Show Your Badge

Reema Dodin, Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI)

Top image: Reema Dodin (left) staffing Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) on Capitol Hill

Reema Dodin hails from Irvine, California. After attending University of California at Berkeley and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, she came to Washington inspired to make a difference. Dodin’s professional landscape is the U.S. Senate, apart from a tour of service to President Biden as Senate Liaison for the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. She has lectured at multiple prestigious universities on the modern Senate and co-authored a primer on House and Senate floor procedures through Brookings publications titled Inside Congress (available on Amazon). Engage is honored to introduce Senate stalwart Reema Dodin:

Q: You are currently the chief of staff to Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii.  Serving the people of Hawaii must bring wonderful benefits but also some unique challenges. What new awareness has working in a Hawaii office given you that those of us on the mainland might not consider or have thought about?

A: Thank you for asking. Senator Schatz gave me a history of the state and recommended several books, and it was very helpful to have a baseline. I started with the office a few weeks before the devastating fire on Maui and quickly found that, like all states, Hawaii was more than meets the eye. The relationship with land, water, and natural resources. There is a way of doing business that respects time and the individual. The location is special. How you problem-solve on islands is different: everything is connected; resources are truly finite. And it proves true that geography has its own destiny. We spend a lot of time advocating for the state in D.C. Because of its distance, it can be easy to take for granted, but it is an important state with a lot to contribute and teach. It is an honor to serve the state and this team.

Q: It is not hyperbole to say that you love and revere the United States Senate. You think deeply about its history as an institution and its traditions, which has led to your lecturing on the modern Senate. What about the U.S. Senate continues to inspire you, and what currently worries you the most?

A: The Senate will break your heart, but it is the place I know best and have spent my adult life. Because the Senate is just 100 humans — the size of a smallish high school class level, one can stay a little romantic about what is possible on any given day (or what can be stopped, because the Senate was built for both). And I feel lucky that I have worked for and have worked for two extraordinary members (both Appropriators), learning the floor from the view of Senator Durbin, a master of the shifts of the Senate, its quiet work and wars, and what can be possible, and now also from Senator Schatz.

“The core of having that time to do thoughtful work and build relationships had benefit, and we have seen the Senate do extraordinary things.”

I try to not be overly nostalgic about the Senate and to take it for what it is and what it will morph into over time. It’s a living, changing thing, like the republic. It is as good or bad as we make it in any given moment. Its past is complicated, which I think Senate fans would all agree with. We are still tackling a lot of firsts. For example, it is still a place working (or sometimes unfortunately not working) to welcome new viewpoints and voices. I continue to be inspired by the day-to-day work that is done here for constituents, asking hard questions, and for the possibilities of people in this small village talking and trying to solve problems even when it takes time. And it’s a place with many wonderful people.

But I am worried about a number of things. The plus sides of parochialism are on the wane. When you ask politicians about their states or districts, they can usually tell you all sorts of things about the rivers, the roads, the hospitals, universities, the agriculture, industry, the big and small towns, history, challenges — they know their states. They are presumably in D.C. to fight for their state but also to occasionally rise above parochial needs for the grander good, to move the nation forward. It’s a fine balance that offers a place everyone can fight or bargain from and a place from which Senators could better protect the prerogatives of the Senate itself versus other branches. Increasingly, it can feel like those interests are waning. When Senator McCain voted no on ACA repeal, it was largely because Arizona and its people had so much to lose. Maybe it’s campaign finance, maybe it’s maladjustment to the modern information age, maybe it’s cynicism, maybe it’s all of it, but that piece of parochialism (both geographic and Constitutional) feels like it’s on the wane. It’s all related.

I am worried about systemic things, like campaign finance, gerrymandering, etc., that are hurting the democracy. The viciousness of unattached money in campaigns makes getting good people to run for the Senate and then to stay more difficult. It makes serious fact-based debate and dealmaking more difficult. The Senate, with its six-year terms, was supposed to be a place where you could have the longer, nuanced debates, where members could learn and try to solve problems together, and where they could be brave, they still can, that is a daily choice.

And again, no nostalgia as communities have been left behind by the Senate, but the core of having that time to do thoughtful work and build relationships had benefit, and we have seen the Senate do extraordinary things. We are at a moment where not only are we not tackling many of the most crucial issues facing our country and the future, but we are moving backwards. I want good people who want to do good work to continue to come here as senators and staff committed to our democratic systems for the future — a system that demands and supports the best of the Senate.

Q: The hours that jobs on Capitol Hill require — whether at the start of a career or for what many hold as their dream job, being a chief of staff — are long. How do you juggle the demands of a personal life with the time and emotional energy the work requires?

A: I’m still sorting! I’m proud of this work. The chief role is striking in that it covers everything: policy, politics, is everyone okay, session, recess, and on and on. I will admit to not succeeding at this balance, but wanting to get there (or whatever that can mean in the wonderful but urgent Hill sector). A full life is important, and I have found staffing (maybe this is true of hard work in most contexts) can make it challenging to be the best friend or family member I can be. I think one of the answers is that Hill life is a choice you make, and it will require sacrifice. And at some point, you pay the price for that. Let’s be honest. But it’s a decision, and you just have to own it. As the band the Eagles said, every refuge has its price. I think the other answer that I am working to walk the walk on (both for myself but also because it’s important as a manager) is that some days, you just choose the needs of your life over work. My family and I have an annual trip that is sacred time. I know for myself that I need to take time to see and be there for the people I love and have the experiences I love — friends, family, art, etc. — and to set that example, but I have not solved it yet — other than on most days, just trying my best and relying heavily on the grace of the people in my life. For that, I am grateful, but I also appreciate that it, rightly so, has limits. And so the work to do better continues.

“I want good people who want to do good work to continue to come here as senators and staff committed to our democratic systems for the future — a system that demands and supports the best of the Senate.”

Q: Away from work, Engage knows you love the arts — theatre, film, attending fairs, and the like. How do the arts sustain and bring you joy?

A: Art, film, writing, even some TV, all of it — they can be radical leading indicators of life and society, and get places before politics does, and say things before politicos think to say it, and ask questions politicos can’t or don’t ask. And in those spaces, I am not in my own hustle; I get to be a visitor. So, after a great show or exhibit, I always learn, am inspired, am pushed, and am refreshed. And we should always be pushing ourselves. And in particular, in a place like Washington, sometimes these adventures are an oasis, a place where community can sometimes feel more natural or empathetic, or even more brutally honest.

Q: Now, can you share your five favorite films?

A: This is the toughest question! There are too many to say favorites, but here is a list of some I have watched or rewatched recently — High and Low (catch it before Spike Lee’s Highest and Lowest is out, and then let’s see that too — his X is one of the best), Brief Encounter (so surprisingly modern), Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (it’s for our times), The Grand Budapest Hotel (Anderson, Fiennes, Murray, heaven), Working Girl (6K? It’s not even leather), Mansfield Park (all of her work was political, but this is based on Austen’s most political work, and catch the same casting for two sisters who married very differently), Out of Sight (the best Clooney and the best JLo), Badlands (it’s wild but has the line about when we come back to time capsules, we are different), Bye Bye Tiberias (you know Hiam Abbas from Succession? this is her story), Bright Star (Campion on Keats), and Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola’s feast of the senses).