The Daily - A Conversation With a Freshman Democrat

Episode Date: November 15, 2018

Last week, we looked at the campaign of a candidate who embodied the Democratic strategy for winning the House. This week, she arrived in Washington. We spoke with Abigail Spanberger, a recently elected congresswoman from Virginia, about her first days in the Capitol and what it means to be a Democrat today. Guest: Representative-elect Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. Last week, we met a House candidate from Virginia who embodied the Democratic strategy for taking back the House. This week, she arrived in Washington. A conversation with Congresswoman-elect Abigail Spanberger. It's Thursday, November 15th.

Hello, this is Abigail Spanberger. Hi, Congresswoman-elect. It's good to hear your voice. Nice to speak with you. So where am I reaching you? I am at the Capitol building. I am in a member of Congress's office. Which member? Another Democratic member who's allowing me to use their space. Huh. So you're sort of squatting. That's correct. So where are you in the orientation process right now for new members of Congress?

So it's probably far less exciting than most people would guess. So we had some welcome dinners and events yesterday. We did a tour of the Capitol. We were introduced to all of the different members of the staff that make it all possible for each individual member of Congress to do his or her job. You know, learning everything about the computer systems to how to schedule doctor's appointments and get a flu shot. I mean, really very regular things, but... Wow, that really does run the gamut.

Yeah, exactly. And what was that tour like now that you're actually an elected member? It is starting to set in. When we arrived at the hotel where all the new members were staying and we jumped out and there was 30 to 40 members of the press standing there, I think that's when the reality of it all started

to really set in. You know, at home in the district, it was exciting on election night, but I think being in Washington and recognizing that we are part of a major shift, that there is a significant group of new members arriving here in D.C. and that they are notable and interesting for a variety of different reasons and that the press is there to cover a point in history. I think it was pretty humbling. It's just been fantastic meeting the other new members. It's so funny because so many of us

tracked each other's races. So there have been a couple times where I've said, oh, it's nice to see you again. And then I realized I've actually never met them in person. I've just followed them on Facebook or on Twitter or seen them interviewed on television. And the same has happened to me. It sounds like you felt a camaraderie with people you had never met even before you'd all been elected. Oh, absolutely. And what was the basis for that? I think there's probably a couple different things. One,

the actual experience of running for office is an interesting one. And certainly having seen other people go through the gamut of experiences between preparing for debates or getting is that we set out to do. The campaign trail is the process of getting where you actually want to be, and now we're here. So it's an exciting time. You know, as you alluded to, Congresswoman-elect, your freshman class has made history in a number of ways. The most women ever elected to Congress, the first Muslim woman, the youngest people ever elected. I wonder if in these first couple of days in the Capitol in Washington, if it feels history-making to you and to the group. I think so. And even lining up to take our freshman class picture, I think it felt really exciting just looking around. And there's an array of people and ages and backgrounds. And, you know, in addition to the diversity

of where we come from across the country. But I think it really was pretty amazing to see the wide group of people standing on the risers that they set up to take this picture and looking around. It's reflective of America, or at least it's closer to it. Because so many people in this freshman class of Democrats are coming from non-political backgrounds, one of the things that seems different about your class

than about how I would think about Congress in the past is that it seems like many of you didn't always aspire to be politicians in the way that we think of so many people in elected offices having spent years planning and plotting for these kinds of campaigns. That wasn't the dream. Would you say that that's accurate when it comes to you? I think that's definitely accurate for me, and I know it's accurate for a number of other

newly elected members of Congress as well, because we've had the conversations about how this was never a long-term aspiration. I think it was reflected in how we campaigned. We campaigned in the way that seemed right, as opposed to, you know, the way that we had done it in prior campaigns. So Congresswoman, like, I don't know if you know this, but last week we actually did an episode about your victory in your district. I did. I did. I was eager to hear how the Democrats

won. And then I heard you mention my name and then it just went on and on and on. So it was pretty exciting. On and on about you. Commercial name, and then it just went on and on and on. So it was pretty exciting. On and on about you. Commercial break came, and then it was back to our race. I was not expecting that. I was actually very surprised. Well, it was a fascinating race. And of course, the point of that episode was that your campaign sort of seemed to embody a kind of larger Democratic strategy for winning seats in the House and taking back the majority.

