Jeff Flake is a resident fellow at Harvard’s Institute of Politics for the fall of 2019. Flake served as U.S. Senator from Arizona from 2013 to 2019 after having served in the House of Representatives for twelve years. Senator Flake was a part of the “Gang of Eight,” a group of eight senators who pushed for a bipartisan immigration reform bill in 2013. He is a critic of President Trump and is now a contributor to CBS.
Harvard Political Review: Why don’t you tell us about what you did before you came to Harvard?
Jeff Flake: Just prior, I was in the United States Senate for six years. Prior to that, in the House for twelve years, and prior to that, I ran a think tank in Arizona — the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank — for about seven years.
HPR: In your most recent book, you call for “a rejection of destructive politics and a return to principle,” offering that the Republican Party has lost its way under President Trump. Is there anyone you see as carrying forward that message in Washington now?
JF: Mitt Romney. Mitt was elected when I left the Senate, and he has pretty much hewed to the traditional view of what a Republican should be: belief in limited government, economic freedom, free trade, strong American leadership abroad. He’s been willing to push back when the president overreaches, and that’s rare these days.
HPR: Do you think he’s succeeding in carrying forward that message?
JF: Well, if you look at where the party is, this is the president’s party, no doubt. That’s unfortunate, I think. It won’t always be, and it’ll be very difficult moving forward for Republicans to be a major force nationally if we continue to adopt the kind of policies that we’ve embraced over the past two years. But right now it’s the president’s party, and those like Mitt Romney and others who are, as [William] Buckley used to say, standing athwart history yelling ‘Stop’ — we never thought that would need to be done with a Republican president. But you can do that, and he should, and I’m glad he still is, but it’s not moving the party very much. The president still dominates.
HPR: You recently tweeted a picture of your donation to Democratic Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone over his controversial hard-line Republican challenger, the predecessor, Joe Arpaio, and you’ve said you will oppose President Trump’s reelection. Could you see yourself actively supporting the campaign of any of the current Democratic candidates?
JF: Yes, I could. I hope that the Republicans still will nominate someone. I’d rather support a Republican. I’m more conservative than any of the Democrats on the ballot. But there are things more important than party, and I think making sure that the country is in the right place moving ahead is one of them. Particularly with some of the Democrats who can appeal to a broader electorate and have a more moderate message, then I could see myself supporting them. Like I said, my preference is to support a Republican, but I won’t support the president.
HPR: Are there any of these Democrats in particular that stand out to you in that regard?
JF: I’ve mentioned in the past, people like Joe Biden, Michael Bennet, Amy Klobuchar. Cory Booker is a lot more bipartisan than [he wants to admit] in a primary. And maybe others. I’ve been impressed with Buttigieg and some of the messages that we’ve heard. Like I said, I’m a lot more conservative than that, but at least they’re not going the direction that I think this president has gone — and that’s not good for the country.
HPR: Donald Trump also has three major primary challengers, and they’re calling for a course correction in the party in their own ways. Why haven’t they earned your support?
JF: In the end, we’ll see where that goes. Bill Weld, who was a good governor here in Massachusetts, [his] dalliance with the Libertarian Party in the last ticket probably didn’t do him much good. Mark Sanford certainly is very concerned about fiscal policy, as I am, in where the party is going. He’ll have a good message, but it’ll be tough having lost a House seat. And Joe Walsh, he was pretty much where the president is on a lot of these issues just a short time ago.
So, I’m not sure that they’ll get that much traction. Right now there just isn’t much traction to be had in the Republican Party, and many states like mine in Arizona aren’t even planning to have a Republican primary. With the melding of the National Republican Committee and the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] and individual campaigns and Super PACs, it’s basically thrown all in and it’s the president’s party. It’s tough to differentiate, and that’s going to be difficult for people like Martha McSally in my state trying to run and trying to appeal to a bit of a broader electorate statewide but still being seen as right behind the president with everything. The president demands that kind of loyalty, and that’s going to make it difficult for the party moving ahead.
