I first met Jim Webb when I moderated his initial senatorial debate against George Allen in the summer of 2006. Although Webb was a decided underdog, it was obvious that his decision to run was not made frivolously.
He was intent on bringing two deeply held convictions before the public. He believed that the war in Iraq was both ill conceived and mishandled. And he was concerned that growing economic disparities were putting the American dream out of reach for hard working citizens.
It was also obvious that Webb’s political skills were not as well developed as his convictions. He passed up multiple opportunities during the debate to draw contrasts with Allen that might have focused media attention. He seemed to be viscerally uncomfortable with the rituals of modern campaigning- the small talk with supporters before the event, presenting information in media-friendly bites, and chatting up of potential contributors.
After the face-off, the creators of the conventional wisdom- the media, political insiders and the punditry- quickly rendered their judgement. Good man, bad candidate.
By the time we spoke again again in October, the conventional wisdom was (as it so often is) in tatters. Webb’s tenaciousness and the now infamous “macaca moment” pulled him even in the polls. His message was getting traction with a public increasingly disenchanted with the President. And Webb was fending off a charge that his novels were simultaneously plagiarized and pornographic. In the odd currency of politics, the pornography attack was widely interpreted as beneficial to Webb- a sign that the Allen campaign was worried about losing.
Accompanied by former Governor Wilder, Webb dropped by my office prior to a speaking engagement at VCU. The conversation reinforced my first impressions. He still seemed uneasy about the routines and expectations of modern campaigning.
But if you value authenticity in political officials, Webb’s got it. His views emerge not from polls or focus groups, but from reflection on a set of life experiences that tend to differ considerably from those of the typical Senator.
Webb’s upset win was an unexpected twofer for the Democrats. It enabled them take control of the Senate for the last years of the Bush administration and it derailed the presidential ambitions of George Allen, perhaps the strongest Republican potential candidate in 2008.
Since arriving in the the Senate, Webb’s actions have been perfectly consistent with his campaign for office. He quickly became a major voice for the Democrats on issues of war and foreign policy. He authored a major GI Bill that provides substantial new educational assistance to veterans. And he speaks loudly on behalf of those whom he believes have not gotten a fair shake from the system.
At the same time, Webb has taken positions on major issues that are unlikely to be wildly popular in Virginia. He has been a supporter of the bailout for the automobile industry. He is likely to vote for ”card check” legislation that eliminates secret ballot requirements for union elections, a proposal that will be vigorously opposed by business leaders in a right-to- work state such as Virginia. And The Washington Post reports today that Webb is making prison reform a major initiative, a position announced in his most recent book A Time to Fight.
Anyone who has watched Webb’s career or read his books won’t question his political authenticity or his courage. He is the kind of Senator who puts principle and policy first and believes that, if you do this, the politics will take care of itself.
He might be right. The public says that it wants authentic leaders: people who will tell them where they stand even when it differ from views that they might personally hold.
I have a feeling that over the next four years Virginia’s new senior Senator will give the public ample opportunity to test this proposition. In essence, Webb believes that it is the task of an elected official to lead public opinion and not simply be shaped by it. It’s a precept advanced in all the textbooks about leadership.
But it is a principle that many of his colleagues who also represent swing states find far too dangerous politically to adopt.
Leave a Reply