The Shadow Governor

Clotpoll of the Day, January 25, 2010

2010-01-25T05:14:00.000-08:00

Mr. George Fox, of Richmond, was named today's Correspondent of the Day by the RT-D, and one must concede that his letter is informed and well-written. One must even concede that Mr. Fox has a point: Legislation gains considerable legitimacy when it results from bipartisan input and gains at least a measure of bipartisan support.

However, the leap from this premise to the conclusion that legislatures should not pass a bill along strictly partisan lines defies both logic and an understanding of the nature of representative government.

Elections have consequences. When the people, whatever their reasons, award one party with a majority in both legislative houses, that party has a mandate to make law. They may, and should, seek to include some members of the opposition in drafting complex or far-reaching bills.

What Mr. Fox overlooks is the possibility that a bill can fail to become "bipartisan" in two ways. It might be the result of partisan overreach by the majority. But it might also be the consequence of stonewalling by the minority. In the case of the current health-care reform legislation, the latter appears to be the case in both Congressional houses.

I do not think highly of either the House or Senate bills, but to demand that they be scrapped on the grounds that they lack "bipartisanship" is illogical, because it grants to a minority the moral authority to block legislation by standing unanimously against a bill is unsound.

We govern on the principle of majority rule. For his failure to include this principle in his reasoning, Mr. Fox is our "Clotpoll of the Day".

Clodpoll of the Day (1/3/2010)

2010-01-03T15:33:00.001-08:00

Naming a Clodpoll for Sundays is easy. Ross MacKenzie, late but unlamented editor of the Editorial page, has apparently lost the ability to make a persuasive argument against intelligent opposition. His too-frequent contributions commonly make use of such devices as this week's - a purported dialogue between himself and an imaginary (and remarkably dense) Barack Obama.

Today's so-called "conservatives" make frequent use of the "straw man" tactic. When they cannot make their case against a worthy opponent, they adopt various devices which permit them to debate lesser - sometimes imaginary - ones.

One such device is to pretend to misunderstand the opponent's point, which permits the conservative interlocutor to go a rant against something which has neither been proposed or argued. On a national level, the "Death Panel" strategy was an example of this. In my own experience, one of the most frequent critics of my column in the Village News was forever pretending not to understand my points in order to distract the unwary reader.

Under the rules of Rhetoric - the classic application of logic to public debate - such devices are regarded as dishonest, which, indeed, they are.

MacKenzie's device goes a step farther, allowing him to operate like a ventriloquist debating with his dummy. It isn't hard to win a debate when you are free to put words into your opponent's mouth.

A variation on this device, frequently practiced by the Times-Dispatch op-ed page, is to give the appearance of balance by including an occasional column from a liberal writer - but to select writers who are not particularly persuasive, or whose approach is offensive or over the heads of the general readership. The T-D, for example, is careful not to include columns by such writers as Paul Krugman or Tom Friedman (of the New York Times) - or even their colleague, the thoughtful, nuanced conservative, David Brooks.

Though MacKenzie has left the offices of the T-D, his spirit remains. On the whole, despite the efforts of Bart Hinkle, it is difficult to read the editorial pages of our daily paper without feeling that you have somehow lowered your IQ.

Clodpoll of the Day (1/2/2010)

2010-01-03T06:02:00.000-08:00

In the spirit of the T-D's "correspondent of the day" awards, herewith an occasional award for published letters which display lesser qualities:

Walter Mischke, of Midlothian, writes: "If Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner polled their constituents and found that the majority of them oppose this health care bill, it would be their duty to vote against it..."

Mr. Mischke undoubtedly considers himself a conservative, but - like many of today's so-called "conservatives" - shows little knowledge of, or dedication in, our ancient institutions. Edmund Burke, the intellectual father of conservative thought, wrote: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

We do not, thank Heaven, live in a democracy, although we slip ever closer to that chaotic form of misgovernment. We live in a constitutional republic, and we elect representatives to govern us.

It is remarkable to hear "conservative" critics of the health care legislation condemning members of Congress for not having read ever page of the massive bills - and then turn right around and insist that those members should heed the will of constituents who have probably not even seen the legislation.

The point is simple: We, the people, cannot possible live our daily lives while keeping track of every bill, every relevant fact and consideration bearing upon that bill, etc. Not even a Senator or Representative, supported by a large and able staff, can entirely do that. But it is their job to try, and our job to entrust them with at least a modicum of respect.

Moreover, polling is not the way in which we govern ourselves. In a republic, the only polls which matter - legally and morally - are those which we term "elections".

