The
Power of Symbols
Republicans appropriate state funds to paint Vance
Wilkins' portrait. The governor cuts the traditional
Capitol Christmas tree. Who looks to you like
they're serious
about dealing with the budget?
In
politics, symbols count. Ask Michael Dukakis, who
was defeated by George the Elder in the 1988
presidential election in large part because of
potent symbolism -- his lack of enthusiasm for the
Pledge of Allegiance, for instance, and a photo of
him in an Army tank.
That
lesson obviously hasn’t been learned by the
Republican leaders in the Virginia House of
Delegates. They have decided to spend $6,000
in taxpayer funds on a portrait of former House
Speaker Vance Wilkins.
It
doesn’t help that Wilkins was forced out of that
position last June after charges surfaced that he
had made improper advances to a woman in Amherst
County. The fact that he left office under pressure
doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be recognized for his
service as Speaker. It simply makes the case for
using public funds for his portrait during a severe
budget crisis all the more difficult for the House
Republicans to carry.
It
took little time for Democrats to make hay out of
the decision by the House GOP leadership. Delegate
Brian Moran of Alexandria, who chairs the House
Democratic Caucus, told reporters that the
expenditure for the Wilkins portrait was “an
inappropriate use of taxpayer money, considering the
cloud over his head.” The chairman of the
Democratic Party of Virginia, Lawrence Framme,
chimed in that if each Republican legislator
contributed $68.18, the portrait could be acquired
privately.
The
Majority Leader of the House, Morgan Griffith, took
the bait. He argued that $6,000 really isn’t a lot
of money and, besides, the last Democrat who served
as Speaker was honored with a $6,300 portrait paid
for by the taxpayers. Other House Republicans
justified the spending because of the longstanding
tradition of using public funds for the purpose.
Just
days later, Governor Mark Warner took a symbolic
action of his own that put tradition in its proper
place and made the House Republican leadership
appear indifferent to the budget pressures state
government now confronts. Warner decided not to
erect a Christmas tree on the South Portico of the
State Capitol. This spared taxpayers approximately
$16,000.
The
paltry sum of $16,000 would hardly be missed in
annual state expenditures of more than $25 billion.
That’s not the point, especially when Virginians
are being asked to endure unprecedented sacrifices
to balance the state budget.
As
a consequence of these two symbolic actions,
Republicans come across as blindly bound to custom,
while Warner is seen putting the taxpayers’
interest ahead of tradition. He couldn’t have
helped Virginia Democrats more if he had contributed
$1 million of his own fortune to a Democratic public
relations campaign to portray Democrats as more
fiscally conservative than Republicans.
The
governor will submit his budget to the General
Assembly on December 20. This is an enormous
political challenge, perhaps as imposing a test as
any governor has faced.
The
GOP-dominated General Assembly faces the same test.
At the moment, it seems overwhelmed. How the GOP
leaders in the House have handled a $6,000 decision
doesn’t inspire confidence that they can properly
handle the major budget decisions to come.
It
would not be surprising if the public memory of the
Wilkins portrait and the absence of a Christmas tree
on the Capitol’s South Portico is stronger and
more lasting than the memory of all the other and
arguably more momentous budget decisions made at the
2003 session of the General Assembly.
--
December 16, 2002
|
