Program transcript:
Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations, I'm Grant Reeher. My guest today is Will Barclay. The Pulaski based Republican has represented New York's 120th State Assembly district since 2003 and was the minority leader of that chamber from 2020 until just last week. He recently announced that he was stepping down from that position, and that he would not run for reelection to the Assembly this coming November. Assemblyman Barclay has been on the program several times in the past. Assemblyman Barclay, it's bittersweet, but welcome back to the program.
Will Barclay: Thanks, Grant. As always, I appreciate you having me on. I will say this is the first interview I have done since I made my announcement that I wasn't seeking reelection and since I've stepped down as minority leader. So, I always appreciated your interviewing style and I think you give a good, fair shake to all sides, so I appreciate that and look forward to talking with you today.
GR: Oh, that's very nice of you, well thanks so much, I appreciate that very much. Well, let me just start with a basic question about the timing of your decision and the timing of your announcement. What were some of the factors that went into that for you?
WB: Well, I think primarily the biggest factor was personal. I served for 23 years. You know, I live in Pulaski, I have two boys and my wife, and they put up a lot with politics and I think I put my time in. So, the timing just seemed right from a personal perspective. I’m 57, so I'm not, I'm older, but not so old that I can't do other things in my life and I figured if I kept running for reelection, some of those other things that I would like to do, you know, I had a shorter time period to accomplish them. So that was a primary reason that I decided to get out. There's other factors, like outside income for one that played a role, but I would say that was a relatively minor role. And I think also it's good to have new blood come in to, you know, I have been leading the conference for six years, I gave it my best shot and there's a lot of successes I think I had there, but it's always good to, I think, get new energy. So that also played a role and I feel very confident with the new leadership that's come in in our conference that's going to lead it appropriately going forward.
GR: You mentioned in the course of that, the outside income limitations and I appreciate that you did that. I was going to ask you about that and concerned that it might be a little sensitive for you, but you brought it up. So, what I'm assuming that is that, you know, there's this new rule, new law, and it's been challenged, but it looks like now it's going to take effect next year. And it limits the outside income that state legislators can make, I believe it's $35,000 a year. Is that correct?
WB: Yeah, that’s correct.
GR: So, I guess what I'm taking from this, then, is that you are a lawyer, and you've had a law career so that that was going to constrain your ability to push out on your law career, is that what you mean?
WB: Yeah, I'm involved in a number of different things, but yes. So, there is, you know, Mrs. Barclay would like me to earn more money. (laughter) I think anybody's family would like to see spouses, you know, earning more money. So, again, that played a role. But I don't want to overblow that, even though I do find that outside income limitation, really a misdirection by the state and bad public policy. You know, we have public financing of campaigns, now we're going to have full time legislators. And what you're going to see is full dependency by members of the legislature on leadership, because they control all that power. And if you don't have enough income or outside job, you're less willing to take, in my mind, risk. And this was never meant to be a full-time legislator. In my mind, I think it's important that we can attract people with backgrounds, you know, with all different occupations. And I worry that, you know, making this a full-time legislature just will not attract maybe some of the people that I think would be very helpful to good government and legislators. But I don't want to dwell too much, because that was a bit. I’m (unintelligible) it didn't play any role, it did play some role. But, you know, I could have gone on for 2 or 4 more years with, you make a very good salary in the Assembly, so it wasn't like we're going to be impoverished by any sense of it, but it did drive me. And one thing, Grant, it did point to sort of a bigger issue that, you know, I've had frustration with all my time serving down there, but I think it's become more acute over the years is the one-party rule. And we hear a lot about the Republicans drifting right. You know, I don't change my ideology. A few issues I've changed on, some to the left, frankly, and some to the right. But, generally I've had my same beliefs since I've been down there. Where I've seen the biggest drift is from the Democrats moving more to the left and that's because it's hard to have a check on that, because, you know, they control the Senate, they control the Assembly and they control executive branch. So, it's been very hard. And that frustration has probably grown in me over the last few years. And that's another reason I think maybe someone new in my position can give a different, maybe it’s perspective or a different fight than I've been doing. Not that I think I did a bad job, but again, I think some new blood, can re-energize things which I fully support.
