. And I’m going to get in trouble with your readers on this. In some instances on some issues there’s been some very good strict interpretations on civil liberty issues by our courts in Massachusetts. There’s a pretty good tradition on that.

MassNews: How liberal is the Massachusetts Republican Party?

Hedlund: Right now I’m not sure. It depends on what you mean by party. Are we talking about the makeup of the legislature or are we talking about the direction of the State Committee?

MassNews: Let’s talk State Committee.

Hedlund: I really don’t know what the ideology is of the State Committee. I don’t think there is an ideology. I think it’s been structured to serve the Governor in recent years.

MassNews: Should there be a party ideology?

Hedlund: I think one of the successes that we had in 1990 was the significant positions on issues that were put forward by the State Committee: position papers, which were coordinated efforts to define the party on certain issues to distinguish themselves from Dukakis and the Democrat legislature.

MassNews: Is there a place within the Massachusetts Republican Party at any level for pro-life, pro-family conservatives or do they have to leave?

Hedlund: There has to be a place for them or we’re not going to be successful. We need a coalition of conservative and moderate Republicans to be successful.

MassNews: What do you mean by successful?

Hedlund: In terms of electoral success and our numbers in the legislature.

MassNews: Is there a leader on the horizon for a Republican renaissance?

Hedlund: I don’t think the farm team is what it was ten years ago. It’s been decimated. We have a few bright lights. I can’t think of any standouts like we had in the legislature who distinguished themselves the way we did ten years ago. I’ve got to say we have some solid Republican legislators who care and who care about the future of the party. I don’t want to get into names, but I will say that I think Representative Marini has done a fairly good job on some issues in the House trying to distinguish the party.

MassNews: How about the Senate?

Hedlund: I don’t believe there’s anyone in the Republican caucus of the Massachusetts Senate that can do the job Brian Lees does right now. I know that the editorial staff at your newspaper may not agree with Senator Lees on a lot of issues, but in terms of the workload and what he does on the floor of the Senate, I don’t think there’s anyone in our caucus that can fill his shoes at the moment.

MassNews: What do you consider to be the make-or-break issues for the party in this legislative term?

Hedlund: I think there’s going to be a record low amount of debate given the dynamic between the Speaker and the Senate President and given the ambitions of many legislative leaders. I think the usual economic issues should be a centerpiece of our efforts. I think a major issue that is out there for the Republican Party this year is the legislative process and what’s happening up here. There’s a great level of inactivity because of the factors I mentioned. There are huge amounts of power centralized in the hands of the Senate President and the Speaker. I can tell you from my experience that my electoral success in those types of issues has resonated with the voters in the past. Billy Bulger, for instance, was an issue in my campaign.

MassNews: How would you compare Bulger’s power with today?

Hedlund: I certainly had large numbers of voters in my district who felt that the way that he operated the Senate was not the right way for the Massachusetts Senate to conduct itself. Frankly, I think the Speaker and the Senate President have taken control over the process more than Billy Bulger ever did. That happens to be an issue where there’s some common ground with the liberal media which should help us. I think it’s a good government issue where we could capitalize if we so choose. It would certainly require a coordinated effort and would be a conscious decision on the part of the Republican State Committee to pursue that as an issue. I’m not sure thus far that they’ve chosen to do that.

MassNews: Is a coordinated effort possible?

Hedlund: Absolutely on an issue like that. Absolutely. I mean you can see the kind of coverage that this minuscule, almost irrelevant band of “reformers,” liberal Democrats, in the House get and we certainly have a much greater apparatus available to us with the Republican party to make an issue of that if we chose to do so.

MassNews: How much of an issue is the concept of legislating by going around the regular budget process, known as “outside sections” of the budget?

Hedlund: That’s a great question and it’s a little bit of irony there. There are two schools of thought on this and I actually buy into both. I don’t think it’s the right way to go about things. It’s greatly abused. It bypasses the whole public hearing process when you advance legislation through an outside section. It’s even worse if we look at how we do some of these things. Late in the session last year we used a deficiency budget to do things and get around the whole traditional legislative process of public hearings, etc. So it’s a major problem.

MassNews: Is it useful to a minority party?

Hedlund: It has been, because of the central control and the slow movement of the legislative process up here. In some cases it’s the only vehicle available to the minority party to get an issue out there and debate it. So if we could clean up the entire process and all things being equal and the legislative process functioning in the manner that it’s supposed to, there wouldn’t be a need for the outside sections. So it’s kind of a catch 22. Right now, I think it’s certainly legitimate for us to continue to use that outside section as a means of getting our issues out there and debating them. At the same time we should make an issue that we shouldn’t have to go that route.

MassNews: Who should make it an issue?

Hedlund: The Republicans. In fact, we shouldn’t have to use that as a vehicle to get our issues out there and push for reform to the legislative process.

MassNews: Are there issues that should be raised by Republican candidates in the next election cycle?

Hedlund: One Republican candidate in an uncoordinated way going out there trying to make an issue of the legislative process may not resonate. I think generally people know there’s something going on up here and it isn’t good. They understand that Speaker Finneran has assumed a great level of control over the process. If you start talking about specific reforms, I think you might start to lose people. In the absence of the major media discussing it and the Republican Party pushing it in a unified way, it will be difficult for one guy in some district running for office to be talking about it in a vacuum.

MassNews: This is the last question and it’s the open-ended one. Is there anything else you want to say about the party at this point and in the near future?

I’m hoping things improve under Jane Swift. ... Hopefully she recognizes some of the shortcomings that we’ve had in the last few years, both in this building and at State Committee.

Hedlund: I’m hoping things improve under Jane Swift. I hold out some hope because she is someone who came up through the ranks. She served in the Senate and knew what it was like to have to run a campaign, what it was like to run a campaign as a Republican, certainly. She did run a good campaign against John Olver. Hopefully she recognizes some of the shortcomings that we’ve had in the last few years, both in this building and at State Committee.

I had those same hopes when Paul Cellucci came in, however, and I was somewhat disappointed over the last couple of years. Bill Weld took a lot of criticism, but Bill Weld was there for me the times I asked.

I think the ultimate lesson or example we can look at is what Governor Engler did in 1992 in Michigan, in really directing resources to the grass roots to help capture the legislature out there. We’ve never done that here. Bill Weld, I think, had an opportunity to do that because he was so popular. I think that was a missed opportunity. All things being relative here, I think we had some better success as legislators in seeking support for things under Governor Weld than I think we’ve had since he left. In my case I think that’s true.