In politics, having the label “Washington Outsider” can lend legitimacy to any campaign where the qualifications of the candidate are suspect. It becomes easier for a candidate to create the illusion that they are a true reformer, even though their platforms are merely reworked versions of plans that were implemented beforehand.
Last Spring, Jennifer Lawless, a Brown professor, entered the congressional race as a true Washington outsider in the truest sense of the phrase. Adding congressional candidate to her mostly academic résumé, she is challenging Representative Jim Langevin. Lawless comes to Rhode Island from Middletown, New York. She earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science in June of 1997. Lawless then went on to get her Ph.D. at Stanford University, completing it in 2003.
Lawless serves up the traditional platitudes that have come to define the modern Democratic Party’s platform. (What may separate her from her opponent is her propensity to refer to herself as “Jen” on her website. I am not cheeky enough to call her Jen throughout this article, so I will just settle on Lawless.) On education, she “…believes that every American family has the fundamental right to high-quality education for their children.” Her solution for the failure of government-funded education is more government funding of education, extending it to post-secondary schools by proposing that Pell Scholarships keep up with tuition increases. Healthcare is also a human right. More money must be spent on that.
In reference to the Iraq War, Lawless criticizes the way the Bush administration entered the conflict. Instead she wished the president worked with the United Nations and a multinational coalition to “broker a more diplomatic resolution to the conflict.” She doubts the actions taken in Iraq will lead to the democratization and liberalization of the country and calls for Bush to create a clear plan for the withdrawal of the troops. According to Lawless, “it is imperative for the Bush Administration to focus on preparations for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. She knows that the best thing we can do for our troops is bring them home!” (The exclamation point comes from Jen. I doubt her opponent can rival the perkiness and enthusiasm displayed in her platform.)
To characterize her ideas as out of step with most Rhode Islanders would be an exaggeration. The Democratic Party is deeply entrenched at almost every level of government in the state. Because of this, progressive ideas appear to be extremely popular, with both presidential candidates in the 2004 election finding it to be a fruitless task to campaign in the state. Any vestiges of hyper-Progressivism, alienating to most Rhode Islanders, that clings to her image may only have to do with the connotations associated with being a Brown professor. Even though one of her areas of specialization happens to be women and politics, the feminism that the public sees is the soft-core Hillary Clinton variety, rather than the caricature of the radical feminist with unshaven legs and a deep hatred for men. Each of her beliefs can be challenged, especially the consequences of creating rights to education and healthcare, but these positions are not unique to Lawless and can be found coming out the mouths of many Democrats and some Republicans currently in Washington.
Even though she claims, “Rhode Island deserves innovative ideas and outspoken leaders, not people who are embedded in the Washington political establishment,” Lawless’ platform is similar to that of her opponent Representative Jim Langevin. A graduate of Rhode Island College and the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Langevin entered the House of Representatives in 2000. In 2004, he won reelection with 75 percent of the vote. Like Lawless, Langevin is a strong proponent of public education. He too believes in strengthening and “building upon the successes” of the Pell Grant Program. The same mixture of condemnation of the Bush administration, soft progressivism, and desire to expand or keep current government programs intact can be found in Langevin’s platform.
The huge difference between these two candidates lies in the fact, Langevin happens to be “pro-life,” while Lawless is “pro-choice.” Just invoking these euphemisms is enough to make the jaded political spectator nauseous. As one side shrieks about reproductive rights and coat hangers and the other fumbles through a defense of their views while allowing timid concessions for cases of rape or incest, the rest of the electorate watches, not identifying fully with either side. The two also differ on medical marijuana, with Lawless supporting measures to allow patients to use marijuana and Langevin opposing them.
It would be difficult to characterize the Lawless-Langevin race as a true competition. Langevin is a popular incumbent with the backing of the state Democratic Party. The issues that divide the two candidates, abortion and medical marijuana, may not even be decisive in the primary election. The fact remains Lawless is an outsider in the truest sense of the word. She has only been in Rhode Island for two years and recently moved to the district that she is actually running in. She should still be receiving “Welcome to the Neighborhood” muffin baskets instead of campaign contributions.
Lawless’ affiliation with Brown University does not appear as if it would help her campaign. To be frank, the Brown community does not mingle with the rest of Providence and Rhode Island area. Although many students come from the New England area, only a small percentage call Rhode Island home. It seems every so often Brown students hear a call to become more involved in the surrounding communities. Even when students do get involved they approach the community as a “project,” something that constantly needs to be reworked.
Many caricatures can be painted about professors in their Ivy Towers only emerging for C-SPAN appearances. Regardless of the amount of hours Lawless spends shaking hands and kissing babies, can the voters really eradicate that image of an out of touch professor from their minds enough to cast a vote in her favor?
The most cynical among us would dismiss her whole campaign and accuse Lawless of entering the “bastion of patriarchy,” as she once called electoral politics, out of a desire to simply turn her experience into book. The personal anecdotes “Jen the Candidate” could offer would be more engaging and, quite frankly, more interesting than a slew of data and trends gleaned from surveys published in academic journals most Americans barely know exist and most college students are forced to read. I am one of those people. I look forward to purchasing it at an inflated price at the Brown bookstore. Perhaps it will inspire me.