GR: Well, you know, it's interesting, this is not about you now, with the income. I'm thinking about it more generally, but you brought up something I hadn't thought about, of creating a lack of something to fall back on if you're in the legislature and thinking then about this needing to be your career because you're doing it, not only full time, but it is your entire livelihood. And what just went through my head really quickly was thinking about Congress. Members of Congress know when they get out that they've got, they can take that time in Congress and leverage that into something that they can make quite a bit of money at. And we see all sorts of former members of Congress doing that. I guess that's less true for the state legislature. And so that's a yeah, I hadn't thought about the way it might affect things differentially in that regard. It's an interesting point. Well, let me ask you about some of the positive things, and then I do want to dive into some of the things that you just brought up where your frustrations have been. But what do you think you're going to look back most fondly about your service in the state legislature? What’s going to rise to the top of your fondest memories?
WB: Well, I'll talk public policy and some of the successes we had there. But I think what, you know, I went down there, I thought I would serve six years and here I am serving, by the end it’ll be 24 years. And, you know, the reason being is because I love the people that I was able to work with. And I love my colleagues on both sides, I mean, many on both sides of the aisle. So, I ended up making friendships a lot more deeper than I thought, maybe when I first went down there in the first few years that I served that ended up, I think, keeping me there longer than maybe I initially thought I would, so that was good. I think from a public, one thing I love, I love this area. As I've told you many times, I'm 8 generations, so I'm not moving out of the area. My boys are ninth generation, they love here. I love trying to help my area, Oswego County, particularly is where I'm from, Pulaski. So, you know, I look back and some of the successes, some of the things I've been able to accomplish for the area, and that makes me very proud and makes me think my time in politics was worthwhile. Probably on the apex of all that is being able to save the Fitzpatrick nuclear plant. Albeit I didn't do that alone, but I certainly played a, I think a large role in able to save that end up saving thousands of jobs. And lo and behold, look, now we're even looking at possibly getting another new plant here in Oswego County. So, you know, if I had to point to one thing that, I guess I would say was probably my greatest success or the thing that brought me the greatest happiness in the whole thing was saving that plant. There's a lot of other things, being in the minority, I was like, you know, I didn't have the opportunity to pass a lot of state-wide type of legislation, but I can point to a number of things that either we were able to stop or get reform on that I'm also very proud of because I thought the best I could, I was able to use the bully pulpit to sometimes be able to either stop legislation or shame the Democrats into making changes to that legislation. So, there's a whole host of things I'm very proud of during my career and made it all, for me, made it all worthwhile doing it. Even though people often say, you know, you're in the minority, you can't get anything done. I never, like, took that to heart. You can. You just have to have a realistic perspective on it and not think you're going to be able to change the world in a day.
GR: I'm Grant Reeher, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media, and my guest is New York State Assemblyman Will Barclay. So, in a similar vein there, thinking about the institution itself, the way the institution works. What do you think your biggest impact was as minority leader on either your conference or the Assembly more generally?
WB: Well, I can speak very easily on my conference. One thing I saw when I came in, and some of this started with the prior leader too, but we wanted to become more professional. I wanted to have our members be able to have an in-depth understanding of all the issues, so when they were questioned on it or when they had to make a decision on how to vote or what to support, they had all that information at their fingertips. And, you know, one thing I'm again, very proud of, again, I didn't serve in any other conferences in Albany, but I think we brought some professionalism to this operation. And again, it wasn't just me, it was a whole team that was able to do it that I think our members are probably as well informed as any other legislators in Albany. So, I'm very proud that I also think I left a unified conference. Sometimes regional and ideological differences can really weigh on a conference, but at least in my feelings, maybe you could ask some of my fellow members of the council, they may disagree, but I feel like we're very unified going into, and it's necessary to do it because, again, our voice has been diminished as Republicans in Albany. So, if we're not all singing from the same hymnal, it's very hard to get a point across. And I would also extend that to the Senate Republicans. You know, in the past there has been differences between the Senate and the Assembly Republicans mainly because Republicans used to be in the majority, but, we've been able to work very effectively together, I think, over the last few years. And I'm very proud of that relationship too.
