THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 16, 1995 TAG: 9504180539
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP
Creating new conversations
SOURCE: BY TONY WHARTON, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 128 lines
We asked you last week to think about the questions arising from the debate among Virginia Republicans over whether Sen. John Warner should be their candidate for the Senate next year.
How should loyalty be balanced against independence? What role should political parties play?
You showed us you had already been thinking about it. More than 200 of you wrote letters, sent electronic mail or called INFOLINE.
Those responses reflected frustration but not cynicism. They were hopeful. There are still strong beliefs out there about how politicians should conduct themselves, and signs that citizens are searching for politicians to believe in.
In particular, those who wrote us were struggling with the role of a politician's conscience in his or her political party.
``I see more and more people my age becoming very independent-minded, and are just as fed up with the parties as they are the politicians, maybe even more so,'' said Jim Shepard in an e-mail message. ``While there is a time and place for party politics, at some point you have to answer to your conscience.''
C.L. Ryan of Virginia Beach said loyalty is key: ``My generation was imbued with a strong sense of loyalty to country, family, a cause, church, school, political party, even to sports teams. It was a constant in a changing world, a keystone in building integrity.''
But how do you balance it? Norfolk's Raymond Fields wrote, ``When we no longer ask and demand that our elected representatives use their brains to think, we become slaves to ideology, not free thinking.''
Many of you, especially those who called INFOLINE, took a strong stand on Warner's political fate.
``I think the Republican Party should dump Warner as a nominee in '96,'' said Eric Knapp of Virginia Beach. ``You have to place a certain loyalty in your party even if you don't always agree. What he did was totally inexcusable.''
Earl Pierce of Chesapeake called Warner ``an upstanding American citizen. I haven't voted for him before but I will vote for him now.''
Political parties, people said, play a valuable role, one not to be dismissed lightly.
Dallas Holston of Suffolk wrote in to say: ``Conventional wisdom has it that we should `vote for the person, not the party.' Like much conventional wisdom, this concept is wrong. . . Modern democracies cannot function properly without strong, disciplined political parties. This country needs more partisan politics, not less.''
But a large number of those who wrote or called us said something more. They said we hadn't quite figured out the issue.
``I think the article should be loyalty vs. conscience,'' said Terry Mason of Norfolk. ``That would be a better measure for Congressmen.''
B.M. Scott of Franklin said, ``I do not feel that the Sen. Warner question is one of loyalty vs. independence! Instead, I see it as loyalty to a man's conscience.''
``Loyalty to a political party is as important as taking an independent stand on a crucial issue,'' said Charles Harbin of Virginia Beach. ``Neither position is in itself evil. . . The question that needs to be raised is this: Did John Warner act on behalf of his constituents as he was elected to do?''
The word ``conscience,'' and its importance, came up over and over again.
``I am compelled to consider voting for him because I think party loyalty can be set aside if it conflicts with one's conscience,'' said Mary Martin of Virginia Beach. ``I understand his decision. I only wish he would have expressed how he differed from North's position. Voters should understand why he did what he did.''
Richard Van Buskirk sent an e-mail that said in part, ``Since political loyalty can be either good or bad, depending on the political goals and/or the means of achieving them, loyalty becomes a matter of conscience. . . Party loyalty is neither a virtue nor a vice, only a mechanism for strength.''
People approached the idea of conscience in different ways. For Ryan of Virginia Beach, conscience should be guided by one's values, particularly loyalty. Express your differences, Ryan said, but then accept the result.
It's easy, Ryan said, to say you're acting out of conscience and challenge a result. It's hard, but important, to sometimes accept that result.
``Warner's `unpopular opinion' did what it was supposed to do,'' Ryan said. ``It sparked discussion which gave the (convention) delegates a chance to debate, consider, and in this case, as was their right, reject it.''
But for Warner, Ryan said, ``Petulance then took over. The boy with the football went home with it because he didn't like the way the sides were chosen.''
No, said R.F. Graves of Norfolk, conscience is the highest standard: ``I believe that unquestioning, total loyalty to a political party is very much akin to `My country right or wrong' and can lead to unintended - and disastrous - consequences. Nazi Germany comes to mind.''
Betsy R. Agelasto of Virginia Beach saw it as a practical matter. The groups she's familiar with work the best, she said, when ``the leaders are open minded and are not controlled by one side or the other, and particularly not by a clique.
``It is usually where the clique takes control and is not open-minded and does not allow room for other people and their ideas that the group falls apart.''
Suffolk's Holston said politicians may part company with their party ``on rare instances, where extremely important issues are involved. . . First, the issue over which (Warner) split with his party was not sufficiently extreme. Second, his attacks were personal, and therefore uncivil.''
From Suffolk, Bill Howard called for a new conversation.
``Despite the severity of the issues facing us, there must be a way for men and women of good conscience to consider the valid concerns on both sides of the issue,'' he wrote. ``The extremists on both sides will not learn to disagree without being disagreeable. They are preoccupied with trying to prove themselves right.
``However, I believe the majority of people are more interested in facing the issues than with making the news.'' ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
KEY QUESTIONS
Think about times when important differences have divided your
family, your church or organization or the place you work. What do
you do to bridge the differences and move forward?
If you tend to disagree with Warner's actions, in what part of
his argument can you find merit?
Even if you tend to agree with Warner's actions, with what part
of his argument do you have problems?
What is the common ground?
Send letters to: Dennis Hartig, 150 W. Brambleton Ave., Norfolk,
VA 23510.
To reply electronically, e-mail members of the newspaper's public
life team at publife infi.net, or post to the
newsgroup hr.general at http://www.infi.net/pilot/
Call INFOLINE at 640-5555 and press 1776.
by CNB