Arianna Huffington: Speaking her Mind

She was once a Republican stalwart but is now unaffiliated and considers herself a gadfly of both parties. The strong woman behind then-husband Michael Huffington's record-setting and futile $28 million California senatorial campaign several years ago, she has also gone to “bed" with comedian Al Franken to critique the '96 convention for Comedy Central and written a number of international bestsellers on Maria Callas, Pablo Picasso and feminism and scholarly works on political leadership and Greek mythology. The Athenian-born Huffington, nee Stassinopoulos, is a Cambridge-educated M.A. in Economics and most recently ran for governor of California. She now lives with her daughters Christina and Isabella in Los Angeles and Washington D.C.

You’re a serious advocate, but several years ago you also wrote a comic fantasy. Why?

Because I think right now what's happening in politics kind of cries out for satire and I feel that by using satire you can still make important political points, but make them in a way that attracts people more, that entertains at the same time as it instructs, which has always been a great Greek way, going back to Aristophanes. Aristophanes made very, very important points, but he made them through laughter and satire and as a result they often had a very powerful effect.

Any reaction from the people you satirized in your comic fantasy?

I've had reactions from a lot of people. The book was a sort of equal-opportunity offender. I criticize the Republicans and Democrats. So I think that at least nobody can say that I'm a partisan, because I criticize and satirize all political players that display the characteristics that I'm focusing on...But then, you know, people don't normally allow themselves to be upset about satire, because that shows they have no sense of humor. Even if they are upset, it's hard to show it because people are supposed to be good-humored about satirical criticism. It's very much a political tradition. You have the White House Correspondents' dinner or a lot of other dinners in Washington which have both journalists and politicians satirizing each other. And being good-humored about it is really just one of the ways.

Did Washington insiders, fueled on ego and power, appreciate the teasing?

Well, sometimes it gets awkward. But I feel that if you're going to be truthful as a journalist and as a writer, you have to be willing to offend even people you like on some level, or even who are your friends, otherwise you cannot write really an honest column or an honest book.

Do you consider yourself a Washington insider?

Not at all. I definitely consider myself somebody who likes to observe and analyze and satirize with all the freedom that the outsider has. I'm not saying that I'm considered an outsider, but I consider myself and it's helpful to be Greek and not to have been born here, because that gives you more freedom.

Do people see you as Greek and foreign-born or just a very visible figure?

I don't think this is their first thought, but, you know, I do have an unmistakable accent. So it's not as if it's something that is not immediately obvious. And I'm very proud of my Greek ancestry and I feel that it gives me a great launching pad: all my study of the Greek philosophers and reason and logic has definitely sharpened my debating skills. And the fact that I'm willing to call them as a I see them and let people know that I'm not just a partisan who will only criticize one side.

What's happened to your on-off relationship with established Republicans who were once your closest allies, like former House speaker Newt Gingrich?

I wouldn't call it on-off, I would call it definitely off. I think he betrayed a lot of the things he promised to do in his first speech when he became Speaker, when he talked about his priority being to deal with what he called, the "moral imperative" of fighting poverty. And this is one of the main themes in my columns and even in the book, that America is becoming two nations: one nation is prospering from the good economy and another is really being left behind in the inner cities and crumbling public schools. And for me, that's a litmus test of politicians and other public figures and Newt Gingrich has not passed it.

Does it make any difference what party is in power when the parties now have stolen so many ideas from each other and practically merged?

I think there's definitely been a merging and I think the two parties now seem to be primarily interested in satisfying their donors and their corporate interests and that is definitely one of the problems. There is very little independent thinking at the moment.

What's the alternative?

I think the answer is, first of all, for the public to begin to reconnect and practice a few acts of civil disobedience. If you look at things that we can influence as members of the public, politics is one that has been very much taken over by pollsters, and on my website I have this campaign called Partnership for a Poll-Free America and it's basically about asking people to take a pledge to hang up on pollsters. Which is a small way to basically say, we're not going to participate in this charade of politicians using pollsters to find out what the people are thinking and then feeding it back to us. Because that's the most shallow understanding of problems. And in fact, a dirty little secret of pollsters is that you have only 35% who even bother to respond to pollsters. So you have a very unrepresentative sample. And as I have Abraham Lincoln say in the last chapter of my book, pollsters have replaced leaders, and one of the things that we most urgently need is the renewal of political leadership.

