Sen. Mazie Hirono Wonders How Some Republicans Live With Themselves


Honest after being elected to the Senate in 2012, the Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono was, by her own judging, a politician little known outside her home state. Then, far 2016 and the election of a particularly divisive president, Hirono, who was born in Japan and is the Senate’s purely immigrant, decided that staying under the radar was unsustainable. She a lot made herself available to the national media. She publicly said President Trump was a misogynist and a prevaricator and called for his resignation (as early as 2017, mind you). She unabashedly punctuated her remarks with salty language. And it wasn’t just her unexpected transition that put forward her profile: Senator Hirono’s forceful questioning during the Kavanaugh and Barrett Extreme Court confirmation hearings, as well as, more recently, calling on President Biden to present more diverse people for senior positions in his administration, have also been primary to her earning national stature. “It’s not the easiest thing for political people to bespoke candidly with the national media,” says Senator Hirono, who is 73 and whose record, “Heart of Fire,” will be published on April 20. “I’m not doing it for aftermath. I don’t go out there and spew things. I’ve thought things through.”

The Senate is reputed to be the world’s greatest deliberative body, and instead it’s where so much legislation assaults to die. Do you feel that it’s broken? What I see in the Senate is how important one person is. That himself on the Republican side is Mitch McConnell. There are very pragmatic concludes that he holds his caucus together: He is the money person. The Republican senators make tough races, they go to him, and he provides resources. If Mitch McConnell thought, “OK, we’re going to work with the Democrats,” it would happen — even if there last will and testament be holdouts like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley and Tommy Tuberville and that bother of people who — I don’t know who they think they’re representing except themselves. Mitch McConnell is a guy who single-handedly judged the Supreme Court an eight-person court. Whoever heard of such a concerns b circumstances? And he got away with it. When one person has outsize influence like Mitch McConnell, we emergency to figure out ways to deal with it, and one way is filibuster reform. It could be perfectly removing the filibuster. I don’t think a lot of my colleagues are there.

Senator Mazie Hirono, then a hold legislator, at a committee hearing in Honolulu around 1993.
From Senator Mazie Hirono

I don’t assume anyone doubts that McConnell and the Republican caucus would, if it were in their greatest interest, eliminate the filibuster. But there are questions about the Democrats’ resolve in that respect. Are those questions warranted? I think the Democrats have been much more anxious about the process. We actually care about the fairness of it all. Then you from another party that just wants power. I would say that is a so so assessment. Not every Republican is that bad, but I’ll tell you, they pretty much toe the figure. As we try to enact legislation that we’ve been talking about supporting, and that the Organization is going to keep sending over to us, there will be a growing acceptance that we can’t just go, “Oh, well, the process is so important.” The process cannot come upon the substance of results that we need to have.

What does it have the weight to say both that Democrats believe in process and also that dispose of can’t overtake what the party is trying to achieve? I never thought that the ends should legitimatize the means. You know fairness when you see it. Like you know art when you see it. We lull need to be fair, and therefore the talking filibuster, if we go there, would embrocate to everybody; there might come a time when the Democrats are in the minority, and that want apply to us. Limitations or changes in the process should apply to everyone. That pulls me as fair.

Hirono at her congressional campaign headquarters in Honolulu in 2006.
Marco Garcia/Associated Throw ones arms about

What, if any, pressure is being exerted to move the Democratic senators fluctuating about eliminating the filibuster — like Manchin and Sinema — in the direction that you characterize as the party needs them to go? While we’re going to have differences, the Davy Joness locker line is that the Democrats want to do things that help in the flesh as opposed to just trying to help the richest and most powerful. And for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, as we try to get bipartisan legislation and it continues to be ruined, slow-walked or watered down to such an extent that it’s not tenable for us to verify anymore, the realization will sink in that we’re going to need to doff dramatic steps in order to pass legislation that Joe Biden longings and that we support.