GR: Well, you mentioned that your views, some of your views changed over time while you were serving there, and some of them, you said, even moved to the left from where they were originally. I'm going to frame this a little differently and say, when you look back, what do you think was the most significant thing? Or issue that you were, at the time, wrong about as you look at it now?
WB: Yeah, I can think of two things. One, this may not seem as big and probably for younger listeners, they might not even recognize it, but the indoor smoking ban was something that I didn't support. But, personally, it turned out great. You know, I love to be able to come home from a restaurant or somewhere or not smell like smoke. And I didn't realize maybe that impact that it would be afterwards. But, you know, I often concerned my ideological standpoint about the heavy handedness of government, but that was one, I think if I could do over, I probably would vote for. Another big one is gay marriage. And I think that's the country's evolved substantially and I think our party has evolved substantially since that vote. But that was another one that I voted opposed to, and maybe if it was today I might not, you know, I probably I would support gay marriage.
GR: Interesting. I tell you on the first one, I appreciated that the first time I, through several summers I worked in London for a good chunk of the summer. And the first time I went over there and I went into a pub, it was like, oh my God, you know…
WB: Right.
GR: Where is this fog coming from? And it was secondhand smoke. And I remember I just realized how much I appreciate that.
WB: Yeah, it's shocking, isn't it? I mean, you go to some other states or places and it is, it's almost unbearable.
GR: Yeah, yeah. That's interesting. You're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and I'm talking with New York State Assemblyman Will Barclay. The Pulaski Republican who represents the 120th district, served as minority leader of the chamber until just the other week. And he's announced that he will also not be seeking reelection to the Assembly this coming November. And we're discussing his career and some of the things that he will most take with him when he leaves the institution. So, I wanted to come back and ask you a bigger picture question. It's kind of related to some of the themes that you introduced earlier, and I hope here I don't veer off too much into editorializing, but it does strike me that with your retirement, what we have is yet another loss of a particular kind of conservative, a particular kind of Republican that New York used to be famous for and used to excel in. And here's my description of it, and then you can tell me if I've got you wrong and, attach another question to it. But it's a mold of a principled fiscal conservative who doesn't get worked up too much over social issues, isn't a barn burner in that regard, wasn't always entirely predictable politically, and who could talk across the aisle, work across the aisle, and again, as I said before, wasn't really a political bomb thrower. So, two questions here. Do I have you about right? And then my bigger question is, is this political species or subspecies endangered in New York or worse, is it becoming extinct? What's going on?
WB: Well, it's interesting, I think there's a lot of maybe answers I could give to that. You know, again, as I said, you know, I think I stay pretty ideologically similar to when I started my career, other than a few issues here and there where I haven't been. You know, I don't consider myself maybe a bomb thrower, but I certainly believe that I speak as loudly as I can on issues that I strongly believe in, and I encourage Republicans to continue to do that. Maybe where you might see a little difference in me and maybe some others in the Democrat or Republican Party is, I never took anything personal, really, Grant. You know, I see my colleagues, particularly from the city, who have just really very, very different political views than I have, but they're representing their constituency, and they're trying to do what they think is best for their constituency, so I never take that personally. Sometimes, personalities and people bring in different, you know, things, unfortunately, it's just not my personality for that. I think I can see, even though I disagree and don't always understand where they're coming from, at least can understand that perspective. I think things have changed in politics, and maybe I am becoming (unintelligible) or maybe that's why it's good that we'll have new leadership in the Republican Party. But, you know, the social media aspect of it, the soundbite aspect of politics, that has certainly accelerated over the last several years, so it's harder and harder. I remember when I started to put a press release out and probably get some coverage on it. Now you really have to do social media, you have to react quickly. And sometimes I think with that quick, fast reaction, you don't always get maybe careful consideration of the issues, unfortunately. And then you're kind of stuck on a train going down a rail. So, I still think, you know, I wince a little bit when people say, well, you're not really a bomb thrower. I’m not a bomb thrower, but I certainly hope people know I spoke loudly down there, and I fought for the issues that I strongly believe in, and I certainly didn't shy away from any debate on those issues and I'm still willing to enter that fray. But yeah, one, I didn't make it personal, so I think that might differentiate me from some. And maybe my ability to react quickly isn’t as strong, or my willingness to do that is probably less than maybe some other elected officials on all sides, both sides of the aisle.
