Can a candidate for Governor ignore what emanates from Washington as he or she unfolds their ideas for governing the state they seek to lead? Stated differently, can a candidate for Governor divorce policy-making in Washington from policy-making in the state they seek to govern?
Most emphatically not! Such a separation is artificial. It ignores economic and legislative limitations that restrict choices. It impairs our vision of a candidate’s principles and philosophy at a time when we are deciding the direction our state should travel.
It is true in all fifty states and this year it hits home. Right here in River City-whoops!! Virginia.
Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds represent two opposing views on the subject. McDonnell is quick to offer his views on critical national issues such as card check and cap and trade. Deeds concentrates on state issues and avoids expressing his views on these national issues by saying he is running for Governor of Virginia and what he would do as Governor is what is important.
Are there political considerations in these positions? Absolutely! Each man perceives political advantage in their posture. McDonnell senses that both proposals may not be popular in Virginia, particularly among his important constituencies, and opposing them gives him an edge. He also honestly believes they constitute bad national policy.
Deeds knows that his Party and its leadership favors these legislative goals, and he needs important voting groups he cannot alienate by opposing these initiatives. But by his silence he does not tell us what his views really are on these issues and we need to know.
If either or both of these proposals become law, Virginia will be dramatically impacted and the policy choices of the next Governor will be restricted.
Card check will potentially increase unionization in Virginia by restricting access to the ballot box for those decisions.
This may impact the cost of doing business, affect Virginia’s competitive advantages among the states and threaten other Virginia policies. It may not but surely its effects will impact the range of choices a new Governor has and the revenues with which he has to work.
Similarly, cap and trade. There is no question that this legislation will increase the cost of energy to be borne by consumers and businesses, and will affect other energy policies a new Governor might want to initiate. Its necessity in light of alternatives, such as nuclear power, is highly debatable.
But voters deserve to know how a candidate for Governor views this issue. After all he aspires not just to govern but to lead. His voice counts in Congress and in the policy-making role of Governors’ Associations, like the Southern Governors Association meeting this past weekend in Williamsburg.
Issues as complex as Health Care legislation so broad in scope and covering some 1100 pages may be so abstruse that a candidate can only voice thoughts on broad principles, such as whether the fabled “public option” should or shouldn’t be included.
Or saying the national government should stand aside and let the states try their own solutions in the manner of MA and OR, among others.
Whatever one’s view on the stimulus package-too big, too small, too this or that-it cannot be argued that its impact does not affect how Virginia’s budget woes will be addressed.
In short, there is no bright line between policy in Washington and policy in Richmond.
Ever since the U. S. Supreme Court in the 1940s decided that wheat grown by a farmer on his private land and feed to his own livestock “affected” interstate commerce and thus it was subject to federal regulation, the line between national and state government responsibilities has been blurred.
Neither Deeds nor McDonnell, nor the legislators they serve with, can ignore what happens across the Potomac River. A candidate’s views on those pressing issues being addressed in DC are important to know.
Or an honest, “I don’t have an opinion because I have not had time in the midst of a campaign to study the issue” is at least a recognition that the issue deserves attention that the candidate cannot devote at this time. Voters can judge whether or not that is credible.
But to dodge expressing your views because those are national not state issues is a subterfuge. As the saying goes, “that dog won’t hunt.”
Wyatt Durrette is a Director at DurretteBradshaw, PLC (www.durrettebradshaw.com) and co-founder of the XDL Group. He served three terms in the House of Delegates and was the Republican candidate for Governor in 1985.
It’s necessity in light of alternatives, namely nuclear? It requires an emense amount of capital to finance new plants. Those fixed costs are, in theory, recovered from customers. And given the public’s appetite for rate increases and just a generally poor regulatory atmosphere, what investor is going to want to finance this for a utility with BBB rating? And the feds have still not figured out a place to store all of the waste. So, I wonder how nuclear as an alternative makes the necessity of cap and trade highly debatable. It seems that without some government action to make nuclear really attractive, it doesn’t happen.
We have utilities ready, willing and able to finance these plants. Utilities always recapture capital costs, but it isn’t oil and that’s a huge plus. And there are solutions to storage if the political will is there. So, I would prefer the government action necessary to make nuclear happen to the alternative presented by cap and trade, at least based on what I know. Admittedly, I am far from an expert on the subject and am always open to learning more. Thanks for the comment.