Friday, May 25

Portland Police Advise iPhone Users Not To Stare, Zombielike, At Their Devices

News Portland police yesterday announced that they'd caught that most elusive brand of criminal, the smar... More

May 25, 2012 12:32 pm by COREY PEIN  | Comments 0
 

Oswego Lake Access Issue Heads to Federal Court

Lawsuit says the city has a responsibility to “protect and preserve the public’s right of access to and use of the Lake.”

News A federal judge may decide if Oswego Lake is open to the public. A lawsuit filed this morning in U.... More

May 24, 2012 01:16 pm by Martin Cizmar  | Comments 8
 

Oregonian's Sister Paper To Cease Daily Publication; Updated

News In another sign of the difficult financial realities for print newspapers, the New Orleans Times-Pic... More

May 24, 2012 09:20 am by NIGEL JAQUISS  | Comments 2
 

Oregon Senators Back Bill Aimed At Citizens United

News Speaking of money in politics… U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is among those speaking on the Senate... More

May 23, 2012 11:08 am by Corey Pein  | Comments 0
 
 
 
Home · Articles · News · Politics · The Enduring Book of Mark
August 10th, 2011 MARK ZUSMAN | Politics
 

The Enduring Book of Mark

The death of former U.S. Sen. Mark Hatfield reminds Oregon why he still matters.

news1-mark_hatfield_3740Sen. Mark Hatfield 1922-2011
The timing was fitting: One week after the far right wing of the Republican Party held the economy hostage by trying to ram a balanced budget amendment down our throat, Mark Hatfield passed away. 

Fitting because in 1995 the Oregon senator was the only Republican to vote against a similar amendment. Grim-faced and on the verge of resigning his Senate seat over the issue, Hatfield cast the deciding vote to kill the amendment. “It was one of the most courageous votes I’ve ever seen,” Senate historian Donald Ritchie told Roll Call this week.

Hatfield, who died Aug. 7 at the age of 89, didn’t resign. He instead showed the independence and character that made him the class act of Oregon politics. He fused deep Baptist beliefs, a knack for retail politics and matinee-idol good looks into a political career marked by his strong pacifism and extraordinary longevity. He’s best known today as a virtuoso of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which he used to steer home billions of dollars in federal projects that reshaped Oregon.

But the ways in which Hatfield changed Oregon run deeper than the federal money or shiny buildings that carry his name. He brought modernity to Oregon government and led its politics out of the backwoods and into national prominence. To do it, Hatfield combined ambition and discipline better than any Oregon politician of his time.

Hatfield was born in Dallas, Ore., in 1922, the only child of a railroad blacksmith and a teacher. His mother was both domineering and had great ambitions for her son. Hatfield could not recall any desire but to get into politics. In high school, he was an Oregon State Capitol tour guide; after hours he would slip into the governor’s office, sit in the executive’s chair, caress the desk and tell himself this would someday be his. While earning a political science degree at Stanford, his friend Travis Cross recalled, Hatfield took a piece of paper and plotted out his ascendancy: from state legislature to governor to the U.S. Senate to…and here he left the space blank. He moved to Salem and within 10 years, in 1958, was elected governor—at 36, the youngest in state history.

Hatfield broke the Republican political machine that had anointed candidates for decades. In its place, he built a Hatfield machine that consolidated power around him, not the party. He built it with Gerry Frank, the scion of a department-store fortune and an organizational whiz. The two men met in Salem when Hatfield (then in the Legislature) and Frank were named by The Oregonian as two of Salem’s most eligible bachelors. Frank ultimately became Hatfield’s closest adviser and chief of staff, and helped build the Hatfield machine with an index file of more than 100,000 personal contacts.

Hatfield transformed Oregon by leading the fight in the 1950s against the state’s deep history of racial segregation. When it came to racism, Oregon was among the worst. As a Willamette University student, Hatfield helped bring Paul Robeson and Marian Anderson to campus; Hatfield recalled driving the two of them back to Portland, humiliated for his state, because Salem’s hotels had a “no coloreds” policy. As a state legislator, Hatfield led the fight to ban racial housing discrimination in Oregon.

Hatfield’s turbocharged rise in politics (the state House, state Senate, secretary of state and two terms as governor) was fueled by his oratorical skills and a singular charisma that was at once aloof and magnetic. Part of Hatfield’s success was that he looked the part: strikingly handsome, fashionable and publicly formal. Fellow Republican and friend Norma Paulus once said that she had never seen Hatfield “outside of a tie.” Hatfield, in the words of Daily Astorian editor Steve Forrester “was like a beautiful woman. You assumed he wasn’t smart. But he was. Very.” Hatfield, for many years, hung a large oil portrait of himself in his Georgetown bedroom. 

His manners and dandyism misdirected attention from his inside skills. You wanted him on your side in a political knife fight. Says Tom Imeson, who worked for Hatfield for many years: “He was a very principled person. But he could be very tough from a political perspective.”