And I want to talk about that. But can you start by explaining to listeners who may not know what led you to run for the House this year? So my decision to run for the House started in early 2017. I started just lightly considering it. I was displeased with the representation that we had in our district. But for me, the real crux of my decision came on the day of the House health care bill vote because of the fact that we have dear friends who would have been tremendously impacted by that vote, who were just representative in my mind of families across our district, across our country, who were going to have their lives fundamentally impacted by a decision made by their elected

representatives. And it was a decision driven by ideology and just partisanship as opposed to real informed decision-making as opposed to the best interests of the American people. And for me, I thought it was just a complete abdication of their responsibility as lawmakers to work in the best interests of their districts, their constituents, and the country. And so that was the day that I decided that I was going to run, and I started putting the plan in place and launched the campaign two months later. It's interesting that you were very much inspired to run by Republican attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act. And you end up running on a platform of protecting the Affordable Care Act. And you end up running on a platform of protecting the Affordable Care Act. And you prevail over an incumbent Republican, Dave Bradd, who had been elected in 2014 as an outspoken

opponent of the Affordable Care Act. That's right. And that strategy of focusing intently on health care as the issue, as you no doubt know, was embraced and promoted by the House leadership, especially by Nancy Pelosi in races across the country. And it seemed to have worked out pretty well for the Democrats. Well, I started the campaign by having meet and greets and events in people's homes and living rooms and dining rooms across the district, just talking to people in their own space with their neighbors, with their friends. And health care was the number one thing that just kept coming up over and over and over again for people

who identify as Democrats, people who identify as middle-of-the-road independents, and people who identify as Republicans potentially considering their options. And at some point in time, it became very clear that it's not just Virginia 7 that cares about health care, and it's not just a particular district in Iowa or Illinois or California. This is just a foundational piece of people's sense of well-being. And yet you also ran by distancing yourself from Nancy Pelosi, who embraced and promoted that strategy. There's a famous moment during a debate where you respond to your opponent trying to associate you with Pelosi by saying,

I am not Nancy Pelosi. My name is Abigail Spanberger. I am from this district. I am my own person. Did you feel that you needed to do that and say that in order to be elected in your district, which supported President Trump in 2016? So a little bit of context on the debate, he had called me Nancy Pelosi at least 20 times. So in that particular case, I wasn't trying to make the point of distancing myself from her so much as reminding people that this isn't a national race. This isn't top Republican versus top Democrat. This is Abigail Spanberger versus Dave Brat. This is Virginia Seven, what's important to us. And so it's my job to talk to people on the ground,

determine what's important to them, and push that to Washington. I am not doing my best to represent people if I'm letting Washington push out the issues that I'm supposed to be talking about. Hmm. Understanding that you came to healthcare on your own as an issue and weren't necessarily trying during that debate to distance yourself from Nancy Pelosi, you have said that you don't plan to support her for another term as speaker. And I want to understand the basis for that. Is that because you think that that best represents what your constituents want, knowing that your district is a red, purple district, one that voted for Trump? Or are you taking that position because you just don't think that she's the right person for the job at this moment? Or is it both?

I mean, looking at what Leader Pelosi has done in her career has been exceptional. She is a fantastic example. She's been an incredible representative for her district and continues to be. And quite frankly, so many of the women who are here, she blazed a path for so many of us. So I'm grateful for her for her leadership on that and her leadership previously as speaker and now as minority leader. But I do think that what we've seen with this big, broad brush of new people engaged in the political sphere, we have new voices coming in at the lowest levels. But I think at the top, at the level of the speakership, we need to turn a page. And please understand, I don't think it will be very easy to do this, but it is about turning a page and having fresh voices lead the conversation.

And so that's why I think it's important that we have new leadership. It's interesting what you're saying about Nancy Pelosi and that there's a need for fresh voices, because yesterday, as you may know, another of your freshman colleagues, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, went to Pelosi's office to demand more action on climate change in a kind of protest. And I wonder, did you participate in that? No, no. No. And why not? because my priority is to get things done and solve problems. And that requires that we be bringing people into a conversation.

