
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, May 20, 1990                   TAG: 9005210212
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: F3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: ROBERT D. HOLSWORTH
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Long

IS WILDER'S AGENDA PERSONAL OR PUBLIC?

A NUMBER of years ago when I was teaching at another university, I served on a search committee for a departmental chair. A good friend was well-acquainted with one of our finalists, and I called him for a reference. He told me that our candidate was a "complete Machiavellian." Upon hearing this, I wanted to know whether he meant the "good Machiavelli" who pursues laudable goals by using realistic and appropriate means or the "bad Machiavelli" who manipulates people solely to further personal ambition. He told me that it is not an easy question to answer.

But it is a question that is on the minds of some Virginians as we try to understand the intrigue and the muscle-flexing that has characterized the first few months of the Wilder administration. Are we watching a governor who is laying the groundwork for a serious attack on the major problems of the state? Or are we witnessing a governor interested in settling scores and embarrassing his predecessor while he uses his position to begin a campaign for national office?

Doug Wilder's political career has been characterized by a stubbornly independent streak. In the mid-1960s, he was an adviser to a local black political organization, Voter's Voice, that endorsed a separate ticket for Richmond City Council from the one promoted by the Crusade for Voters. In 1980, he thought about running for Congress as an independent, noting that it was not carved in stone that "one stays in the same party for life." In 1982, he threatened to run for the Senate as an independent when he decided that Owen Pickett, the annointee of the Robb machine, was excessively conservative.

During the mid-'80s, Wilder became involved in a celebrated spat with Chuck Robb. As lieutenant governor, Wilder saw fit to publicly disagree with Jerry Baliles on a number of issues, including the manner in which the governor's major transportation initiative was to be funded.

But independence is not a trait that Wilder encourages (or even permits) in others. Today he is a governor who demands absolute loyalty, not to any visible program or cause, but to Wilder the person. He has spared no effort to humiliate his longtime rival, Senate Majority Leader Hunter Andrews. He spent much of the legislative session trashing Baliles' management of the state's budgetary and transportation needs. In the space of his first 100 days, the governor has let it be known that there will be a tremendous price for crossing swords with him. One is tempted to say that Wilder the politician is exactly the kind of man that Wilder the governor would crush.

A case can be made that Wilder's blunt exercise of power is in the public interest. Elected officials do need to discover ways of ensuring that the civil servants who work under them will not be silently undermining their priorities and programs. Moreover, the General Assembly is still dominated by an unduly small number of senior members, and there are few legislators rushing forward to defend the prerogative of Andrews. Finally, Wilder's actions on the proposed CSX/RF&P merger and his statements on college fees can all be defended on the grounds that he is vigilant in looking after the citizens' best interests.

But there is certainly a less generous way of evaluating Wilder's activities since he has taken office. One might wonder, as state Sen. Joe Gartlan, D-Fairfax, has wondered, whether state politics has not been infected with a mean-spirited pettiness. Wilder has paid inordinate attention to the distribution of relatively insignificant political perks.

At the same time, the governor has yet to present a coherent vision of his agenda for the next four years. During the recently convened drug summit, the governor warned against the establishment of "artificial goals" that could not realistically be met. But such rhetoric seems to beg the question of what are the desired outcomes and how can we judge success or failure.

The summiteers accepted the governor's warning and issued a final statement that, according to reports that I have read, did not put forward a single measurable goal for which state government could be held accountable.

Outside Virginia, Gov. Wilder has become one of the biggest celebrities in American politics today. He is a sought-after speaker who has been barnstorming on the party's lecture circuit. Even though he has been governor for barely 100 days, there has already been speculation that he will have a place on the national Democratic ticket as early as 1992.

The governor has done little to dampen the speculation. Wilder has contended that his election in Virginia, combining the themes of fiscal conservatism and social compassion, should be the model for the party as it attempts to retake the presidency in the '90s. And, his cavalier treatment of Jesse Jackson has brought wide smiles to the faces of the Democratic Party establishment. According to Wilder, there is no rivalry between him and Jesse because there is "no comparison."

But Wilder's initial foray into national politics exhibited a failing similar to the one that has been evident in Virginia: He offers very little in the way of substantive innovation. Besides a few comments on the need to release more highway funds for the state, Wilder's speeches concentrated on electability issues, for the Democratic Party. He has said hardly anything about the pressing national challenges that confront us.

Some have expressed concern that Wilder's national ambitions will lead him to neglect Virginia. Wilder has too much political savvy to commit such an egregious mistake early in his term. But the real question for Virginia and for the Democratic Party is whether the governor's New Mainstream is deeper than a shallow creek.

by CNB