THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, October 15, 1996 TAG: 9610150010
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A17 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SERIES: COMMONWEALTH CONVERSATION
One of a series of interviews with Virginia's political leaders
conducted by Pilot editorial writer Margaret Edds. Gerald Baliles is a
Richmond attorney. He served as governor of Virginia from 1986 to
1990.
LENGTH: 117 lines
How did we get from V.O. Key's description of Virginia as ``a political museum piece'' to today's highly charged, combative political climate?
There's a recognition that Virginia has become much more a part of the nation than it used to be. There was a time in this country when regional influences and parochial interests could exist in a vacuum, largely uninfluenced by national and international events. I think those days are gone.
Today, Virginia is one of the fastest-growing states in the country. A lot of that growth is internally generated, but for the most part I think statistics would show it is migratory in nature. The people who come here bring their ideas, their creativity, their prejudices, biases, customs and traditions. That has had an impact on the development of the political, cultural and social life of the commonwealth to a far greater extent than people have realized. . . . The leaders are simply a reflection of the change.
What have been the major trends in Virginia politics in this decade?
The modern era in Virginia really began when Albertis Harrison assumed the governorship (1962 - 1966). He represented a break in political style and leadership. Harrison's approach was to focus more on the future than the past, to attract capital investment, to lay the groundwork for revenue enhancements that would finance a whole new system of education in the state.
Every governor from Harrison up through the end of the 1980s was more in that tradition of leadership that built on the successes and accomplishments of prior administrations. Democrat or Republican, they basically kept focused on education, on economic growth, and unlike some governors in the era prior to Harrison, they sought to improve the quality of life for all people and minimize racial differences. That whole steady, progressive approach culminated in my successor's election.
Doug Wilder was not only the first black governor, but he was also the ultimate outcome of this whole calm, rational approach to government. Doug's election I see in a sense as a culmination of this approach of building for the future.
If there had not been that steady forward focus of governors over a period of time, the climate would not have been there for the election of a minority governor. That does not subtract at all from the personal and political skills that Doug brought to the election. He was probably the only minority political leader in Virginia who could have been elected. But he was also in the right place at the right time following a line of political leaders who focused on the future rather than stirring racial animosities.
So, in one sense, Doug's election was a culmination of this focus. But it was also the beginning of a transition period in Virginia politics. It became obvious to a lot of people that we were being affected by external, migratory growth in Virginia and the impact of an international economy. We had the recession and the continued devolution of federal authority and responsibility to state and local governments.
With all those turbulent economic forces swirling around for several years, there was, understandably, a reaction. While Harrison through Wilder was a steady move forward in governing, it can be argued that George Allen's election in 1993 was a reaction, a public desire for a time out, for some time to reflect on all those forces of change and determine the direction to the future.
Was Allen's election a reaction to personality or a reaction to the forces you describe?
Many people might assign different reasons, I suppose, but clearly people put on the brakes. They wanted a reassessment period. They responded to a strong conservative populism that was effectively packaged. The question now becomes whether this pause is confined to this one administration.
So we'll find out in next year's gubernatorial election whether this was a one-time fluke or a more permanent change?
It's not a fluke. It's a transition period. It's a movement from one style, one type of gubernatorial leadership, regardless of personality differences, to another type.
How do you describe the difference between the old type of leadership and the new type?
I think the idea from Harrison forward was that the commonwealth should invest in the infrastructure needs of the state. If you don't invest when times are good, when do you invest? For three decades there was a steady commitment to capital investment in the physical infrastructure and the intellectual infrastructure as well. The view from Harrison forward was that to compete in a changing economy there must be an educated citizenry. And it required building upon the accomplishments of one's predecessors, not tearing them down.
And you feel that George Allen has abandoned that approach? What do you think the impact on Virginia will be if we continue on Allen's course?
Some would argue that Virginia's commitment to the future has been changed to a more short-term focus, that needs have been subjected to scrutiny through a more narrow ideological prism than was the case during the last three decades. In the meantime, the growing needs of a growing state accumulate. In my judgment, the next administration will have its hands full of problems that have been deferred but which cannot be denied or dismissed much longer.
Do you think voters in 1993 were asking for this retrenchment?
I don't think you can really tell until the next election. There may have been some of that. At the same time, Virginia is still one of the fastest growing states in the country. We have to expect that growth to continue. Children still have to be educated. Roads still have to be built. Prisons still have to be maintained. The needs of the mentally ill and disabled cannot be ignored.
Is this period of retrenchment unique to Virginia or does it reflect a whole national mood?
I think the 1993 election in Virginia was a harbinger of things to come (nationally) in 1994. And yet, I'm not so sure that's an accurate reading either. I think there's a great hunger for a more effective response to public issues of concern. The public would respond, I believe, to candidates who challenge their thinking about our society and its future, who would focus on results vs. rhetoric, discussion instead of demands, listening rather than lecturing.
I think there's a re-emerging public hunger out there for those who will seek to educate and stimulate the thinking of the electorate instead of always seeking to distract it. MEMO: These interviews by Margaret Edds were conducted for a book about
Southern politics in the 1990s. The Virginia chapter is being written by
Dr. Thomas Morris, president of Emory & Henry College, and Ms. Edds. by CNB