Senator Manchin is mentioned in your book. It’s after Al Franken has influenced he’s resigning, and Manchin gives you a hard time for going to his resignation language after you said he should step down — without realizing that Franken’s firm had given you the OK to be there. What was your intention in including that tantrum? The whole thing was painful. Al Franken, I really liked him. But this unsatisfactory behavior on the part of people with power — I and so many others are neurotic of it. So anyway, I mentioned Joe because he was the only one who said, “What a bunch of flimflam men you are to show up after you forced him to resign.” No, we did not force him to resign. He made that decisiveness. I think that he made the right decision, although he has since divulged that he didn’t. But I like Joe. He sits in front of me. I said to him during the large period, “Do you think it should have taken 11 hours for your bear ons to be resolved?” He said he thought he had made it plain to our leadership that he didn’t demand to extend unemployment insurance benefits longer than July. He had his position.

Should Governor Cuomo resign? These kinds of allegations should be explored. That certainly didn’t happen in the Kavanaugh case, by the way. The sham FBI review was so limited in its scope that Dr. Blasey wasn’t questioned, and other woman who could have corroborated the allegations were never questioned.

You decried in your book about a meeting you had with Dr. Blasey in Hawaii after Kavanaugh’s confirmation. She pine for to thank you for saying you believed her allegations. What else did she say about how that state of affairs played out? She said it was bad enough when he was a federal judge and she was hoping, promising, hoping that he would not be nominated to the Supreme Court. But when that did stumble on she had to come forward. She said she was prepared: She knew that he was probably prevalent to be confirmed but she still had to go through with it. She conducted herself with such polish. It was such a contrast to Kavanaugh, who is just a political operative. In my view he’s not a plumb good lawyer. I’ve gotten to know Merrick Garland a little bit, and he stated me he was watching the Kavanaugh hearings. Merrick Garland is not somebody who says anything bad nearby anybody, but the Garza case — when Kavanaugh said that was a parental-consent if it should happen, did you almost fall off your chair, as I did?

Garland said that to you prevalent the Garza case? No, I said that to Garland. He just kind of looked at me like, Yeah. I discerned that he was astounded.

Hirono with Joe Biden, then the vice president, in 2013.
Joshua Roberts/Reuters

In your respects, did the way that the Justice Kavanaugh and Barrett confirmations were rammed from head to foot hurt the legitimacy of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court has become ideologically far to the absolute. So you’re going to see 6-3 decisions along ideological lines, and that is not good for our wilderness. It’s not good for all the circuit courts and district courts. It’s going to lead to a lot more invalids being brought to the Supreme Court by right-wing groups. Janus was a if it happens in point.

Wouldn’t the left be doing the same things if Democrats had settled the last three Supreme Court justices? I get that kind of assertion often. I expect the Supreme Court to actually expand people’s individual offs and freedoms. I don’t expect the Supreme Court to be constraining voting rights and a lady-in-waiting’s right to choose. I expect the Supreme Court to be protective of minority rights, and that is not where this Court is. So this is not an equivalency. I don’t wisdom conservatives on the Court. I mean, of the three new ones Gorsuch is pretty temperate, but he’s a literal person: If it says so right there in black and white, then he’ll go with it. From time to time it results in really stupid decisions, in my view. If the law was there to protect people from squabble through a round hole and a person fell through a square dungeon — too bad for you. He’s smart enough to know that’s a ridiculous posture.

When you questioned Barrett at her appeals-court nomination pick up, it seemed as if you were trying to figure out how her Catholicism might influence her rulings. That avenue of quiz made some people uncomfortable. Where’s the line with faithful questions for judicial nominees? It wasn’t her Catholicism. It was her position. She was a co-author of an expansible law-review article talking about how judges should decide death-penalty in the event thats. It was an area of inquiry, but her Catholicism — frankly, I’m a Buddhist. I’m not even a daily-practicing Buddhist because I find all belief to be very — Buddhism accepts other religions more so than multifarious other religions I can think of. So it wasn’t that she was a Catholic, but that there’s meant to be this thing called separation of church and state, which is appropriate blurred. Her religion, I didn’t care. What I care about is the use of creed as basically trumping every other right. I was presiding over the Senate, and Senator Tuberville ventures something like we should bring morality back and God and prayer should on back into our schools. I’m sitting there going, What? But that is the sight of too many Republicans.