What's wrong with polls using modern techniques to find out what voters are thinking?

I think that it is bad because some of the greatest problems we're facing do not even make it to the polls. Look at nuclear proliferation, which is clearly one of the gravest problems we are facing. It doesn't even appear as a question in the polls. Or looking at America becoming two nations and the problems of the inner cities. They don't even mention it during the polls. That's where leadership counts.

Would you consider running for office again?

Not at the moment. Right now I have two children and a very full life with my writing and my television work. But it's really not in my plans at the moment.

It's not something that you rule out?

Well, I never rule anything out. I'm a survivor. That's the Greek in me.

Your former husband spent a record amount running for office, but Al Checchi beat him this year when he spent $40 million to run for governor in California. Why do California candidates spend so much?

Well, obviously, they do it because it is the most expensive media state to run in. But certainly Checchi broke all records. He has become the poster child of campaign spending, instead of Michael. But I think that has to change, too. There is an enormous amount of spending at the moment that was really wasted in the Checchi campaign. I don't think it's unseemly. If you're going to spend a lot of money you might as well spend it on important ideas and changing the public consensus, but he just spent it on very negative ads.

So there's nothing wrong with spending money to get your ideas across?

There's nothing wrong spending the money as long as you're actually spending it in a productive way to change things and bring ideas into politics.

Candidates say, first I have to get elected before I can do anything.

I don't believe that anymore. Because I've seen how people run conventional campaigns and say that, I'll get elected and then I will do creative things. B ut it doesn't happen. People do not govern better than they campaign.

Do you think Republicans came on too strong a few years ago with their Republican revolution and did their promises come back to haunt them?

I don't think they came on too strong. I think the problem is that the Republicans have not dealt with the primary issue, which is how do we care for those in need if we don't do it through big government. They have not really answered that question. I think we need to address that question, both parties need to address that question. A lot of big Great Society problems have failed. So that's the reason we're opposed to them. Not because they're expensive, but because they're not effective. A lot of the problems the programs address are human problems and you cannot deal with them in an impersonal way, they require our participation. That's why I started the Center for Effective Compassion, that deals with encouraging citizens to volunteer to get more involved in their community.

Do you think the Republican party has turned irretrievably right?

I don't think that's the situation. I think this is just the way the media often portrays things. But I think the key issue is not that division in the Republican party, but the division between those who recognize the need to address the problems of what I call the second nation that's left behind. And there is a group within the Republican party called The Renewal Alliance that has addressed those issues. It's just that the leadership has not moved that agenda to the forefront.

Do you think the rank and file of the party can relate to a glamorous figure like you?

I speak to many Republican groups around the country and I have great friendships among many people all around the country who are involved in the grass roots level with the Republican party.

You left Greece as a teenager, how did your childhood there affect you?

It's been very central because my education is a classical education. I think it's been a real big part of my thinking.

Your father left when you were nine?

My parents separated. But my father (Constantine, a journalist) was always very involved with us. And in fact, I'm leaving to go to Athens and see my father. My children left with Michael already, and they're going to Athens via London. So Michael, who's become Greek Orthodox, is very involved with Greece. We remain good friends and we're going to spend time there this summer.

Did growing up with your sister and mother in a household of strong women give you your bravado?

(Laughs) Well, I think it's definitely one of the greatest blessings in my life that I had a mother who believed that her daughters could do anything and who gave us unconditional love. So even if we failed, she loved us. So we could try things and fly and let our wings take us where they would, and if we didn't succeed, we knew she would still be there loving us.

Where did your mother get her bravado?

I don't know where she got it, but she definitely had it.

Any qualms as a foreigner and woman attending a bastion of male elitism like Cambridge?

Actually, I think sometimes the less you know the less you're intimidated. And that is the case with me. I have not been born with all those stories about how hallowed Cambridge was. I found it actually less intimidating than it was for others who are born in England and who had all those stories told to them on their mother's knee.

You were the first foreign-born student and only the third woman to win the presidency of the Debating Society. Did you have any reservations about running and beating such odds?

You know, whenever you run for anything, you don't know if you're going to succeed. So, it's not as if I had any illusions that I was definitely going to succeed, but I had no qualms about trying.