The revolt to normal

by Gordon C. Morse

It all comes down to leadership, we’re forever told. In that regard, two national newspapers recently took measure of Abigail Spanberger, the clear front-runner in the race to become Virginia’s next governor.

“Welcome to the year of the national security mom,” The New York Times announced.

Spanberger’s biography “helps convey a gut-level grasp of Virginians’ everyday anxieties about schools and crime and providing for their families and experience making tough calls in life-or-death situations involving national security,” wrote commentator Michelle Cottle.

This “hits the sweet spot of making her seem simultaneously exceptional and relatable,” Cottle wrote. “A butt-kicking résumé.”

“Message: Here is a leader both formidable and approachable, tough and caring, driven by her commitment to service.”

Oh, help.

Here’s a message to The New York Times: Just stop. She’s capable and intelligent. That’s obvious. A Democrat, Spanberger has been thrice elected to Congress in a district previously held by Republicans. Spanberger’s credibility as a candidate for governor does not hinge on her ability to kick butt and hug people simultaneously.

The Wall Street Journal did better by Spanberger, avoided ridiculous labeling and said that she faced two tests. Number one, take the Virginia Governor’s Mansion and, number two, do so while winning over the Democratic Party.

About the latter: “As the Democratic Party wrestles with historic unpopularity and a post-2024 identity crisis, moderate Democrats point to Spanberger, a self-styled pragmatist, as a more politically viable face for the party than the likes of Mamdani,” wrote reporter Molly Bell.

Now, we’re getting somewhere, because the Democratic Party is of more than one mind these days and we await to discover which proves more influential. Abigail may offer some instruction on the present power of normality.

It will be an interesting lesson, because The New York Times just reported that Socialist Zohran Mamdani enjoys a substantial lead in the New York Mayor’s race. It well exceeds the combined total of the next two contenders down the list.

“Around 60 percent of likely voters said Mr. Mamdani was inspirational, had good character and cared about people like them,” the Times reported. “He is the only candidate viewed positively by a majority of voters, despite months of attacks against him.”

Time magazine did a cover story on Mamdani, as well, and don’t just read it for content. Breathe in the writing itself: “He is a movement politician who won by being in touch with the streets, and who must now cloister himself inside as he prepares for the business of governing, not betraying the people by not failing them.”

This not-so-venerable publication (this is not the Time magazine we once knew) becomes so enthralled by the Democrat candidate for mayor of New York City that you may hear (I did, anyway) the ringing strains of Alex North’s film score for director Elia Kazan’s 1952 biopic, “Viva Zapata!”

Saquen las bandoleras y los sombreros.

A quick, but (I trust) relevant digression: Do not deny yourself this dramatization of early 20^th century Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who led a rebellion against the oppressive dictatorship of President Porfirio Díaz. It not only brings together Kazan and North, as well as actors Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn and Jean Peters, but also John Steinbeck, who wrote the thing.

The story is a search for and the realization of revolutionary leadership, as conceived by a Hollywood profit-consumed film studio. It’s revolutionary leadership, beautifully done. It’s moving. I don’t suppose I was more than 10 years old when I first saw the scene called “the gathering” and thought, oh, this is politics when you get down to it.

Spurned by the father of the woman (Peters) he wishes to marry, Zapata (Brando) gets angry, then arrested. The peasants of the village, seeing police horsemen bind him by the neck, rhythmically strike rocks against each other, signaling a nascent movement.

As Zapata is led through the rural countryside, more and more peasants join the procession. The rock clicking becomes drum beating, the cellos swell, the trumpets answer and history finds a new, more compelling cadence.

Thus, Zapata is freed, the telegraph wires are cut and the revolution has begins.

If Mamdani could pull that off in Times Square it would be something to see. He’s clearly inspired some interest in rock-clicking up there. The expectations at that end of the ideological chart are way up, as the new polling indicates.

Here, in bucolic Williamsburg, we get regular visits of former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, chancellor the College of William & Mary and he often reminds people – on the “better or worse” question — “the history of revolution is not a happy one.”

“Most often repressive authoritarian governments are swept out,” Gates wrote in his 2014 book “Duty.”

“Power ends up in the hands not of moderate reformers but of better organized and far more ruthless extremists … “[r]evolutions and their outcomes are usually a surprise (especially to those who overthrown) and damnably hard to predict.”

Who would predict events following Mamdani’s election? Not I. But something is going on.

Steinbeck turned the story of Emiliano Zapata Salazar (his full name) into an allegory of collective action, the dignity of the downtrodden, principled sacrifice and the moral costs of leadership and power.

Charismatic, heroic leadership can yield dramatic change, but at great risk. Corruption contests the ideals and tyranny constantly threatens to run in through another door. Meanwhile, there are the people themselves, who may just wish to get through the day intact.

Again, who should lead? On what basis? For what purpose?

Spanberger appears to be stressing her moderation. She told the Journal that she hopes her election will send a message of normality to the rest of the country. “That we don’t want any more of the chaos … [t]hat we want people who are focused on serving.”

I ran into Spanberger by chance following Rep. Bobby Scott’s annual Labor Day picnic in Newport News and she immediately began talking about pragmatism and practicality. She may very well remain on that track right to the November election and that would, whether she knows it or not, establish her on the traditional, working playing field – as opposed to the theater — of being Virginia’s governor.

That conflicts with press preferences, perhaps, which plays Trump higher in the story. They insist on making the fall campaigns a referendum on this or that.

Spanberger may help herself by resisting that pull. If she succeeds, pray that she declines the opportunity (some nitwit will urge her to do it, just watch) to rebut Trump following the State of the Union.

Stay with Virginia, instead. Stay on topic.

She may do just that and, if she does, could potentially tap into the growing political market for normal. That’s me being optimistic, of course.

It could be done. You can in fact dynamically pursue progress in Virginia on different fronts. Education. Infrastructure. Criminal justice. Economic prosperity.

Getting progress on these subjects is always a stiff challenge, but that’s really where you get graded. Abigail has the luxury of popularity and broad support prior to electoral confirmation. That frees her to think seriously – not later, but now — about being a great governor.

“Hire me to execute—that’s how I’ve campaigned in the past,” Spanberger said in the Journal report. “You don’t necessarily need to find a villain; you need to fix the problem.”

¡Viva la revolución!

In the context of present times, the most radical idea left to us may be a return to normality.

Gordon C. Morse has been writing commentary and speeches in Virginia since 1983. This column his republished with permission from his Substack account Heart’s Desire.