MIDTERM elections are looming, and U.S.Sen. George Allen,R-Va. has made some serious fumbles. But unlike his days playing football for the University, this type of fumble can't be recovered. Allen's recent fumbles might be terms "the value fumble."
In the Oct. 9, 2006 debate between Allen and Democratic challenger Jim Webb, Allen denied allegations of his using racial slurs on his football team. Allen also seemed to imply that those suspicions had no bearing on the issues. This illuminates what is perhaps one of Allen's fatal flaws: That personal value is separate from the issues.
The allegations of racism against Allen might altogether draw attention to his tainted character. Take for example (if you haven't heard already) his purported use of racial epithets on during his college days, his jamming a deer head into a Black family's mailbox and more recently, calling a University student "macaca." Allen's apparent racist tinge is hard to ignore. Yet it is unfathomable how a considerable portion of Virginia voters are still in favor of re-electing Allen.
By closing an eye to Allen's morally dubious behavior, voters are implicitly expressing disinterest in values such as tolerance and acceptance. Voters, however, shouldn't be so keen to swallow Allen's words and separating values from the issues. Making a definitive claim that Allen's supposedly racist beliefs have no influence on government issues is difficult. Allen might reflect his insensitive attitudes in the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay for example, or even worse, to citizens of other countries by supporting inane wars which hardly confer any large-scale benefits, especially not to those directly affected (e.g. the war in Iraq).
The dichotomy drawn by Allen also raises suspicion about hypocrisy. Allen supported former President Bill Clinton's impeachment by virtue of the opposite reasoning he now touts, especially in his new television advertisements where he urges voters to put aside personal attacks. Clinton's impeachment was fueled by fiery anger over immoral values and, later, lying to the country. Through Allen's own reasoning, it's actually possible to exonerate Bill Clinton.
First of all, the public shouldn't have been concerned with Clinton's private life since especially given that it had no influence on his position foreign or domestic issues. If a critic is willing to invoke the fact that Clinton both undermined the sacred institution of marriage and that he lied under perjury, consider the following points à la Allen.
If indeed, Clinton destroyed the sanctity of marriage, Allen did the same for well-accepted values of tolerance with racially insensitive comments both past and present. Ironically, this means that Allen actually should have supported Clinton. As for Clinton lying about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, Allen's reasoning doesn't apply.
But, while Allen didn't lie under perjury, it's probable that he must have lied about his comments being racially neutral. After all, it's more than mere coincidence that there are several allegations against him. But who cares? Clinton lied under oath and Allen didn't, and so, Clinton fell outside the boundaries of Allen-type reasoning. In other words, the "character doesn't reflect on issues" argument is bunk. Of course, this type of reasoning seems absurd, and it's for this very fact that Virginia voters shouldn't vote for Allen. Otherwise, they're approving of Allen skipping across the boundaries of what is morally right and wrong in justifying his words and actions.
A while back, I had the opportunity to listen to Raymond Flynn, the former U.S. ambassador to the Holy See. In his speech, he vilified politicians today for being too eager in dumping their values for votes. He was referring to how politicians change their stances on certain issues given that it can secure them another term in office. Flynn told the audience that politicians are elected for their values. If the voters dislike their values, they don't have to re-elect them.
Flynn's speech offers two suggestions relevant to the topic at hand. First, it's that issues and values are indeed connected because voters expect them to be echoed in the politicians' actions on issues. And next, voters elect politicians on the basis of their values. Re-electing Allen translates into either supporting or ignoring his personal value of racial intolerance expressed through repeated incidents of insensitivity.
The midterm election for the Senate in Virginia is critical not for its closeness and for power in the Senate. Rather, it's for the fact that it will reflect Virginian values. A victory for Allen for such an important role in our government on behalf of the Commonwealth will be a somber indicator for the state of Virginian politics. Evidently then, politicians can still represent an era of backwards thinking in their personal lives as long as they don't reflect their views in government.
Charles Lee's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at clee@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
