An Interview With New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu

On Monday, May 8, Editor-in-Chief of The Dartmouth Review Matthew O. Skrod (TDR) sat down with New Hampshire Governor Christopher T. Sununu (CS) for a 45-minute interview on a wide range of topics. Governor Sununu, visiting Hanover for the day, answered a variety of questions regarding New Hampshire policy and politics, his philosophy of governance, and pressing national issues and concerns.

TDR: Governor, thank you for taking the time to talk with The Review. Let’s begin with some New Hampshire-specific questions. In line with concerns shared by parents throughout the United States, the New Hampshire General Court, under Republican control, has been crafting various iterations of a parental-rights bill. Most recently, the State Senate passed Bill 272. The Boston Globe reports today that you have a generally favorable view of this bill. Would you be able to elaborate on that and speak to how this bill compares with other bills, advanced by the State House, of which you have been substantially less in favor?

CS: Well, I think the House proposal had a lot of different pieces in it. The public testified. They expressed a lot of concern with the issues of penalizing teachers and things of that nature, and the Senate bill took all that out. It made sure that the public’s voices were heard, and it made changes. I think this has been a very good example of the process of allowing folks to come and testify and talk about the good parts of a bill or the parts of a bill they don’t like.

Most people in the state want to see a parental bill of rights pass, on which I’m with them as a parent, and make sure it isn’t anything that (a) gets hung up in court or (b) destroys valuable conversations within the classroom. I think the Senate bill—as far as I’ve seen, and I don’t think they’ve made any changes to it, and hopefully they won’t—really strikes the right balance. It makes sure that teachers can’t be lying to parents, but there are also protections for students. If exposure of those types of conversations could lead to abuse or something of that nature, teachers have an out as well. So the bill, I think, really addresses both in a very even way. My sense is that it will likely get to my desk.

TDR: May I interpret your remarks as commentary on your reading of the bill rather than active involvement in the drafting or redrafting process?

CS: That’s right, I didn’t draft the bill. You know, they tried a parental-rights bill last year, and the State Attorney General said that it would probably lose in court. He had a lot of concerns with it legally. And I don’t draft pretty much any of these bills at all. But I will always go and say, as I did then, “Listen, the Attorney General—our conservative Attorney General—has concerns that what you want to pass will get thrown out.” And we’ve seen this happen in other states, where the base, whether on the left or the right, gets excited about a particular bill on an issue and makes it fairly extreme, only for it to ultimately get thrown out in court. Well then, what’s the point? What did you just go through all the hassle for? So, I think the Senate really tried to address a lot of the legal concerns that the Attorney General brought up, and it seems that they’ve done so well.

TDR: At a recent meeting of the Executive Council, the state’s historical-marker program was roundly criticized by Republican membership, and you called for a review of the program. Would you be able to elaborate?

CS: Well, traditionally, the state doesn’t review things like markers for content so much as for historical accuracy and other boxes that need to be checked. But, again, the state hasn’t historically looked into whether we agree with the content and whether it’s something that should be celebrated. So, we went back and looked at those guidelines, and we’re going to make some changes and make sure that the commissioner understands that he or she does have purview over content and does have final say there. 

It’s never been a very controversial program at all. We have historical markers all over the state for everything. Some things, I guess, could be deemed slightly controversial here and there. The one highlighted at the meeting was pretty extreme, and it seemed that this was more of an issue of the process, where I don’t think anyone really appreciated that they did have a potential role in looking at the content, as no one had ever done it before. It never really rose to such a level until after this particular marker was put up. 

This marker is about one individual who was very un-American, who fought against the United States, who was not just pro-communist but actually advocated an uprising against capitalism in the United States. You really don’t get any more un-American than that. And so it’s very clear to see, it’s not a matter of offense, although a lot of folks are offended by it. For me, it’s just a matter of being un-American. Should the state be involved in celebrating someone who’s so un-American? No, of course not. 

I’ve been very clear that I don’t like the marker. I don’t think it should have gone up. I don’t think anyone, at the state or the city level, really understood that maybe this could have been pulled back because of content as opposed to just accuracy. Just because there might be a group out there that wants a marker put up or some other form of historical recognition made doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. And again, we should always have discretion in that and understand our roles of discretion. So, I think that will be more clearly defined going forward. I’m not sure where it will all lay out. For now, we’ve let the city of Concord know that they can reconsider, because they’re the ones who technically applied for it and put in all the paperwork. 