HPR: Speaking of Arizona, it’s trended leftward in recent years, with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema winning your seat that you vacated last year. What does the future hold for Arizona conservatives, and what should Republicans do about it?
JF: We’ve got to appeal to a broader electorate. We had a so-called autopsy after Mitt Romney’s loss [in the 2012 presidential election], which said that we’ve got to take account [of] demographics moving ahead, and we were getting such a small percentage of the Hispanic vote, for example — we can’t expect to be a serious national party moving ahead. Arizona has those same issues that, frankly, we do nationwide. But then when you have people like Joe Arpaio running that hearken back to Trump-style policies, I just don’t see a future for that, gratefully, in Arizona. But as long as the party is captured by such personalities and such behavior, we’re going to have a hard time.
HPR: You were a leader on immigration policy in the Senate, part of the “Gang of Eight.” What needs to happen for Washington to finally pass immigration reform?
JF: New leadership. We aren’t even close. Things that we could have done in the past — like the Dream Act or high-skill immigration — we kind of held those things back as sweetener for some of the more difficult things that we had to do. Now you can’t even pass those things on their own. The attitude has to change quite a bit, and it will require new leadership, certainly in the White House and some in terms of Senate leadership as well — depending on who’s in control of which body. That Gang of Eight document that we put together — that bill that passed the Senate 68 to 32 — that will be the basis of whatever we do in a comprehensive way. It was well thought out and well done. It was a good piece of legislation.
HPR: Following the news on President Trump and Ukraine, House Democrats seem to be moving closer to impeachment than ever. Do you think the president should be impeached for this kind of conduct?
JF: I’ll wait for the information to come in. If the president fails to let the information come forward, that will speak for itself. We’re hearing now that the president has said that he has authorized the release of that information. It is extremely troubling that we’ve waited so long — that the whistleblower information wasn’t given right to Congress. I can’t understand why so few of my colleagues — Mitt Romney excepted — have been nonplussed by this. This is what Congress needs to do — oversight. For such allegations to be made and not to insist that that information come forward and that Congress get to the bottom of it just is beyond me.
HPR: Do you think if these allegations turn out to be true, you will plan to call for impeachment?
JF: Let’s see what the allegations come with. I hope we don’t have to go that route. I want to see the president defeated next year; I don’t want to get into a cycle like so many countries are in around the world where you try to disqualify the other party or individual rather than beat them in the next election. I’d rather render a verdict at the polls, that’s my preference.
HPR: You’re here at Harvard this fall semester as a residential fellow. Many have charged that conservative voices are silenced on campuses like ours. What has been your experience as a conservative at Harvard?
JF: I haven’t been silenced yet. Some in the president’s view of the party will say, “well, they’ll be fine to you.” But I consider myself a conservative, still a conservative. Obviously, there are fewer traditional conservatives than liberals here, but my voice is certainly heard, and I’m given a platform, and I appreciate that. I’ve been really pleased with how the message has been received as well.
HPR: What would you say has been the most pivotal moment of your career so far?
JF: It had to be during the Kavanaugh hearings when I called for an investigation. That was not received well by my party, and it was a difficult thing to do but I think the right thing to do. That has to stand out. Another one I’ve been involved in, Cuba, for awhile — trying to have diplomatic relations, lift the travel ban, and make sure the Cuban people can have a better life. Being able to participate in that and ultimately to be able to fly down to Cuba and do the prisoners exchange—the spy swap—that we did in 2014 and thereafter have both countries announce we’d have diplomatic relations. That was a high moment, certainly. Over 18 years, there’s a lot of highs and a lot of lows, but there are still a lot of good people in Congress. I miss them. The incentives are horrible right now. They drive people to the extremes in a bad way, and we’ve got to get beyond that. There’s still a lot of people in both parties wanting to do the right thing.
Image Credit: Flikr/Gage Skidmore