GR: Interesting. Okay, thanks. Getting back to something that you were talking about earlier as well, sort of where the state is going politically, where it is. The question I wanted to put to you - the states lost three congressional districts in the last two censuses. It's on track to lose two more in the next one in 2030. So, we will have gone in New York from a peak of 45 seats way back in the 1940s to 24 after 2030, in all likelihood. Do you think there's ever going to be a serious reckoning with this in Albany? I mean, in the broadest respects, it does seem like the state just keeps doing what it's been doing in terms of spending and taxes, it sets a new record every year. When is this going to get a serious look?
WB: Well, I'm hoping this next election, frankly. And maybe that makes me the optimist here, but, yeah, it's tough to say. I think as you continue one party rules from I mean, just from 2020, I think to 2024 we lost 900,000 people in New York, so something's not going right. And, you know, I lay the blame on the feet of the one party rule in Albany. You know, they talk, let's take affordability. You know, we hear more and more about affordability. The governor certainly mentioned it a lot in her State of the State, she's mentioned it on the campaign trail everywhere. But I don't see anything coming out of her office or out of either the majorities in both the Senate Assembly that really is addressing affordability. And so what we see is more, for instance, you know, environmental type, sticking with the environment, for one, you know, every year there seems to be onerous types of mandates coming down to electrify things or go to non-fossil fuel based generation. Well, there's a cost to all this. And now people are starting to wake up and they see their utility bills skyrocket. And of course, you know, the Democrats will blame everything. They blame the president, they blame greedy utilities, you name it. But ultimately, if anybody looks at it, it's really because of the policies that were created in Albany that have a huge expense to them. And it’s not just environment, there an issue of health care you could go down, you know, any almost anything out there, housing, you name it, is because of a lot of policies that we pass in Albany. I always say these things, you know, theoretically may sound good, but we don't pass laws in a vacuum and there are real world consequences for some of the stuff we do, and those real world consequences are coming home to roost. So the challenge Republicans have, we've always had is probably, maybe, the ability to point where and why those problems are happening. I think one of the challenges we have is, unfortunately, in my opinion, Democrats now control a lot of institutions in New York and across the country, whether it's not for profits, whether it's higher education or any education institution for that matter, the media all tends to be, and I don't want to sound conspiracist, I mean, this is just the reality I think we deal with, tend to be left wing. So, it's very hard for Republicans to get a counter message out. So, every time I've run, and I've had an opponent, Grant, that my opponents always run on the issues that I have run on and basically run on the same message that I've run and they've just been able you know, they can, I've been successful because I happen to be in a, you know, pretty good Republican district, but they tend to run on our issues. And then people say, oh yeah, he cares about or she cares about affordability. But ultimately they go down and they vote on these things and they'll give a good reason why they want to vote on these things. But, that whole affordability or any of those types of consequences of those policies seems to go out the window.
GR: Do you think it has something to do with upstate / downstate? Downstate often gets blamed for this, too. And I was thinking about this and I was thinking, well, New York City needs a thriving New York State and if there continues to be outmigration from the state, eventually it's going to turn around and bite New York City, even though New York City may not be experiencing that outmigration. Is it, do you put it more at the party level versus urban, suburban, rural?
WB: Well, I think that definitely plays a role. I mean, there's no doubt that the stronghold the Democrats hold in New York City allows them to be on the offensive upstate, you know, in a real political type manner. You know, so, you know, they have districts down there, I think they have something like 40 or 45 assembly districts with 90 plus Democratic registration. You know, that's almost as much as we have as a Republican conference in the Assembly. So that just gives them the ability to be on the offensive in so many other areas. Now, you asked me, do we have any hope for things changing? I think so, because we've been able to pick up five seats in the city that maybe, you know, even eight years ago, we would never have a dream of picking up those seats. So, there is some realization of the problems that have been created by these policies, but, it's still very hard. So, yeah, from a, just a political ability to get things, they start with such a bigger base than a Republican does upstate. And unfortunately, a lot of the population loss is our base. It’s a lot of rural areas that are losing their population that maybe traditionally voted Republican. So that compounds the challenge or the problem.
