Macleans: Interview with Mike Gravel

The Macleans.ca Interview: Mike Gravel

The maverick presidential candidate on Canada, the war in Iraq, gay marriage and why it's okay to be mad

Suzanne Taylor | August 17, 2007

In late April, Mike Gravel, the former senator for Alaska, stood on a stage with the rest of the Democratic candidates for president and asked a simple question. "Tell me, Barack," he said. "Barack, who do you want to nuke?"

With that, a minor star was born. Proclaimed a Washington Post blogger, "Mike Gravel is Howard Beale."

Born 77 years ago to French-Canadian immigrants living in Massachusetts, Gravel won election to the House of Representatives in 1962 and soon thereafter won the reputation of a political maverick - protesting the Vietnam War and helping release the Pentagon Papers.

In 2006, more than 25 years removed from public office, he announced his run for the presidency. In addition to calling out Barack Obama, he's sparred with the media, granted an exclusive interview in some guy's dorm room and lent himself to two of the most post-modern campaign ads ever created - Rock and Fire. He is indeed mad as hell and not particularly interested in taking it anymore.

Taking a break from his barely financed campaign to visit Canada, Gravel spoke with Macleans.ca about opposing the war in Iraq, becoming a cult hero and why it might make sense to decriminalize cocaine.

Macleans.ca: What’s your opinion of Canada?

Mike Gravel: I’ve got a lot of respect for Canada. I think Canada, in many respects, has done a better job at governance than we have in the United States. I think Canada has a better foreign policy than we have. Just take the attitude towards war – I think Canadians are less inclined to want to go to war. They weren’t supporting George Bush with the invasion of Iraq. I think the present prime minister may be a little closer to Bush than I would like, but I knew Jean Chrétien, I knew Pierre Trudeau very well. I thought the world of him.

M: Do you think your Canadian heritage gives you a unique perspective?

MG: Oh, very much, very much… My parents came down in the twenties, when there were jobs available in the U.S., and then lived through the depression, became citizens. As a child, I spoke French before English… When I was in the Senate, I was very mindful of making sure that Canada’s interests were taken care of – I felt a certain loyalty.

M: You have a lot of views that many Americans would call extreme. As a so-called "fringe candidate," do you think it’s important to appeal more to the mainstream voter?

MG: I am appealing to the mainstream voter. It’s American media that is not understanding what the mainstream is about.

Let’s talk about radical. Is it radical for me to hold the view that the American people should be able to make laws, just like elected officials? I think the people are as qualified as their leaders to make laws. Certainly it’s out of the box. Is it radical? I don’t think so, unless radical means fundamental positive change.

The other thing is, I want to get out of Iraq. I want all our troops out. Now that may be radical, but the reason we invaded was to get control of their oil, and [the administration] told us it was to spread democracy. You can’t spread democracy at the barrel of a gun

Is it radical for me to say that we can have a national health care program, somewhat similar to Canada’s? I think you should be able to go to a liquor store and buy all the marijuana you want. Treat it like alcohol. If you want to tax it, fine. And you should be able to go to a doctor and get a prescription for coke, or whatever your addiction is, and then he can register you and then we can identify you as an addict and help you when you’re ready to kick the habit. Treat it as a public health problem, not a criminal problem. And with gay marriage... these are two human beings that want to express their love. And my god, if there’s anything the world needs, it’s more love. So is that radical? I don’t think so.

You’re going to watch the American people come along on that. When I was in the Senate – we’re talking a generation ago – it was a big deal to support gay people… Four years from now, [gay marriage] will be a non-issue. So when a lot of pundits in the United States look at me and say, "Wow, this guy’s really off the reservation," they’re wrong.

M: So are you ahead of your time on these issues?

MG: I think so. It’s important when you run for office to move the ball of knowledge and wisdom down the field. When you’re president, you have an opportunity to speak to a national audience. Now you can tell them what they already know, but what you should be doing is telling them what they need to know.

M: You have a small following of people who think yours is the only clear-cut voice out there willing to tell the truth.

MG: The following might be larger than we realize. Sixty-seven per cent of Americans right now do not want to have anything to do with either party. They’re just fed up. Here’s my gamble: Are they fed up enough to vote for someone like me?

M: Will it have been worth running if you don’t win the presidency?

MG: Well, let me put it this way. Somebody could have asked me that question back in May of 1971 when I started filibustering the end of the draft, forcing its expiration. Well, two years later there was no draft. A person could have said, "Well, is that worth doing? What chance do you have of getting that done?" You’ve got to live long enough for someone to look back and say, "My god, was he a leader, and was he courageous!" But you’ve got to live long enough. Because at the time, I was excoriated by the media. What happened to me then is what they’re trying to do to me now – to say, "Hey, this guy’s off the wall. It won’t work."

M: You’ve also been described as angry. Do you agree with that?

MG: I agree with that totally. And I’m going to change my ways.

M: So it’s not a good thing?

MG: Well, if it’s anger over what the country’s doing, yes. If it’s anger over being unfairly treated by the networks, which is what was making me angry, no. I’m new – I’m standing there [at the debate] and getting four minutes out of an hour-and-a-half, when Hillary and Obama and the others are getting ten minutes. So you can’t help but realize, "My god, these people aren’t being fair." Well, I’ve just got to sit back and say, "Okay, they’re not being fair. That’s the end of it."

M: Why do you think America’s ready to hear your message now?

MG: Well, what caused me to run was not so much the chronological choice of time. It was the fact that I had been working for 15 years on a process to empower the American people as legislators. That’s called the National Initiative. So this person suggested I run for president and bring attention to it. Well, that’s how it started out. But if you recall, in the first debate, I said I didn’t particularly care if I became president. But now that I look at the other people, I do care, I think I can do a better job than they can, and they scare me. They scare me with their nuclear policies, they scare me with the continuation of American imperialism. I think that will destroy our country and destabilize major segments of the world.

M: If things don't work out for you in the States, any chance you’d consider running up here?

MG: Oh, no. (laughs) It’s a different background. You have a parliamentary system. It’s interesting, when I was friends with Pierre Trudeau, I said, "Hey Pierre – goddamn, you’ve got a better system than we do." He says, "Like hell, Mike. Your system’s better than ours!"

M: I guess the grass is always greener.

MG: Isn’t that the truth? (laughs) Well in Canada, the grass is green.