Spoiler Upstages Debate

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
Spoiler Upstages Debate				October 24, 2001

Ever since the Kennedy/Nixon debates in 1960 political candidates have been subjecting themselves to similarly sadistic rituals for the sake of image building and popular persuasion. Usually seated or standing before an audience just waiting for the fateful faux pas, candidates offer themselves up to the slaughter inflicted by inquisitors who they just know are out to get them. And they’re usually right. Who can forget the sweat pouring down the face of Richard Nixon when he was flummoxed by questions relating to governmental organization, or, more recently, the muddled state of affairs Mark Warner found himself in when pressed for precise answers by Doug Wilder? Yet the debates go on.

While televised debates for major national or state offices tend to grab our attention, it is frequently the case that debates involving potential delegates to the General Assembly offer a much better show, and especially here in Virginia, where party lines are less distinct. Frequently such debates feature The Incumbent (usually a Republican), The Contender (usually a Democrat trying desperately not to sound like one), and, if we’re lucky, an Independent (sometimes known as “The Spoiler”).

Usually the strategy of The Incumbents is to answer no questions specifically, but rather to appeal to studies in which they have participated or the ongoing work of committees on which they sit and to which the voters simply must return them. They are frequently heard saying things like, “The Governor and I will work hard to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.”

The Contenders, on the other hand, must take great care lest they say something that could be construed as liberal and so give The Incumbents fodder for future television ads. Their strategy, therefore, is to make their answers as non-committal as possible, with the result that what they say is totally benign and almost never to the point.

So it is generally left to The Spoilers to liven things up. And they usually do this by actually answering the questions specifically and saying unabashedly what’s on their minds – frequently to the horror of The Incumbents and The Contenders. Often The Spoilers are Populists who offer up the bitter truths about the mess the politicos in power have created and the measures that have to be taken to clean it up. For the most part, they rely on pure horse sense to completely disquiet their wonkish adversaries.

Indeed, such was the scenario at the debate held on October 4^th between Melanie Rapp, Patrick Pettitt, Dick Ashe and Robert Stermer, the Libertarian Party candidate, who really doesn’t fit into any of the categories listed above, since the Libertarian Party seems to be hell-bent on creating more chaos than exists in our already chaotic state government.

True to form, a predictably patriotic Rapp fingered her flag lapel pin, suavely and smoothly referred to studies and committees, and said how eager she was to get back to Richmond for the biennial budget talks. For his part, Pettitt was agreeable enough and managed to say nothing at all that could be construed as liberal, except for the fact that he was pro-choice.

Thus it was left to Dick Ashe to wander into the politically alien world of clarity. In fact, what he did was simply answer the questions with a refreshing specificity that was lacking in the remarks of Rapp and Pettitt. He was the only one, for instance, to mention the problems localities face as a result of the budget crisis and to offer a possible solution. What he proposes is to wipe out the car tax and roll that over into the state income tax, 15% of which would then be returned to the localities. That this smacks of a “tax increase” doesn’t seem to faze him, since he firmly believes that doing away with the car tax bureaucracy would save taxpayers a bundle. Similarly, he was the only one to bring up the crucial issue of critical thinking relative to the SOLs, and this in the context of the inability of most high school students to make the transition to college.

Ashe’s responses to other questions were equally frank and forceful. Indeed, as a result of what I heard then and in a subsequent conversation with him, I have come to the conclusion that he is a Populist of the highest rank. He is deeply opposed to the introduction of religion into politics, he advocates the abolition of unenforceable and archaic laws relating to privacy, and he firmly believes people must realize that, if they want services from the state, they must pay for them. Pledging to cut taxes at this time, he says, is pure foolishness.

Though running as an independent, Ashe’s allegiance is certainly to the Republican Party. Yet he could easily turn out to be more of a Democrat than Pettitt. He is indeed a Spoiler, and a refreshing one at that.