|
A
select number of Virginians have been getting
inside peeks for the past few weeks at the
candidates for governor, lieutenant governor,
attorney general and delegate. It’s the time of
year when associations, political action
committees and business groups stage candidate
forums and interviews, not just public debates,
with an eye toward recommending the better
candidates to members or supporters.
What
emerges beyond a partisan show of hands at first
and, perhaps, an endorsement, are dilemmas based
on twin hopes: that Virginia’s state leaders
listen to us and, just as importantly, that they
don’t.
As
one of a few dozen insiders, a member of an
association or group, you can be guaranteed that
the candidate sitting politely before you will be
briefed on your issues and your agenda. After all,
candidates aren’t the only ones with a record.
Companies, trade associations, labor unions, farm
groups, universities, local governments and others
all have been communicating through issue papers,
letters of support, conventions, speeches, annual
reports, campaign contributions, marketing and
media activities.
The
candidates respond to you as experts in your
field. Each is prepared to discuss the specific
policy alternatives you favor. You’ve lobbied
them in past General Assembly sessions, or worked
with them in community action groups, or talked
business with them at any number of receptions
that provide what passes for political intimacy in
Virginia today.
While
you appraise the candidates on the basis of what
they can do for your narrow special interest, deep
down inside, you want something more. Rather than
take your word that your special interest is
synonymous with the public interest, shouldn't
they study the issues from all angles and the
potential effect on all Virginians? If they are
going to lead, shouldn’t they challenge
something we’re saying?
Each
candidate has been coached to reassure you that,
in the event of disagreement, “the door will
always be open for a full discussion of your
views.” If they're diplomatic, they leave room
for cooperation at some abstract level: "We
look forward to working with you to create jobs
and opportunity in the future...” or a quality
system of higher education... or a transportation
system we can be proud of, etc. It sounds
cooperative, but the candidates are signaling they
will not be responsive to your every concern.
Thus
arises the dilemma: How do you balance the
candidate's responsiveness to your priorities vs.
his responsiveness to the public good? Let's say,
for example, that you learn that you
cannot count on a particular candidate to back the
investment in transportation that is your number
one priority. But you discover that you can count
on the candidate to work to reimburse health care
providers for Medicaid services at a rate close to
what they actually cost -- and maybe provide funds
to educate more nurses and allied health
professionals. Slowing the the increase in rising
health care costs would be a plus for every
business.
What
if too many other candidates conclude that the
surplus of General Fund revenues should be devoted
to transportation projects? You can count on
another candidate to stay true, good or bad, to
his no-tax pledge. But deep down you know that in
the event of a disaster like Hurricane Katrina,
you want your leaders to marshal government
resources quickly.
All
candidates support public education, but which
ones would raise another billion dollars worth of
public education to support the growth in
enrollment and the need to retain the best
teachers? We want candidates to curry our favor by
telling us what we want to hear. Their priorities
should be our priorities. But can we really trust
them to govern effectively if they don’t think
longer and deeper about things than we do?
We
want them to represent our views, but they should
use good judgment, too. We could be wrong or
shortsighted. And there is whole Commonwealth out
there, not just our piece of it. And we want to
know and understand what they are doing. But most
of all, we want them to know and understand what
they’re doing.
Maybe
the 30 second television ads will clear that up
before November 8. Maybe we should do our own 30
second ads back. The candidates will be listening,
we hope.
--
September 19, 2005
|
