THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, November 1, 1994 TAG: 9411010315
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A7 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Medium: 95 lines
Some of those who have been watching the Virginia Senate race seem to regard it with the same kind of prurient interest that a soap opera provokes. Call it, ``As the Stomach Turns.''
James Gannon of the Detroit News (Oct. 23) quotes Charlie Eldred, owner of a lamp store in Washington, Va.: ``I have a certain amount of disgust for the ethical stature of Robb.''
Gannon says, ``Eldred hits the operative word in Virginia's Senate election when he talks of his disgust. Disgust runs like a river through the streets of little Washington, a quaint hamlet of about 200, when people begin discussing the choices they face in the Senate race.'' And yet, Gannon discovers that ``far from breeding apathy, disgust is energizing some voters.''
``The long decline of American politics finally has reached its nadir in Virginia. Voters face a choice that would gag an undertaker.''
Gannon also concludes that ``except for some anti-Clinton sentiment, there are no issues in this Senate race. Polls show voters ignorant of the issue stands of both candidates. The only question is character, which is hilarious when you think about it. It's like an argument among two streetwalkers about chastity.''
Paul Craig Roberts of the Washington Times (Oct. 20) takes seriously the choice between lying to a wife and lying to Congress. He thinks it is emblematic of the divide between those who disagree over whether government or home comes first. ``It wasn't that long ago that lying to a spouse would have counted for little. . . . In contrast, government held a pre-eminent position.''
But times have changed and the Robb/North race sums up the split. Suburban Washington government drones are backing Charles S. Robb while rural, anti-government, family-enthusiasts rally for Oliver L. North.
``There is a deep cultural chasm between the two camps. Two entirely different concepts of virtue are competing for our souls. One finds virtue in an all-encompassing state that redresses income `imbalances' by supplying the population with retirement income, disability income, housing subsidies, health care, child care, education, jobs. . .
``The other camp finds virtue outside the public arena. Instead of collective dependence, there is insistence on self-accountability and the habits of mind that preserve a free society independent of government.''
Roberts admits this polarized schematic doesn't really describe North and Robb, that ``Robb is not an extreme proponent of big government and that North is not the best example of the old virtues.'' But when you are grinding an ax, any whetstone will do.
Michael D'Antonio, in an opinion piece carried widely (Oct. 21), discussed an aggressive campaign for North by the Christian Right. ``Many conservative Christians are fond of describing America as a `Christian nation' and they are equally fond of connecting God with their visions of American government.''
He notes that many claim to be trying to bring back the past, not create something new. ``The born-again activists who insist that God wants Oliver North to defeat Chuck Robb in the Senate race in Virginia, contend they are simply returning the nation to its roots.''
But D'Antonio notes that the Constitution was devised to make sure government was kept ``religiously neutral.'' He says ``GOP does not stand for God's Own Party. This point has been made repeatedly by political conservatives such as Barry Goldwater, who says Robertson and company simply `do not care enough about the Constitution.'
``In Virginia, where the Christian Right evokes God at Oliver North rallies, this lack of regard for the Constitution is most evident, and most ironic.''
Nina Easton, in the Los Angeles Times (Oct. 23), argues that North has ``transformed himself into the true son of that modern-day Republican hero, Ronald Reagan. Even the plot feels eerily familiar: North as the gap-toothed innocent waging a red-white-and-blue crusade against an entrenched and powerful liberal elite.
``In many ways, the comparison works, though the Reagan he's emulating is more the combative cowboy of the 1970s than the avuncular old man who left office in 1989. North has the same aw-shucks demeanor - right down to the ranch-hand garb in his TV spots - and a penchant for telling a story that sometimes stretches fact.''
She concludes that ``North's campaign is the perfect expression of the anti-incumbent mood sweeping the country.'' She finds North, with negatives of 45 percent, ``one of the most polarizing political figures in the state's history. Divisions that deep are relatively new to a state that prefers its politicians to exhibit all the personality of a dead fish.''
Finally, Easton describes the appeal of North like this: ``To his supporters . . . North is the little guy who stood up to the faceless, corrupt machine and almost got crushed. He captures their own feelings of helplessness, of being cut out of the political system, the press, even decisions in their own schools and workplaces. Questions about the Iran-Contra affair elicit responses with an underlying message of: Let's not be naive, we know how the real world works - the little guy always gets screwed.'' MEMO: Compiled by staff writer Keith Monroe with assistance from staff
researcher Peggy Earle.
KEYWORDS: CANDIDATE U.S. SENATE RACE
by CNB