Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, December 4, 1994 TAG: 9501110001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ALAN SPORENSEN EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
They did so mostly on their smarts, I believe, and because they have represented their constituents excellently.
They also may have survived by representing some constituents too excellently.
I'm talking about the ones who oppose even modest gun-control measures and any significant increase in tobacco taxes. The ones who are well-organized to defeat any politician daring to disagree with them.
It may seem churlish to dwell - at a time when meanness swirls around the country and Washington - on the gun and smoke stances of two decent, effective, moderate legislators who obviously know what it takes to survive politically.
I don't want to be naive, don't want to make perfection the enemy of the good.
But neither do I feel compelled to celebrate, or even overlook, Boucher's opposition in the past session to a ban on assault-type weapons, or Payne's position snugly in the tobacco industry's pocket.
The assault-weapons ban had been urged on Congress by police and other law-enforcement groups. Boucher also voted against the Brady bill, which requires nationwide background checks on gun purchasers.
In return for his obeisance, Boucher won the National Rifle Association's endorsement in his re-election bid. So did Payne, who broadcast the fact in the closing days of his campaign.
Payne, meantime, used his influence in the House Ways and Means Committee this year to reduce, substantially, a proposed increase in the federal tax on cigarettes. Not only would a higher tax come closer to paying for the huge medical and social costs caused by smoking. It also would save tens of thousands of lives by discouraging smoking, particularly among price-sensitive adolescents.
In gratitude for his efforts, the tobacco industry helped fill Payne's campaign coffers.
Maintaining these stances on guns and cigarettes doubtless helped Boucher and Payne insulate themselves from November's anti-Democrat freeze-out. The stances don't necessarily reflect majority opinion - evidence exists to the contrary. But they certainly reflect electorally significant opinion, not to mention powerful special-interest preferences.
The stances in any case left challengers to contend weakly that the incumbents hadn't been zealous enough in protecting gun rights and tobacco sales.
A trivial price to save a seat?
I don't know. Politicians have to sort out sometimes competing loyalties. They represent a district, but also are supposed to work for the good of the whole. They reflect voters' views, but also must occasionally consult their consciences. They do constituents' bidding, but also need to show leadership. And they must win re-election to stay in office.
I suppose the right mix isn't always easy to know, much less to accomplish. Both Boucher and Payne have gotten it wrong, I believe, in votes on trade agreements that benefit the country but that loosen trade barriers protecting some industries in their districts. Yet an arrogant and detached politician who never considers constituents' views is no better than a craven or unprincipled one who consults only opinion polls and focuses only on the next election.
Public opinion, moreover, isn't always easy to figure out. It doesn't simply represent the voice of those talking the loudest, organizing most effectively, or giving the most money to campaigns - though it is often mistaken for such. Nor is opinion static. Minds can change, especially in contact with persuasive politicians who take seriously their role as educators and leaders of public sentiment.
In their defense, Boucher and Payne have observed, accurately, that gun violence isn't the problem in rural Western Virginia that it is in big cities, and that local tobacco growers could be hurt by higher cigarette taxes. In one sense, their stances didn't count for much anyway: Gun-control legislation passed in spite of Boucher's vote; a higher tobacco tax went nowhere.
Both representatives have worked hard for their districts, and have been heavy hitters in Congress in other important areas: Boucher, on telecommunications reform; Payne, on Ways and Means.
I can imagine each saying to himself:
A little vote here, a symbolic effort there - which won't change the legislative outcome, and which justifiably reflects sentiment back home - and I can stay in office to do good works that really matter. Besides which, my opponent is more extreme in defending access to rapid-fire weaponry and subsidization of tobacco's social costs, not to mention on other issues.
So who's to fault a little bow to expedience?
When I imagine this line of argument, I still have to stop short - because it fails to take the congressmen at their word.
I might hope they would feel twinges of guilt: when Boucher reads about drive-by killings by kids with assault weapons in Washington D.C., say, or when Payne comes across the statistic that tobacco kills 400,000 Americans annually, and considers that higher excise taxes would deter many youngsters from taking up the habit.
But is it fair to assume that their opposition to gun control and tobacco taxes is anything but deeply held conviction? Is it fair to look for a wink or a nudge, or be reassured by one?
Why imagine that Boucher was anything but proud of the NRA's endorsement, Payne anything but pleased to announce that he has helped keep cigarettes cheap and plentiful? It's part of the record they want to be judged by.
Oh well. I'm still glad they won.
by CNB