And any sort of action that might stop that conversation before it even begins to happen, I think isn't serving the goal that I seek to pursue. I mean, I think at that moment in your answer, kind of speaks to this really intriguing tension within this historic freshman class. I mean, maybe you at that moment in your answer kind of speaks to this really intriguing tension within this historic freshman class. I mean, maybe you don't regard it as a tension, and you can let me know that, but it feels like there were these two distinct waves of Democrats elected last week. There is a group of moderate Democrats in red districts carried by President

Trump, like you, and there is this progressive group of Democrats who won in typically blue districts. And I wonder, do you see your agenda as inherently a bit in conflict or at odds with theirs? No. And I think the big tent Democratic Party, where people have vibrant voices and are passionate about the things that they believe in, I think that that's really, truly healthy for our democracy. You know, our district, it's a 50-50 district. I'm going to be representing a lot of people who did not vote for me and a lot of people who disagree with me. And so for me to do my job correctly, it's very important that I spend time being attuned to what their priorities are and what their concerns are, because I represent them as well. And I need to

serve their interests, even when we may disagree on how to best do that through policy. So if they go off and protest in Nancy Pelosi's office, that's fine with you. You may not partake in it, but you're open to it. I don't actually pay attention to it. That is of little consequence to me or my desire to be an effective leader and an effective member of this freshman class and an effective representative for Virginia's 7th District. It sounds like the most important issue for you is definitely healthcare. You said that on the campaign trail. But I wonder if it turns out that many of your Democratic colleagues,

enough to drive the agenda, have a different priority, perhaps driven by that progressive agenda. And it's, for example, to investigate President Trump. So I just want to understand how a new member like you, especially from the district where you're from, grappling with that question of whether or not the House Democratic majority should focus on something like that, or if it's problematic to focus on something like that. Members of Congress have a variety of responsibilities. And my voters sent me here to talk about health care, to talk about good governance, to talk about the issues that are

important to them. And so where, as a member of Congress, I will have to ensure that we are providing a good check and balance, that's something that's an obligation and a duty that I will respect. But my priorities are serving the needs of the people in my district and addressing the issues that I ran on. And those are not issues that I ran on. Of course, the reality is, as a member of Congress, you have to take votes on all kinds of issues. And I wonder when it comes to things that you didn't run on, like investigating Trump

or even a set of policy questions that are different from the ones that you are most passionate about. Do you feel like you actually have more in common with liberal Democrats or with moderate Republicans? Well, we've only done the briefing on how to get our flu shot. So I don't know where everyone falls on the gamut of things to be able to really discern or answer that question. I mean, really, when it comes down to it, I am passionate about the notion that our government should be enabling people to have tremendous opportunity and to live out the American dream. And I know that sounds idealistic and optimistic. But, you know, if you don't have idealism when you're going in, when will you get it? And frankly, in a district like ours, where we have people who are across the broad spectrum of political ideology, it's amazing if

you sit down and have a conversation, it's amazing the things that you can agree on. You know, and once you can agree on sort of what your goal is, then the policies that you pursue, that becomes an extension of that conversation. But if you're skipping right ahead to, I support this policy without talking with people who might otherwise disagree with you about what the goal is of pursuing that policy, then there won't be a real opportunity to find that commonality and to perhaps realize that there are more places where you agree than disagree. You know, if we want our legislation to be long-lasting and impactful, we need to find places where we can find agreement. I would also argue

that there are many members of Congress who are trying to do just that. There just haven't been enough of them. And I hope that with this new class coming in, that there will be a new critical mass of additional voices really working towards that end. I think an essential question for you and for everybody else is what this new Democratic House majority will stand for. What kind of Democratic majority will it be? Is there a sense for you that the party needs to be something else than it is right now and has been for the past few years? No, not necessarily. I think my sense is that we need to listen to people and hear how they talk about things. And so, you know, healthcare for some people is an emotional issue related to the health security of a parent or a child or themselves. And for some

people, healthcare is an economic issue. You know, they can't afford the prescription drugs that they need. And for some people, it's an economic issue because they recognize that there's societal impact when somebody walks into an emergency room without insurance and needs life-stabilizing care. I was surprised to hear you say that in answer to the question, do you and those around you want the party to be something else than it has been right now? You said, no, not necessarily. And based on what you said about Pelosi, I wonder if you and those who voted you all in will be disappointed

if this new Democratic House majority doesn't, in the end, feel like it has changed what it means to be a Democrat. I don't know that we need to change what it means to be a Democrat. Democrats are working on policies that improve people's lives and build up our economy and create opportunity in our communities. I think the only thing that needs to be broadened is how we talk about that to make sure that people realize that the things they care about are in fact being touched and being addressed. It sounds like you're advocating for being both moderate and progressive, that you can please both sides of the party by addressing these issues the right way.