Hatfield behind closed doors brought cabinet secretaries to heel with his steely glare and rumbling voice. When the popular Gov. Tom McCall noisily threatened to run against Hatfield in 1972, the senator scared him away by telling him, “Come into the race if you want to. But I want to say one thing. I’ll shred you.” 

In 1990, in his last campaign, Hatfield faced Democrat Harry Lonsdale, who used his personal fortune to attack Hatfield and take a momentary lead in the polls. Hatfield launched the first negative campaign ads of his career and within a few weeks turned Lonsdale into pulp. 

No other Oregon politician did more to promote peace. Hatfield served in the Navy during World War II and visited Hiroshima soon after the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb on the city—an event that had a profound effect on Hatfield’s view of war. He opposed the Vietnam War long before public opinion turned against it. In 1965, he was the lone vote against a National Governors Association resolution requested by President Lyndon Johnson in support of the war.

Continue reading: Page 1 | Page 2 |
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 
 

 

 
08.10.2011 at 07:07 Reply

Excellent bio except the cheap jab in the first paragraph.  Apparantly anyone who stubbornly agrees with the author's beliefs is "couragous" and showing "independence of character" while, anyone who stubbornly disagrees is "[holding] the economy hostage."

 

08.10.2011 at 02:00 Reply
I was privileged to work in the Capitol building during Mark Hatfield's first term as Governor. He was an exceptionally high principled man, and was truly an Oregonian. Thank you for a fair and unbiased story about Mr. Hatfield.

 

08.10.2011 at 07:21 Reply

I had the privilege to intern in the Senator's office 28 years ago, and more than any person I've worked with or for, he remains for me a Platonic form of a hero -- intelligent, thoughtful, funny, serious, yet casual.  Thank you for this story.

 

 

08.10.2011 at 09:06 Reply

We can write critical comments about Hatfield,  now dead,  but who has served Oregonians better in the Senate?  And,  just what has Oregon received by having two Democrat Senators who can talk blithely to the camera,  but never seem to bring home the bacon.  Hatfield brought home the bacon.  I was in Siltez the other day,  for the first time in a decade.  Tribal recognition and timberlands have done good by the Siletz.  A casino helps,  as well.  That was ALL Hatfield,  whether you liked it or not.  

Same with the Grand Ronde tribal recognition and resultant financial benefits.  That was all Hatfield,  like it or lump it.

I am now of the opinion that all of the non park Federal lands in Oregon ought to be INdian managed and the wild tended by them.  

 

08.11.2011 at 12:04 Reply

I agree fully with Dude that people can write criticle comments about a person after he or she has passed away making it quite disturbing if the deceased person's image was being destroyed by supposedly "new" information or "facts" he or she never within his or her  living years had the opportunity to defend.  However, it becomes very ethically important within ourselves to not have a hypocritical viewpoint where we pick and chose which people within our society who have a doublestandard of a public life and that of a private life.  And, that might be possibly Mr. Hatfield's legacy within a movement where people have seen activists speak out against men who had a very public, religious persona while being quite converse to that image in their public life since---like it or not---over two decades before Mr. Mark Hatfield's passing he became the first person targeted within groups who have outed men like Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, and George Rekers:

"In 1989, ACT UP in Portland, Oregon carried out the first pro-queer outing. Its members exposed the sexuality of Mark Hatfield, the powerful conservative Republican U. S. Senator from Oregon. Hatfield had supported various homophobic initiatives, including the Helms Amendment, which aimed to prevent the federal government from paying for any AIDS education or prevention materials that would "promote or encourage, directly or indirectly, homosexual sexual activities""

http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/outing,2.html

 A person is, individually, going to believe this or not believe it. A person is going to draw his or her own conclusions when it comes to their person interactions with Mr. Hatfield. However, historically, people's individual thoughts cannot change the fact that events transpired, for whatever cause, that led others who knew a different side to Mr. Hatfield to create a history where many, many people purchase newspapers and take great interest in the progression of what happened in 1989 with the likes of many political and religious figures making the news for being very vehement against homosexuality while in fact, in private, homosexuals themselves. It would be more alarming if we decided to pick and chose how a person lived his or her life only be our individual interactions with that person without regard to historical facts. If one were to ask most Oregonians what they felt about Neil Goldschmidt, prior to May 2004, there would be an astonding amount of people, because of their own individual encounters, who would praise him to their very last breath; however, after established facts of his life emerged decades later there aren't nearly as many people with such steadfast loyality.

So, yes, I fully agree that bringing "new facts" or "new evidences" into light the moment a person passes away is horrible; however, it seems more questionable if certain established facts that (again like it or not have resulted in some of our nation's front page headlines from Haggard to Senator Larry Craig) are kept very quieted about a person---especially one dedicated to a very public life where one would know that his or her life would be under the public's microscope---making one question what else within someone's PAST (not some revelation days after someone's passing) within public life was being quieted.

 

 

 
 

Web Design for magazines

Close
Close
Close