Oral History Interview with Daniel Kemmis, August 5, 1981
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Archives and Special Collections Mansfield Library, University of Montana Missoula MT 59812-9936 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (406) 243-2053 This transcript represents the nearly verbatim record of an unrehearsed interview. Please bear in mind that you are reading the spoken word rather than the written word. Oral History Number: 036-009 Interviewee: Daniel Kemmis Interviewer: Claire Rhein Date of Interview: August 5,1981 Project: Daniel Kemmis Interviews Oral History Project Claire Rhein: This is Claire Rhein, and I'm talking with Daniel Kemmis. Picking up from our last conversation, you said you're looking at maybe one more session in the Montana legislature. You're aware, of course, that your name has been mentioned as a possible candidate for major in Missoula? Daniel Kemmis: Well, I spent some time after the session, in fact at the end of the session, considering very seriously the possibility of running for mayor and I then let that word be put out in the press in Missoula in May of this year. I talked to a lot of people and I did a lot of serious thinking about it. It seemed like a lot longer but I think that I actually played with the idea seriously for about a month and then announced that I was not going to do it. Ever since that time the issue has really been closed. That was an interesting kind of experience though, thinking about that. I think there are very few people who understand at all why I even considered doing it. CR: I'd like to know. DK: Most of the reaction that I got, and I guess what was fairly decisive for me, was that so many of my constituents and others (other people from around the state)let me know that they very much preferred to have me in the legislature. I myself, I like the legislature so much that when I thought about not being there anymore that was a very sobering idea and not something that I could particularly look forward to. I would miss the legislature terribly, I think. So that was part of the final decision. So why did I think about doing it at all? I think I've probably talked with you in the past about my perception of politics and the necessity for decentralization of the political structure... or at least what I believe is the necessity for that. I don't have a great deal of faith in large political organizations being able to meet the needs of the times. I may be entirely mistaken about that but it's become a more and more firm conviction over time. I don't believe very much in the ability of the Federal Government to solve very many real problems. I do think that state government, particularly in a state as small in population as Montana is, has more capacity to do that. But I've come to feel more and more that the real action—the real future of politics—is on a very localized level. In particular if what you want to do with politics is something besides have people who are elected make all the decision. If what you really want to do is involve the people themselves as directly as possible in making 1 Daniel Kemmis Interview, OH 036-009, Archives and Special Collections, Mansfield Library, University of Montana-Missoula. their own decisions, then I think local government is the only place that it can be done. It's because of that conviction that I really did have a very serious interest in local government and in the possibilities that exist there. I think that Missoula is as good a place as any that I know of for an experiment along those lines. I think the people of Missoula are a progressive people, they have some substantial pride in their community, and I think that here the possibilities really do exist of getting a substantial number of people involved in their government. That's a great challenge. I think that's the real challenge of politics as I see it. That's why I was interested in doing that. If something like that were ever to be done, and if there is an instrumental position for doing it, it is the major's position. But, I didn't do it. CR: You talk about this each time --we have something in every conversation. Our last hour you talked about the initiative issue and the fact that people made their position on the problems clear to the Legislator even though the Republicans already came with a proposal to put that down. They got the message that could not be done. You feel strongly about this but you've got to admit that this is a different direction than that which most politicians would take. They would go from running for a local office, looking toward the state office and so on up. DK: Yes, well, it is. I can't claim that I'm immune from that way of looking at the political ladder but I tend to think it's an inverted way of looking at it. What I was told time and again was that it would be a step down. CR: To mayor? DK: That's right. I understand that kind of thinking but I think that there is an element of—an archaic element—and the archaic element is the thought that bigger is better. The bigger the government the more important it is. I know that in some sense that is true. Certainly congressmen make, in some sense, more important decisions than city councilmen make. But in some sense it's the reverse of that because the fact is that people are almost entirely alienated from the federal government, and they are not entirely alienated from local government. CR: This certainly is not a "party" decision or position. DK: No. Although I have tried to convince Democrats that in the face of the whipping that we took in the 1980 election nationally and in the state that we've got to get started thinking about some new positions and one part of that, I believe, has to be for the Democratic Party to turn its back on the position that it has taken on federalism since the time of the New Deal. The Democratic Party has been the party of big government to far too great an extent and it is time for it to become decisively the party of small government. There's a role to be played there because frankly, from my point of view, the Republican Party has become the party of no government — the party whose chief aim is to dismantle government at all levels. I think there is something to that position but I think it needs to be balanced by an aggressive statement that there is a role for government in the sense that government is the role of people taking care of their own affairs and that government should be decentralized. So it's only partisan in that sense, an emergence sort of sense. CR: It certainly is something for a great dialogue. DK: Yes. CR: Kind of Jeffersonian? DK: I think it is. CR: Then this is not quite accidental. DK: No. CR: You sound as though you have spent quite a bit of time with Thomas Jefferson and some of his writings. Was that impressed on your background at any time? DK: Jefferson's writings? Oh, yes. I think I am as influenced by Jefferson as by any political thinker. If I had to list political thinkers that influenced me it would be Plato, Rousseau [Jean- Jacques Rousseau], Jefferson, Lincoln [Abraham Lincoln], and Gandhi [Mahatma Gandhi]. CR: What other new positions do you see that the Party should perhaps look at to their advantage? DK: Well, the other one that we've talked about in the past that I continue to try to get Democrats to get involved in in Montana is economic development—to take a stand on that and to become advocates of a program of economic development. We'll keep working on that. We've made a lot of progress on it. CR: That's state level? DK: Yes, state and local probably, but particularly state. We have more tools available at the state level and so far I would say that we have made considerable progress on those terms with legislators, Democratic legislators. I think that more and more of them have come to see the importance of that theme. I think many important members of the Party organization see it. I think some members of the administration see it but too few of them—of the Schwinden administration. CR Too few? DK: Yes. That's my own perspective. I think that in those terms the Schwinden administration is very conservative and I understand that. They need to be convinced. We will gradually convince 3 Daniel Kemmis Interview, OH 036-009, Archives and Special Collections, Mansfield Library, University of Montana-Missoula. them, I believe. CR: Our present governor was lieutenant governor, I believe, for two terms? DK: No, just one term. He was commissioner of state lands. CR: But it's not exactly the same as if he were new on the state level so obviously his positions are positions that he has established over a period of time. Is he moving very cautiously in this do you think? DK: I think the governor is a canny politician who has a good sense of politics.