THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 6, 1994 TAG: 9411030351
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY KEITH MONROE, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 123 lines
The three candidates in the Virginia Senate race have all taken stands on the issues, but have they actually run on the issues?
It depends on who you ask and how you define ``the issues.''
Mark Rozell, a political scientist at Mary Washington College offers a typical sentiment. ``It's an issue-free campaign.'' Charles McDowell of the Richmond Times-Dispatch thinks he knows why: ``Negative campaigning preempts the issues.''
It's certainly true that the candidates have been largely preoccupied with trying to make an issue of each other.
Robb says North lied to Congress, looked the other way when cocaine was smuggled, aims to ruin Social Security and is a tool of Jerry Falwell.
North says Robb lied to his wife, looked the other way when cocaine was snorted, aims to ruin Social Security and is a clone of Clinton.
Marshall Coleman says he's running against Beavis and Butthead.
But some campaign watchers say the debate about what is loosely described as character is a valid issue. Robert D. Holsworth, a Virginia Commonwealth political scientist, says ``this race is really about different visions of America and Virginia. And character has become a surrogate for issues.''
Larry Sabato agrees. The UVA professor studies political races and he says ``people were in a mood to send a message to Bill Clinton on - fill in the blank: defense, gays in the military, taxesand crimes. And North is viewed as both messenger and the message.''
For that reason, Sabato thinks it is misleading to say the race has been issueless. ``Actually, issues have been driving the race. There's no way North could have been the leader in the race unless issues were driving it.''
He's right about one thing. Agree or disagree with North's positions, he has put more issues on the table than his opponents. They have largely tried to make North the issue.
North's pitch has been for fundamental change - downsizing government, taking government back from the inside-the-Beltway crowd, providing government vouchers to fund private schooling, making Social Security voluntary, passing Constitutional amendments to limit terms and balance the budget, calling for big budget changes that may or may not add up. Not to mention so-called values issues - prayer in school, no gays in the military, restrictions to make abortions rare.
As a challenger unencumbered by a legislative record, North has been able to promise revolutionary change tomorrow. Robb has been stuck with his record of hard won accomplishments yesterday. For voters, it is the difference between remembering the pork of the past and looking forward to pie in the sky by and by.
Even if both candidates were anxious to offer an elaborate discussion of the issues, modern campaign techniques rule it out. Most voters now get their only contact with the candidates through 30-second commercials or 15-second sound bites where no real detail is possible. So even if candidates have elaborate blueprints to offer, they are reduced to bumper stickers.
Robb runs an ad that says: Ollie North - Extreme Views. North runs an ad that says: Chuck Robb - Taxes for us. A pay raise for him.
Sabato takes the optimistic view that this kind of minimalism doesn't really matter. ``Voters know what they're getting, by and large. A representative of their national party.''
Norman Ornstein is less sanguine. He's a Congress watcher at the American Enterprise Institute and, as such, is less interested in campaigns than in the process of governing. Still, he says campaigns that boil down to the trading of 30-second insults are bad for the country and turn into a vicious circle.
``Candidates and their handlers run negative campaigns because they work. In the process, they poison the well. They make people more angry and cynical and make running even more negative commercials the way to win,'' Ornstein says. And he said that's bad news because campaigns are supposed to be more than cat fights.
``Elections aren't just to select candidates. An election is supposed to be part of the deliberative process where you do talk about the problems of governance and about alternatives and try to educate people about the tough choices that lie ahead. And we haven't done that for sometime. We've cheapened the nature of our campaigns. And as a consequence the public says, `it doesn't matter what we do. We throw these bums out and we bring in a new set of bums and nothing happens.' ''
Sabato tends to think it is asking a lot for campaigns to be elevated debates of national direction. ``Campaigns are highly imperfect vehicles for detailed discussion of the issues,'' he says. ``They are never going to appeal to the League of Women Voters' desire for a sober examination of policy choices.''
Ornstein unhappily agrees. When an issue comes up ``like assault weapons or crime, it isn't so much to discuss what to do about the issue or what the policy alternatives are, but as a way of mobilizing different constituencies and activist groups.''
For example, when the important issue of the need to reduce entitlement outlays in order to keep the deficit under control came up, no real debate took place. Instead, the issue was used as a way to frighten seniors about their future security and access to health care.
It's unfortunate, but this Senate race has spent more time dwelling on what North did 10 years ago in the Executive Office Building, what Robb did 10 years ago in a New York hotel than it has on how America ought to look 10 years into the future.
There's been almost no discussion of what kind of defense we should have and how to pay for it. There's been little said about how to reduce crime and increase prosperity. Voters haven't heard much about how to make America competitive in a global economy, how to achieve an educated workforce and a reduced deficit.
Though Sabato thinks issues did play a part in this race, he admits it has been an unattractive spectacle. ``This time the attacks were more personal. The candidates were less hesitant to launch a first strike, more willing to dwell on the negative longer. We've developed scar tissue. This has been the worst ever.''
Ornstein, trying to look on the bright side, takes a page from Newt Gingrich. He says that after 40 years in the minority, Republicans have gotten irresponsible. Democrats, by contrast, have gotten arrogant and complacent. ``Maybe you can move toward something bipartisan if you switch the hats,''he said. Maybe.
But after trying hard to be upbeat about the race, Sabato isn't so sure either. ``Maybe we all, collectively, ought to write in Thomas Jefferson. A dead Jefferson might just be a better candidate than a live Chuck Robb or Ollie North.'' ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
Color photos
THE CANDIDATES AND THE ISSUES THEY SUPPORT
[For complete graphic, please see microfilm]
KEYWORDS: U.S. SENATE RACE VIRGINIA CANDIDATES ISSUES by CNB