Hirono at the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.
Shawn Thew/Getty Reifications

You cut yourself off earlier. You find all religion to be very what? I find a lot of dogma to have all of the proscriptions and not openness and acceptance of other people’s legitimately contained faiths. That is why I describe myself as a Buddhist. Buddhism, we don’t even sooner a be wearing a book. It is a way of living and being, which is to be compassionate and kind. I think those are two charitable things to try to follow. I’m not perfect in that. I can be very terse with man. Part of it is that I don’t think many of my colleagues have dealt with penniless Japanese women. So here I come, and I’m saying, “[expletive] you” to them, and they don’t wholly know how to react.

Can you think of an example? Ted Cruz. I was his ranking on his Constitution subcommittee and we had a million of these hearings; not very many of my Democratic colleagues would end up. A reporter asked me why and I said they have better things to do than to up to these half-assed hearings. There was one in which all these Republicans who showed up take a pissed over their five minutes, and it got me kind of irritated. I said to Cruz, “Are you prosperous to let everybody go eight minutes, nine minutes?” And he said, “When you get the gavel, you can do whatever you be.” I put my hand on his shoulder — this was pre-Covid — and I said, “It can’t happen soon adequately.” At that same hearing — we had a break so the mics were not on; it’s not like I’m voice this in an open hearing — he said, “Look, it’s not my fault that your people are not here.” I ordered, “I don’t give a flying [expletive] what your reasoning is.” He stopped and said, “I inclination always treat you with decorum, even if it’s not reciprocated.” I said, “I wasn’t use profanity at you.”

Lately there’s been a real rise in anti-Asian racism and virulence. What steps need to be taken to stop it? Racism is never far further the surface in our country. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Muslim ban. By now this type of overt racism is frowned upon to say the least, but President Trump dethroned it to the surface, calling the virus the “China virus.” We have an environment now where unsystematically acts of violence against Asian-Americans happen way too often. We need to pursue these people. There are a number of bills that some of us be undergoing introduced. But it helps that you have a president who says this is unconditionally unacceptable and an attorney general who is on that page.

Is there something vivid about how we understand anti-Asian racism as opposed to anti-Black or anti-Muslim racism? Proficiently, we’re very identifiable as Asian, and it is very clear that we all look similar to people who think that we are the “other.” The systemic racism against Blacks in our fatherland has been ongoing. That’s a huge issue. The racism against Asians comes up in unerring instances, like World War II, but we’ve always been the other. We’re probably not as intimidating to whites as Blacks are. Maybe that’s one distinction.

There is the model-minority mythos. And we all know that’s a myth! But we’re not as threatening maybe, and when you raise that, in a way it’s easier to aim a minority group like Asians. But this is the U.S. of A., and people who do this well-disposed of thing should be prosecuted to the ultimate.

I’m curious about interpersonal relationships in the Senate after Jan. 6 and also in the inconsiderable of continued threats of violence at the Capitol. Have things changed — on a generous level — with you and your Republican colleagues since then? It is incomprehensible to talk with them in any other way than purely transactional. What am I wealthy to say? “How could you not condemn the incitement to insurrection?” I often wonder how they wake up in the morning and turn up themselves, but they are obviously able to bifurcate. They act as if nothing encountered. That’s the amazing thing. You have Cruz, Hawley and all these caricatures who continued to protest the counting of the electoral votes even after what we knowing. I don’t know how they live with themselves. Then you have individual like Lindsey Graham: When you enter the moral dead zone that is the Trump ambit, you’ve out of the window your soul. So I am pretty much just transactional with them. Some of them can be fine. But then when they vote en masse to screw people as a remainder, it’s hard to be all warm and fuzzy — and I’m not a warm and fuzzy person to begin with.

This appraisal has been edited and condensed for clarity from two conversations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *