by Paul Goldman

Until Ken Cuccinelli became Attorney General, the office had historically only one major role to play in Virginia politics: A political one, namely a good spot from which to resign, and then run for Governor!. The last time anyone cared about the opinion of the Attorney General of Virginia on just about anything was 1967. Back then VA’s AG supported the state law against interracial marriages. The Supremes, without Diana Ross singing, told the AG to go back to law school and read the Constitution of the United States. In the case of Loving v Virginia, they declared Virginia’s law unconstitutional.

Basically speaking, prior to Cuccinelli, the VA AG has not been a leader in any fight for individual rights: nor has the VA AG been a leader in the fight for what I would call the fight for economic rights. Rather, the MO of previous DEM and GOP AG’s has been to lay low politically, and not be seen as an “activist.”

As a political matter, they believed taking the lead on individual rights – civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights – risked making you into a big time SOCIAL LIBERAL. As a political matter, fighting for economic rights – such as siding with homeowners against unconscionable mortgage provisions, against rip-offs in commercial contracts, etc – made you a big time GOVERNMENT LIBERAL.  

Better, went the political theory, to stay in the background, handle the safe legal stuff, stay near the fifty yard line and run for Governor. Moreover, to be super-safe, better to RESIGN to run, so that way you got out of the job without having actually done anything!.

In the modern age, AG’ Andrew Miller, Marshall Coleman, Jerry Bailies, Mary Sue Terry, Jim Gilmore, Mark Early, Jerry Kilgore and Bob “Can you pick up the tab for my kids wedding” McDonnell have run for Governor. NONE  ran for Governor on his or her record as AG. Indeed, I defy anyone to tell me what major mark any of them made or tried to make on the state as a whole while AG.

This isn’t a criticism, we are talking 200 proof politics here. They all viewed the job the same way: it is a ticket to the dance, but not a dance move itself.

Ken Cuccinelli – for the better in my view – has potentially changed the expectations from the AG forever forward. He has totally broken with the “I can’t remember what the AG did” image to a new “Can Your Friggin’ believe what the AG did this time” posture. Whatever you may think of his tenure, the fact is: He didn’t see the job as a ticket to the dance, but as the dance itself.

Enter, then, Mark Herring, the favorite and establishment choice, and Justin Fairfax, the underdog and anti-establishment choice. They want to be the DEM nominee for Attorney General. While both hold Mr. Cuccinelli in “maximum low regard” as we say in the politics, they do agree with the KMAN on this fundamental change: the days of the sleepy AG, the days of “This ain’t the New York AG’s office” is over. Kaput. Done. Gone. History. Whatever. The want to put the AG on the side of the people. After three centuries, it kinda is about time don’t you think?

They are not running as your father or mothers AG. Rather, they are running as post-Cuccinelli 21st century guys who agree the AG has to be a leader in the fight, not just run for Governor, but be the champion of the people. That’s to say: They are not afraid of the being labeled SOCIAL OR GOVERNMENT LIBERALS. The winner will be: that’s a guarantee. Should they worry about it? No, they shouldn’t. They are doing what they should be doing, taking the AG’s office to the next level, long overdue.

THIS IS HUGE. Even the Republicans who want to succeed Cuccinelli don’t want to take the office back to the days when the AG was seen –  at political events – but not heard for the people in the halls of justice. They too want to be activist AG’s only from a different point of the political spectrum. The public will have to choose what he wants policy wise, But activist wise: these boys are all promising that a new day has arrived at 900 East Broad Street in Richmond, VA. The AG’s office has a terrific view of the State Capitol grounds. Now it will have terrific view of the state constitution as well. The AG is suppose to be a leader, not a follower.

Politically speaking, it took a conservative GOP AG to alter the fundamental approach of the office. No one can call KMAN a liberal.  Moreover, he has actually done a few things which are not well-appreciated in certain areas of individual and economic rights. Small steps perhaps but necessary ones. Instead, however, he has decided to use the new “activist role” of a VA AG in law suits and policies far and wide, falling along an ideological axis. In his mind, he is fighting for individual and economic rights through his concept “liberty”, from the “we hold things self-evident” approach – life, liberty, pursuit of happiness – of , Patrick Henry. That’s right: Jeffersonian really took a lot of stuff from Patty Boy.

But at the same time: Notice I didn’t say Cuccinelli got his liberty form Thomas Jefferson, which is key. In the end, Patrick Henry tried to scuttled the U.S. Constitution, almost succeeding in Richmond at the fateful Constitutional Convention. In the end, Thomas Jefferson made his peace with the U. S. Constitution, not happy about a lot of it, indeed fearing the Judicial Branch.

But TJ figured, all things being equal as they were going to get back then, it was a step forward, not backward, we needed to a country, the Articles of Confederation had failed, we had to start with what we could agree on. At the time, most of Americans were not allowed to vote, and most were considered property, either of a slave owner or husband or a merchant.

A handful of white guys with the right genes and some land, could vote. Probably half of them met in Philly to write the document. [Just kidding, it wasn’t half, but it was the representatives of the few].

Whatever you think of them from the safety of 20/20 200 year hindsight, they didn’t do a bad job for a bunch of white guys right? It took the Civil War to fix a few things, and add a few key constitutional provisions. And then the men had to relent to give women the vote, and then together they had to end segregation. It took way too long.