TDR: In your first term, the State House and State Senate were under Republican control. In your second term, both were under Democrat control. In your third and fourth terms, both have been under Republican control. How would you describe your role, under these various arrangements of government, in encouraging bills to get to your desk? You’ve certainly commented publicly on your views on pending legislation. However, do you advocate specific policies? If so, to what extent, and in which domains? 

CS: There are certain bills that I feel very passionate about, which I don’t mind being right out in front of. There are instances where I like a bill, but, as I’ve learned to appreciate, it might change a hundred different ways between the time it’s introduced to the time it gets to my desk. So, if I get too out in front of a bill and say, “this is the greatest bill ever,” and it changes a hundred different ways, well, then I might have to explain why I am vetoing the bill that I had said was so great. So, early on in the process, I really restrain myself unless it’s something that is clear cut and I’m passionate about.

I also appreciate that sometimes my advocacy can work against a bill. There is a political dynamic. I’ve had Democrats come up and tell me, “We want to support this. We know you’re for it. Would you please just stay quiet on it? The louder you are, the more political it will become, and it will be harder to pass something.” To attain a bipartisan success, I say, “Oh, okay, fine.” Democrats might ask me not to force them or their party into a corner, at which point they will need to come out against me for political reasons. So, while I don’t do things for political reasons, I appreciate others may. 

Therefore, there are lots of reasons why I might be very strongly for, or not for, or quiet on a bill, depending on the changes it could go through or the political dynamics that others are facing when having to cast those votes.

TDR: Are there some pieces of legislation which originate in your office? 

CS: The budget! And so much of the state is driven on the budget. That’s the biggest example. I try to keep non-fiscal things out of the budget. I know that the House and Senate will typically put a few things back in, and I don’t like that. You always have to weigh, okay, do you have to shut down the government to get this stuff out. Sometimes you can do it, sometimes you can’t. But the budget is a big one.

As for non-budget items, from a policy perspective, I might talk to a Senator or a Representative and propose an idea. If they like it, they’ll run with it. But most everything that originates from my office is budget-oriented and management-oriented. 

TDR: A brief question now on the state budget: In your original budget this year, not just in the final version passed and signed into law, one of the items which caught my eye was a 10% increase in salaries of state employees. What was the process for formulating this increase, and what was the conservative legislative response to this particular item?

CS: Well, the process is looking at inflation. I mean, it’s just a product of inflation. Average wages in the state have gone up well beyond that in the past three years. Inflation is cumulative, so, over the past three years, total inflation exceeds 20% at this point. There was a year of close to 10% and then 6% and 8%. So, it all really adds up. This would be a 10 and 2—the second year there’s another 2% increase.

It’s actually probably at or even just slightly below where private market wages have gone. You can have all the best programs, all the best ideas in the world, but it doesn’t matter if you don’t have people. At a nearly 20% vacancy rate throughout the state government, we need people, and we need to compete with the private market. I think we have a great work-life balance, a great pension system, and other great benefits. But, you know, when it comes to wages, it’s a big piece. 

We put it forward, but it received virtually no pushback. Everyone understands what inflation is. Everyone knows that McDonald’s has gone from 11 to 16 dollars. And that’s a 45% increase, well beyond 12%, so the state has had to respond and make sure that we have people. So, the conservative response has been that it was probably a good thing to do. 

TDR: Last year, New Hampshire created a Department of Energy. Would you be able to describe a bit of your role in its genesis?

CS: Energy is such a huge part of governing. It isn’t that the government controls energy rates per se. We have a free and private market that does that. But then there’s the regulatory oversight of energy—the investments that are created with many of the subsidies that are added on to your electric bills; how we deal with renewable energy issues; how we deal with fairness and cooperative issues in the market. It requires a reverse auction with our ISO grid. Our ISO grid is basically all six New England states tied together. 

So, it’s an incredibly complex thing. Previously, the Department of Energy was really a sub-department buried in a bureaucracy that was very politically driven and only attached to the Governor’s Office. It didn’t make much sense. This past year is a great example of energy affecting people’s lives in a very big way. You don’t want politics involved in it at all. You just want to be making the best decisions for your state while also understanding the regional components of the dynamics of fuels or source markets or how power plants work. 

This complexity meant that bringing it to a commissioner level was long overdue. It has allowed us to respond very quickly and aggressively to the regional skyrocketing of energy rates. We still have some of the lowest rates in New England but some of the highest in the country because, as a whole, we don’t have fossil fuels here. We have to bring them in. But we are going to have to rely on fossil fuels for quite some time, as we really should while we make this transition. They are the cheapest, easiest-to-handle, safest components of energy that we have and have traditionally had.

So, again, other states around us have made very aggressive decisions. Their energy policies based on politics have driven their rates through the roof. What we’re trying to do is be a leader in the region and be the example to get everybody back into a little more of a practical mindset of making decisions based on lowering rates. Inflation and especially inflation on energy is the worst tax on the poor anyone can ever inflict. And so, you have these left-leaning, liberal states that claim to want to help low-income families but create inflationary problems that hurt those families worse than anybody. They think it’s politically convenient. They don’t do the math; they just do the politics.

The math comes to bear when families can’t afford anything. And what’s the result? Well, right now, across this country, families have a higher amount of personal debt than ever before. They’re barely able to pay their energy bills. We in New Hampshire are really trying to be a regional leader to be a little more practical in how we go about things. Having a Department of Energy, a real department as opposed to just a buried bureaucracy, really helps bring that to the forefront.

TDR: This past year, as redistricting was going on, you vetoed several times bills which came your way from the Republican-controlled state legislature that would have made CD-1 solidly Republican and CD-2 solidly Democrat. Would you be able to describe what motivated your decision-making on that front? Was it a commitment to good governance—to looking out for the people of New Hampshire?

CS: Everyone in this country is frustrated with the ultra-partisanship that we’ve seen grow especially over the past 10 years or so. A huge part of that is the result of massive gerrymandering all across the country, where, of the 435 U.S. House of Representative seats, maybe 150 to 200 were competitive at one time. A Republican could win or a Democrat could win. That has been winnowed down, because of gerrymandering, to 50 to 75 seats, tops. The more the parties gerrymandered, the more each party won gerrymandered districts, the more each became no longer afraid of the other party. Members of Congress are now more afraid of their own party and being primaried. So, it pushes them deeper into the ultra-left or the ultra-right. They choose to take the more politically convenient position of an extremist as opposed to needing to work to the middle, which they’re afraid would hurt them politically. And often that results in, I would say, worse government and worse results—or, in the case we’ve seen lately, sometimes no government, where nothing is moving.

I’m not going to be part of that. I know we only have our two little Congressional districts here in New Hampshire, but I’m trying to lead by example and not be a part of that trend. I think that good candidates should be able to win any district anywhere. The way I explained it to my Republican friends who were sending me these bills, I said: “Look at CD-2. Why would I give Annie Kuster a job for life?” She certainly hasn’t earned it in my eyes. So, why would we do that? And why would we throw gasoline on the fire that’s really part of the problem? Once you go down that road, you really can’t undo it. That genie isn’t put very easily back in the bottle.

Incidentally, I believe in term limits for the federal government very strongly for the same reasons. I think gerrymandering has led to so much angst, anxiety, partisanship, anger, and inability to work across the aisle—all of these things that we as Americans hate. In New Hampshire, I think we work across the aisle very well, but the rest of the country is really in a tough, tough place. 

I’m just not going to be part of that. I think I was the only governor who actually vetoed his or her districts. Of course, it went to the State Supreme Court, and they made some small changes on population, which was the right thing to do, and we’re fine. A Republican can still very much win in CD-1 and CD-2. A Democrat could win in either district as well. And that’s it. I’m just not in the business of giving Democrats jobs for life. 

TDR: I take it you would ascribe Republicans’ inability to win a federal election in New Hampshire, then, to not choosing candidates who fit the district profile? 

CS: Part of it, yeah. Lately, in this state, one of the biggest challenges we have is the late primary in September. I’m a big believer in federal campaign-finance reform. I hate all these giant amounts of national dark money, which flood in here on these races. So, once you’re an incumbent in New Hampshire, you can raise a lot of money nationally, have a giant war chest, and have to defend yourself for only eight weeks. It’s completely unfair. It’s a system that has made it very difficult for anyone to challenge an incumbent now that the money has gotten so big.

When the money wasn’t huge, when almost all the money was just raised locally, in the right time, it was a totally different story. Incumbents did face serious challenges.

But you add that to a bad quality of candidate, and it’s made challenging incumbents just a very tough thing to do in a state like New Hampshire. So, I think we need to move that primary back to June. 

TDR: I now have a question regarding students who attend college in New Hampshire. I am allowed to vote in New Hampshire because I have “domicility” in the state, which I obtain by virtue of being a Dartmouth student. This is to say, New Hampshire allows students to vote as “domiciles”…

CS: Well, I tried to fix that, but it got overturned by the State Supreme Court. Look, if you’re not a resident, you shouldn’t be able to vote here. That’s it. It’s really just that simple. And most every state has that same rule. 

TDR: Right. That was in 2017, so, may I ask, is this an issue to which you anticipate you and Republican legislators will return in the near future?

CS: They haven’t tried to come back to it. I mean, if they want to try to fix that again, I’d be happy to sign it. I don’t see why our laws provide such an excessive amount of flexibility for folks who don’t even live here. 

TDR: I’d now like to segue into a more philosophically inclined question. It seems to me that you conceive of your role as governor in several ways. You’re a sort of broker in the state government. You are a deal maker in many respects. You also have no trouble vetoing your own party’s proposals when you don’t like them…

CS: I have no problem vetoing anybody’s proposal if it’s a bad idea! A bad idea is a bad idea no matter who wrote it.

TDR: …Is what I am describing born of pragmatism? Is it born of a commitment to what I would, again, call good government or good governance?

CS: It’s really born of a long-term vision. It’s easy to fall into political pitfalls or just do what your party wants if you’re thinking in the short term and trying to get to the next election. But I think the most valuable thing you can do as an elected official, whether you’re on the planning board or the school board or you’re a governor or the president, is to really stay disciplined to long-term vision. 

What effects will our actions today have on the state 20 years from now? For all 1.4 million people, regardless of age, political affiliation, whatever? So, you have to stay to that. What are we about? How do we differentiate ourselves? 

And then we get into the “why”s. I know that some things which I either veto or hold a line on might surprise people. But what I’m looking at in proposals is, okay, are you doing this because you’re politically driven? Are you doing this because some other state did it? I mean, that’s among the worst reasons to do something. Are you doing this because we need more money? That is the worst reason ever to do anything. The government doesn’t “need” people’s money. The government can be just fine—we’ve shown good fiscal discipline wins out the day every time.

I believe in staying true to what this state is about, not worrying about what everyone else is doing, and also appreciating that we are the example for so many other states in the country. Traditionally, we’ve worked hard at not letting politics dictate our stances. 

So, I would say the philosophy hones in on long-term vision and also, not to sound corny, really embraces what “Live Free or Die” means. I always say, it’s not four words on a license plate. We have to stay true to what it is because it’s so unique. Trust me, 49 other states would love to get the results that we’re getting. 

It’s really about local control. Just because we think we know we’re right doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it. The government can do a lot of things that I think are right, but should the government be doing them? Often, no. Knowing the limits of your own power is an incredibly important tool. Most states around us in the country try to add to the governor’s power. I try to do just the opposite. I try to decentralize the government. I try to send authority, money, and opportunities back to cities and towns. When in doubt, let the voters have more say, which will be in a city or town.

TDR: How, then, would you assess movements in the national Republican Party, not necessarily at the federal level but in terms of other Republican governors who are centralizing authority and imposing statewide measures?

CS: Well, I think most governors, especially Republican governors, do a good job because there’s always a sense of accountability. I understand there’s some political movement here or there. But I think if you’re going to line up 26 of the best elected officials in the country, let’s start with the 26 Republican governors. I think these governors can, and in large part do, get into a lot of detail that most any other elected official just doesn’t. 

There is a lot more national discussion about being a “big-government Republican.” All Democrats are big government. They think government is better and that they and it know better than you do. They don’t, and the government doesn’t. I’m the governor, and I’m here to tell you that we’re not here to solve your problems. You know what your family needs, you know what your business needs, you have a better understanding of it. I want you to have the power to make changes even more than I do. 

Because politics has gotten so nationalized and there’s so much national money coming in, there are a lot of folks who will tend to whatever the national policy or the national stance may be. But, to your point, we’ve seen even some Republicans start to tend down a path of big-government answers. A lot of them end up realizing what’s going on, and they pivot. They realize, “Okay, maybe that was too much,” or, “We’ve gone too far,” or whatever it might be. 

We’re never going to beat the Democrats at their own game of big-government solutions, nor should we try, because those are absolute failures. If there’s any message I need to repeat all the time, it is that we’re not here to solve your problems. We’re here to create opportunity—doors of opportunity, and many of them.

So, your kid wants to go to school. How many different options can I possibly design and set up for you? And then you do you. You decide what path or what door you want your kid to go through. You want your business to be successful? How many different doors of opportunity, how many different pathways of success, can I possibly create for you? And then you decide what pathway to go down. It’s not my job to tell you. I’ll design the options, and you create the solution for yourself. I think it’s a very fundamentally different way of approaching government, the right way to do it, and also the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it being done. It’s a way to create efficiency in the system, drain the swamp—if you want to use that line—and get around bigger bureaucracies that typically just get in people’s way. 

TDR: Philosophically, it is also much more in the conservative tradition of this country than is the “big-government Republican” trend of which you spoke.

CS: Oh yes. It evokes the lowercase-“l” libertarian, so to speak?

TDR: Right. I take it you would describe yourself as having libertarian inclinations? I know others have described you as such.

CS: Absolutely. I call it lowercase-“l” libertarianism. Not the capital “L” by any means. Libertarians are getting a little out there, man. I don’t even know what that party’s all about anymore. They’ve completely lost their way. But the lower-case “l” is what New Hampshire is. It just means a little less government, a little more individual freedom. And we’re very good at those two things. 

TDR: There was a bill sent to your desk by the legislature just about a year ago that sought to do in New Hampshire what Governor DeSantis did in Florida with respect to mask mandates—namely, preventing localities from implementing them. You vetoed that bill. I take it your veto stemmed from the philosophy we just discussed?

CS: Yes. If the state government is going to go down the path of picking and choosing the public-health policies that are implementable or not implementable at a local level, then the Democrats are eventually going to come in to do the same thing and pick theirs. We would be setting a precedent. 

Mask mandates existed for a very long time throughout the state, including in Hanover of course, and I was not in favor of any of them. But just because I’m not in favor doesn’t mean I am going to exercise my governmental will to force a town or city to do what I want. Once you do that, you’re setting that precedent and you’re picking and choosing what is good depending on the administration. Again, in the long term, that’s a problem.

If the people in Hanover, let’s say, don’t like the policies guiding their public schools, then guess what? Next March, they’ll go and they’ll fire all the members of the public-school board. It’s their choice. So, the voters have complete control on it. Now, who’s smarter and knows more about what’s best in their schools? The governor or the parents who live here? Clearly, it’s the parents. This is all about parental rights, which are the two words with which I think we started our conversation.

I get that it takes a while for people to understand that just because we don’t like something, just because we’re angry at something, doesn’t mean we will intervene. I sympathize with a lot of the conservatives or Republicans or folks who just didn’t agree with the mask mandates in these towns, but it was the policy of each town. You can’t just always look to the “right guys” in power up in Concord, the “right guys” in power in Washington. Once there’s someone else in power, he can screw you over by using the same authority. I’m not going down that path. You’ve got to stay disciplined and stay true to not making the problems worse just because there’s a short-term political solution and more convenient path.

TDR: Moving more concretely to national issues: Governor Chris Christie has been in New Hampshire a few times recently, and during his visits he has stated quite compellingly that he was hardly a “never Trumper.” Of course, after he withdrew from the 2016 presidential primaries, he was the first of the GOP presidential candidates to endorse Donald Trump. But now he makes a convincing case as to why he’s a “never-again Trumper.” Would you assign yourself to the same camp? Or, should Donald Trump win the 2024 nomination, would you support him?

CS: I would support Trump, yes. Think of the alternative. Think of the socialism, the horrible left-wing policies that have created everything from unsafe communities to a homeless crisis in this country of unparalleled levels. Of course, I would support any Republican over the alternative at this point because it’s been an abject disaster over the past couple of years. Inflation is real, and it hurts low-income families. The Democrat Party has just created worse and worse situations for all of the people that it pretends to help. Think of the border crisis. We have a president who is often quite literally asleep at the wheel. Leadership matters, especially as a world power.

I won’t speak to Chris’ perspective. Chris is one of my better friends, but I’m still fairly confident—very confident, even—that Trump won’t be the nominee. There’s still a lot to play out here. You know, we haven’t even had a debate yet, guys. Trump doesn’t have his fastball. He’s not the same guy he was in 2016. And, as Republicans, I just don’t believe that we’re going to settle for going backwards. You can’t tell me we don’t have a good enough bench. You can’t tell me we don’t have good enough ideas to keep moving forward with another generation or with better ideas as opposed to just staying with an individual who will have absolutely no ability to get anything done in Washington. Trump would be locked out—Democrats will literally never work with him out of principle, ever. Zero, period, end of story. 

So, Trump is going to be the one who has the least chance of securing immigration reform and securing the border and of, really, draining the swamp. He didn’t do it the first time with Republicans. How’s he going to do it this time with Democrats? That’s why he doesn’t want to get on the debate stage—he knows that these failures are going to be brought up. He’s going to be held accountable. 

Now, do I think that Democrats are really beating up on him politically with this DA in New York? Yes, it’s a political witch hunt. I feel bad for him, too. I think it’s completely inappropriate and unnecessary. So, when people take a poll and they say, do you support Donald Trump? They say, well, yeah, of course I support the guy. They’ve been beating up on him. This doesn’t necessarily mean these people are going to vote for him. That’s a very different ask and scenario, especially so many months before the election.

There were even legal analysts on MSNBC saying, “I think the Democrats have misplayed this.” And now, there are some polls that say Trump could potentially beat Biden. I don’t think that could happen.

TDR: So, you would say that Trump is the least likely of potential GOP nominees to be able to beat Biden?

CS: Oh, without a doubt. Unquestionably. Just look at November of 2022. There was a big Trump message with Trump-driven candidates who got absolutely slaughtered when we should have won hands-down in an overwhelming red tidal wave, and it was barely a red ripple. Well, the former president, as the leading voice of our party, has to take a lot of responsibility for that. We also lost in 2020 because of his message. We also lost the U.S. House in 2018 because of his message. He has lost us three straight elections we should have won. Why would we go for number four? 

TDR: You are a trustee ex officio of Dartmouth. What are your thoughts on this status?

CS: Technically, yes, I am! I’ve never come to a meeting, but I do that intentionally. I do that respectfully. One thing I appreciate is that, when I walk into the room as governor, the whole conversation changes. I learned that very early on.

Dartmouth is, of course, a private institution. It doesn’t take funding straight from the state government. I just appreciated early on that it’s really Dartmouth’s process. I don’t want my presence to overly influence or sway something one way or the other for a positive or negative reason. I don’t think the governor should be an active trustee ex officio of Dartmouth. I think it’s just adding a presence where it is unneeded, at least in practice. I want people to understand why I don’t come to the meetings. It’s not because I don’t care. It’s because I respect that Dartmouth is an independent institution. 

UNH is different. I’ll go to those meetings, and I’ll participate in some of them. Even there, though, I try to participate only when I’m very passionate about something. But I also appoint board members there to carry my message of where I think the state needs to go. So, even then, I don’t really have to get particularly involved. It is really a matter of respecting the process.

TDR: Today, at Dartmouth, you’re going to be talking with the Dean of the Tuck School, which I understand you’ve done at least once before. You have a business background. Do you view yourself as a sort of businessman-turned-politician?

CS: I have given a couple of speeches up here before, just for little groups here and there.

I’m an engineer, and I’m a business guy. I’m serving in a public-service role as governor. And I’ll go back to being an engineer and a business guy at some point. And that’s it. It’s public service, not a public career.

You can’t run the government like a business for certain reasons. It’s not my money—it’s your money. You need different sets of checks of balances. When I ran my business, if I wanted to build a new chairlift, I could write a check and build a new chairlift. You can’t run the government like that. However, you can bring good foundational business practices and policies of accountability, efficiency, management, and employment.

I try to bring these lessons into government. I do think that the best political leaders come from business, from engineering, from design. Young students ask me routinely: “I want to be a politician. How do I do it?” I answer, well, go get a job first. This is not a career; this is service. 

But you also have to know how to deal with people. You have to know how to work in a public sphere, which is very different than working on a company’s board of directors. I was a CEO working with my board of directors, and those were different, private conversations. In this realm that I’m in now, everything is public. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but how you negotiate, how you get things done, and how you use influence to hopefully get better policies achieved is very different. This is something, I will add, that former President Trump never understood. He thought he could treat the government like the private sector. You can’t, and you shouldn’t for certain reasons. That was one of his problems in the long term and where he really fell into a trap. 

TDR: Lastly, Governor, I am informed that it would not be altogether improper for me to ask if, when you declare your 2024 presidential candidacy, I might be able to secure another interview?

CS: Ha! Sure, if we get to that. Trust me, if I jump off that bridge, I’ll be sure you’re there to watch me splash.

TDR: It’s been a privilege, Governor. Thank you for taking the time.

CS: Thank you.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.