Mr. Mischke should find some high school senior to explain what he has forgotten - that our representatives are not our puppets. We elect them to study and to think and to debate on our behalf, while we attend to our daily lives.

Don’t Waste This Chance

2007-01-16T10:33:00.000-08:00

I’m not sure who said it first, but the saying has stuck with me.

Under a democracy, the voters pick their representatives. Under gerrymandering, the representatives pick their voters.

Which about says it all.

Choose any side of almost any political issue, and you can make a more or less plausible case for that side. Politics thrives on differences of opinion, and, in more than two centuries of self-government, we Americans have gotten very good at making good cases for bad causes. Indeed, we rather relish advocacy which concocts an ingenious argument for a weak case.

In this context, gerrymandering enjoys a unique distinction – there is simply no good case to be made in the affirmative. When legislators redraw their own districts – using their power to assure their re-election by handpicking the precincts which will make up their new constituencies – they are guilty of conspiracy to undermine the very essence of democracy.

It doesn’t matter which party does it. It doesn’t matter what other, good things the guilty legislators might have done. Any legislator who supports gerrymandering deserves to be defeated – to be crushed – at the next election.

But of course, that seldom happens. With gerrymandering, legislators guilty of the most fundamental breach of faith assure that they will not have to answer for their infidelity.

Gerrymandering is the unforgivable sin. It is also, by its nature, routinely forgiven.

Worst of all, it’s almost impossible to correct. As a practical matter, the only way to end gerrymandering in Virginia would be to amend the state constitution – a process which is controlled by the same legislators whose incumbency and power is assured by gerrymandering.

Short of a mass movement – a virtual citizens’ revolt – there is no way to compel legislators to deny themselves this extraordinary power. The party in the minority might be willing to support reform, but, being in the minority, it is unable to act. For the party in the majority, reform would be – however honorable – an unprecedented act of self-sacrifice.

Only the rarest alignment in the political heavens bodes well for reform. A majority party must stand in real fear of losing power just before a decennial census. Under such conditions, a majority in decline might reasonably try to enact reform before the rising minority gained control of the redistricting process.
In Virginia, in 2007, that rare situation is beginning to take shape. In the wake of Senator Jim Webb’s upset victory over George Allen – Virginia’s most powerful Republican – Virginia Democrats anticipate significant gains in both houses of the General Assembly. With Mark Warner an unannounced – but almost unbeatable – candidate for Governor in 2009, Virginia Republicans fear further Democratic gains in 2009.

Democrats need only three new Senators to gain an evenly-divided upper house – a realistic possibility this November. And, while no one expects the Democrats to overturn the Republican majority in the House of Delegates this year, they will have one more shot in 2009 – possibly aided by Mark Warner’s long coattails.

Thus, in 2011, the year set for the next reapportionment, it is distinctly possible that a slim Democratic majority will control the House of Delegates, with Democrats controlling a divided State Senate by virtue of a Lieutenant Governor elected in tandem with Warmer. In such a case, Democrats would be able to do some gerrymandering of their own.

Even should Republicans retain a narrow margin in one of the two houses, if Governor Warner wields the veto pen, no redistricting bill would pass that didn’t give Democrats the upper hand.

Thus, this year’s Republican majorities stand in realistic fear of losing control of the redistricting process four years hence. In self-defense – as well as to protect their current 8-3 majority in the US House of Representatives – Republicans should be willing to seriously consider claiming the mantle of reform by passing an amendment to end gerrymandering.

Nor should Democrats oppose such an amendment. Democratic victories in 2007 and 2009 are by no means certain. Mark Warner might be well become Vice-President in 2008, throwing the gubernatorial race wide open the following year. Nothing is certain – and the narrowest failure to oust the Republicans would give that party the power to cement its control by redrawing district lines to protect its surviving majorities.

In short, neither party has anything to lose in 2007 by passing a constitutional amendment to reform redistricting. There would be time for second thoughts after this year’s elections – and before considering the amendment for the constitutionally-mandated second time.

Circumstances are as ripe as they are rare for passing an amendment which would – more than any other reform – improve the workings of Virginia’s democracy. To let such an opportunity pass would be unforgivable.

It's Time for Commonwealth Schools

2007-01-05T11:47:00.000-08:00

Tim Kaine is one of the smartest, best-motivated Virginians to serve as governor in recent history. He’s a serious man whose family traditions, religious convictions, and career experiences have prepared him for leadership in the tradition of progressive statesmen like the Roosevelts and Kennedys. Moreover, unlike his three immediate predecessors, he seems more interested in his present job than in seeking – shall we say – a promotion.