Do you really think that's possible? I have trouble with all the labels because everybody labels everybody different ways. I think it more comes down to just we're saying the same thing. We're just using broader vocabulary. If I invite you to lunch and I'm speaking French, I'm still inviting you to lunch. If I say it in English, I'm saying the exact same thing. I'm just using the right language. And so I think it's important because looking at these issues in silos is not going to allow us to create the best policy, let alone show impact to the voters of how it is that we're viewing very complicated issues.

Right. I guess the question is, do voters understand multiple languages or do they just understand one language? Because you guys are representing a huge and diverse population and some people really are only capable of absorbing it in one language. And I guess that goes back to what I'm saying, which is we need to broaden our vocabulary. We need to talk about, if we're talking about environmental issues, we're talking about global climate change, we're talking about the health impact, we're talking about the tourism dollars, we're talking about new emerging jobs. We need to broaden and talk about these things as more fulsome issues because they're fulsome issues. And if somebody only cares about the health impact, okay, like check, they heard me talk about it. If someone only cares about the new jobs, oh, well, now we're actually talking about that as being related to, you know, pro-environmental policies. And so it's not changing. It's just

broadening the things that we're talking about because they are really broad topics. And I think that far too frequently when we boil them down for, you know, kind of a brief comment here or there, a lot of that gets missed. Okay, last question. I know that you're only on day one of orientation, and then won't be sworn in for a few weeks. So forgive this question. But how much are you thinking about the next election? Because it is a big one. And how much are you thinking about the picture of the Democratic Party that you and your colleagues will paint for that big and important election, depending on what policy priorities you choose now and how you talk about and pursue those priorities? I think it's a really simple answer. I mean, a variety of candidates across the country talked to voters about what was important to them.

And we need to take action on the issues that they said were important. important to them. And we need to take action on the issues that they said were important. But I think even on a broader scale, we need to continue being engaged in the way that we were engaged along the campaign trail, where we were listening to voters and really acknowledging their concerns and their challenges. And voters realize we can't solve every problem in a day or even in a year, but they want to know that we're trying and we're working hard to at least, you know, make that effort. But does it feel like a burden to know that whatever you do or don't do may shape whether or not the party stands a chance of truly controlling government? I don't think it's a burden. I think it's a tremendous opportunity and an honor to be a part

of getting people excited about being involved in politics again. And that's been a real key. I think even in this election, we had tremendous turnout in our district and I know in many districts across the country. And it's because we made the conversation more accessible. And I think that goes back to my earlier point. When you broaden the way you talk about issues, you're making the conversation more accessible. And that invites more people in. And the more people who are engaged in the democratic process, I think the better it is for our country and the better it is for the outcomes on legislation and at elections.

I want to thank you so much for talking with us. And I'm just wondering, when it comes to being in Washington now, as a Congresswoman-elect, what are you most nervous about? I'm about to get booted out of my friend's office because he needs to take it back. That would make me nervous. I can't ruin my new friends, my new congressional friends. So I'm just excited at this point. I don't have a lot of nervousness. I'm excited about the opportunity. And I think it's an incredible honor that few people get to have. And so I want to respect it every day and work hard to make sure

that I'm, you know, working in the best interest of my constituents and this country. Well, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Today I'm thrilled to announce my support for this bipartisan bill that will make our community safer and give former inmates a second chance at life after they have served their time.

So important. On Wednesday, joined by members of Congress, President Trump endorsed a major overhaul of the nation's criminal justice system that would begin to unwind a set of sentencing laws from the 1980s and 90s that have incarcerated African American offenders at much higher rates than white offenders. Working together with my administration over the last two years, these members have reached a bipartisan agreement. Did I hear the word bipartisan?

Did I hear that word? Among other things, the legislation would shorten the mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses and reduce the penalty for violating three strikes laws from life in prison to 25 years. I urge lawmakers in both House and Senate to work hard and to act quickly and send a final bill to my desk and I look very much forward to signing it. The president's support, which remained uncertain

until his news conference on Wednesday, is considered crucial to the bill's passage because of opposition from conservative members of the House and Senate. I'm waiting. I'll be waiting with a pen. And we will have done something. We will have done something that hasn't been done in many, many years. And it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do.

Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.