GR: If you've just joined us, you're listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO Public Media. I'm Grant Reeher and my guest is New York State Assemblyman Will Barclay. We’ve got about, only about four minutes left or so but I want to try to ask you some more personal questions, if I can. And I apologize that I'm not going to be able to give you very much time to dig into these. The first one is, you mentioned your age originally when we were talking earlier, you know, you recently turned 57. In politics these days, that's actually pretty young. You also recently turned down an offer to run for lieutenant governor. So, what, if anything, might be next for you politically, do you think?
WB: Well, I'll never say never, Grant. And, you know, I'm happy to stay in the fray. I still, again, love this area and still want to fight for it. So, I don't have any political aspirations going to, you know, maybe some would say Congress would be a logical step, but that doesn't interest me at all at this time. But again, who knows? Things change. I'll never shut the door and I’ll always consider it, but it really comes down to, one, is it right for, you know, me personally and my family, but also, do I think I would be the best person to, you know, fight for the issues that I believe in.
GR: And what would the 34 year-old Will Barclay, that's how old you were when you started in this position, be most surprised about the political career of the 57 year old Will Barclay?
WB: Well, one, I never thought I'd be in the politics this long. So that's probably the biggest eye opener would be for me. I never expected that I would have the honor of serving as the leader of my conference, so that was the other kind of eye opener, you know, circumstance I would be if I was 34, now. But, I don't know, I would hope, you know, I had a lot of optimism when I came into office. I still have optimism, it hasn't worn me down that much. But ultimately, you know, it's public service. And I hope, you know, if I was 34, I would still be willing to take up the mantle of public service that I know now as a 57 year old.
GR: Well, that may be a perfect segue to my final question. And that is, what advice, encouragements or cautions would you give to, say, a 25 year-old version of Will Barclay contemplating going into politics right now?
WB: Well, I love that because I do talk to a lot of school groups, I talk to college classes, I have the opportunity. I would say go for it, it's worth it. It can be frustrating as hell, I think is an understatement. But ultimately, anything you can do to help your community, I think fighting for, you know, public policy and issues that you believe in is a very honorable and worthwhile thing to do. And when you see you can make changes, it makes, you know, the, the 23 years, 24 years and I will be doing this all worthwhile.
GR: So, just, we have one more minute, I'm going to follow up on that. And that's that my students, one of the things they tell me about why they don't want to do this is because of the nastiness. And you said earlier you're able not to take it personally and you don't make it personal. What's the secret sauce there in 30 seconds or less for how you're able to do that when other people aren't?
WB: You know, I'm smiling because I remember when I first was going to run. There used be a blog, believe it or not, and I don’t know if there’s even blogs around anymore, that was ultra made everything personal, ultra critical of, it would have been me and everybody. I said, my God, I'm not going to be able, this would be too much. You get thick skinned after a while. It doesn't bother you as much, and sometimes it can be very funny. So, I think all the benefits of doing it and being in that arena far outweigh the negatives, and there are a lot of negatives, but I don't want anyone to be naive about it. But again, it's a worthy undertaking in my opinion.
GR: Well, one of the pastimes that you and I share is fishing. So maybe it has something to do with dealing with the disappointments of fishing somehow.
WB: Yeah, exactly right. So what do they say? A day fishing is better than a…
GR: Bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work. (laughter)
WB: Exactly.
GR: Well, unfortunately, I have to leave it there. That was Assemblyman Will Barclay and Assemblyman Barclay I just want to thank you. And if I can, if it's okay, I want to thank, by extension, your late father as well, who I knew, for both of your service that you've given to the state of New York. Very important and should be appreciated.
WB: Well, thank you. And again, thank you for always being a great interviewer. And, you know, you debated one of my, when I was running for the Senate, too, and I always appreciated that debate and that didn't work out the way I hoped it would, but…
GR: But you got a fair moderator. (laughter)
WB: I did get a very fair shake in that, so I appreciate it, Grant. And I hope you won't be a stranger too.
GR: Okay, me too. You've been listening to the Campbell Conversations on WRVO public media, conversations in the public interest.