Which makes it particularly unfortunate that Kaine finds himself saddled with a House of Delegates dominated by radical anti-tax Republicans.

Thus far, the Governor’s agenda has emphasized two big-budget items – an ambitious upgrade of Virginia’s transportation network and a proposal for universal pre-kindergarten. As the 2007 legislative session opens, it’s clear that neither of these proposals is apt to receive serious consideration from the House – unless it can be financed without raising new revenues.

Thus, Kaine seems likely to spend 2007 looking forward to November – and hoping for a Democratic sweep as dramatic as those in last year’s Congressional elections. Which is a rather big gamble – and the waste of a perfectly good legislative session.

If Governor Kaine asked my advice, I’d suggest that he accept the futility of pushing big-budget items – at least for this year – and expand his agenda to include imaginative proposals that could accomplish big things without costing big bucks.

The first item on this new agenda would be jump-starting the creation of regional public service academies, sometimes called “commonwealth schools”.

What is a Commonwealth school?

Essentially, a cross between a Governor’s school and VMI – a small, regional, public high school for young men and women considering careers as police officers, firefighters, EMTs, National Guardsmen, etc.

Commonwealth schools were authorized by legislation passed in 2003 and championed by the improbable team of Senator John Edwards, a progressive Democrat, and Delegate Lee Ware, a staunchly conservative Republican. While detailed plans have yet to be developed, I have been personally involved in early discussions of how a Commonwealth school might work. Here’s a brief outline.

To begin with, a Commonwealth school would be small – serving between 400 and 500 cadets in grades 8 - 12. Cadets would be drawn from several adjacent localities. Admission would be competitive, based on solid academics, a capacity for teamwork, an orientation toward public service, and physical fitness appropriate to the demanding careers for which cadets would train.

A Commonwealth school would offer the standard high school core curriculum, taught at a college-prep level – with subtle modifications. For example, foreign language instruction would emphasize spoken fluency in a language commonly encountered on the street in the region served by the school. American History would be expanded to two years, in order to inculcate a stronger sense of the values and traditions cadets would be training to uphold. Physical education would be replaced by four years of intensive PT – including martial arts, climbing, and ropes courses.

A strong internship program would introduce cadets to professional reality. Electives would mainly be professional courses in life-saving, fire-fighting and law enforcement. But the real “elective” would be the unique atmosphere of the Commonwealth school itself.

A Commonwealth School would differ drastically from conventional high schools in its disciplinary expectations. Cadets would observe strict standards of dress and personal grooming. Though no cadet would be under the authority of a fellow cadet, all would be expected to respond to faculty members with respect and unquestioning obedience. Cadets unable to comply with the disciplinary system – or the school’s honor code – would be dismissed to their home schools.

A key element of cadet life would be the division of each grade into teams of twelve. Teams would study together, as well as competing in an intensive program of intramural sports. The highest honors at a Commonwealth school would be team – rather than individual – honors.

The bottom line? Graduates of a Commonwealth school would be prepared for college – immediately or after an initial period of professional or military service. They would be exceptionally fit, disciplined, skilled at teamwork, and possessed of a clear understanding of the words “Duty, Honor, Country”.

Commonwealth schools represent an educational initiative as ambitious as anything Governor Kaine envisions for pre-schoolers – at a fraction of the cost. Since Commonwealth schools would serve only young men and women who would otherwise be attending conventional high schools, the only added costs would be those associated with small schools – costs usually offset by the greater effectiveness of small, focused schools.

Should the Governor put his weight behind this initiative, three or more Commonwealth schools could be open for business before he left office – the vanguard of a network of regional schools providing Virginia with future generations of public-spirited heroes.

If Governor Kaine seeks a legacy, what could be finer than being father to a statewide network of Commonwealth schools?

Branching In

2006-12-16T07:16:00.000-08:00

Gentle Reader,

Having entered the blogging jungle with my "Gray's Gazette", I find that the creature as taken on a life of its own -- as a place for commentary on national and global issues, and for exploring the possibility of defining a new Liberalism for the 21st century.

Which is all well and good, but rather more ambitious than I had intended. As the Fabs rightly noted, we all want to change the world, but my more immediate concern is to change my native state.

Thus, this second blog, which aims directly at issues of concern within the Commonwealth of Virginia -- and particularly at educational issues, which are my greatest concern.

As with "Gray's Gazette", commentary will tend to avoid dealing with politics as a spectator sport. Rather, I will seek to follow Bobby Kennedy's trumpet-call (quoting George Bernard Shaw) : "Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?' "