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 |
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."
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.
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.
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.