But the point being: Activism is a good thing, without it, we don’t have this country. To me, that is where Patrick Henry screwed up big time. You just can’t complain about everything and then ride your horse back to Hanover County. He fought for freedom from England, but then couldn’t figure out how to fight to ensure freedom at home. Freedom without security may not be any freedom at all. You need to figure out a way to balance the two at some point. He never could do it in my view. He needed to try harder.

Now comes Herring and Fairfax. They meet at a cross roads of AG politics. So let’s examine their fight in historic terms.

Herring is running for AG on a promise to be a SOCIAL LIBERAL activist Attorney General. He has pledged to put the weight of the office behind the fight for individual rights. This is why gay activists, women’s activists, have basically backed him over Fairfax. Both guys are roughly the same on these issues, the same with civil rights. But women’s rights and gay rights are bigger issues inside the DEM party now in terms of political “juice.” Herring is promising to be “their guy.”

Fairfax is running for AG on a promise to be a GOVERNMENT LIBERAL activist Attorney General. He has pledged to put the weight of the office behind the fight for economic rights. This is why he has been surprising with a lot more grass roots support than the establishment forces have expected. Fairfax basically supports the Herring individual rights agenda. But he identifies more with AG’s in other states who have been leaders on economic rights.

As they say in the news business, there can only be “one lead.” Same in politics. Every candidate tries to have a “brand” as the adage goes. You try to pick that one thing you want people to remember when heading to the polls.

Herring wants people to know that if elected, he is going to be a kick-ass socially liberal AG as we ain’t never seen before in Virginia. Fairfax wants people to know that if elected, he is going to be a kick-ass government liberal AG as we ain’t never seen before in Virginia.

Now, to be sure, each might take issue with the term “liberal.” I use it in the historic context of Virginia politics since this column is aimed at putting the race for AG in such a context. They had better get used to it as I say above. They called Wilder a liberal. So what? They called Kaine a liberal. So what? Give the voters credit. They called Jefferson a radical. Didn’t hurt him any getting elected.

Just as Cuccinelli broke the mold, so would Herring or Fairfax as AG.

Politically speaking, the economic rights message works better in a general election than primary based on recent history. This is why Herring has to be considered the favorite right now for June.

What should Fairfax do? Stick to his guns, he has a very powerful message but he is up against a powerful Herring message. Herring has a more top down endorsement strategy. Fairfax needs a more bottoms-up message strategy. It is a fascinating strategy battle.  

Again, I am talking from my 200 proof vantage point. When it comes to the votes that Herring can get, his individual rights message makes sense for his candidacy. When it comes to the votes Fairfax can get, his economic rights message makes sense for his candidacy. Also, based on what I know about each guy, the message is the one they are most comfortable articulating.

This makes them the most fascinating faces in DEM politics today, with all due respect to Terry and the LG guys and our Senate twins, whatever.

The AG’s office in Virginia needed to be shaken out of it’s sleep.

I will give Cuccinelli his due in that regard, he got people to realize the office had a lot of potential to champion rights and remedies the people need. It is not a criminal prosecutor’s job.

Cuccinelli would be a sure winner this year had he used the activism far differently: but then, he wouldn’t be Ken Cuccinelli now would he?

The people will get to cast a verdict this year on his tenure, especially since he isn’t going to resign. I have some strong views on that. But it is a little early in season for that column. .

Today, we analyze only one thing: the coming of age for the Office of Attorney General of Virginia.

Herring and Fairfax have made it official: we agree with the Republicans, there ain’t no going backwards.

Moreover, the GOP can no longer complain about activist AG’s.

So if the Democrats win the AG’s office this November, it will be an historic moment, a Rubicon finally crossed, a new politics etched in stone for the most powerful legal job in the Commonwealth.

Free at last, free at last, the AG’s office enters the modern era.

VIRGINIA BEACH –  Bill Fleming has been nominated by the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee to be the Democratic Party nominee in the November 5th General Election for the 82nd House of Delegates seat that is being vacated by retiring Delegate Bob Purkey (R-Virginia Beach).

“I am running for the House of Delegates to make sure that Virginia Beach has a strong voice in Richmond,” Fleming said. “Over the next several months, I will be talking with voters to find ways to solve the problems that our state faces including an underfunded education system, traffic choked roads in serious need of repair, and a state government that puts special interests above the interests of the people of Virginia.”

Fleming, a small business owner in Virginia Beach, will be facing Republican Bill DeSteph in the General Election.

For more information on the Fleming for Delegate campaign, contact John Devine, Campaign Manager, by email at billflemingfordelegate@gmail.com.

###

I’m wondering whether it was appropriate to focus so much of our national attention on the Boston Marathon bombings.

True, some of our fellow citizens were killed and many more were injured.  But during that week an explosion at a fertilizer factory in Texas killed more people, and injured more people, than were killed or injured in Boston.  And yet, the Texas disaster probably received less than one percent of the Boston coverage.  

Maybe the difference was because what happened in Texas was an accident, even if caused by negligence, whereas the Boston bombing was a deliberate attack not just on the victims but on all of us.  

Terrorism is a real concern in our era. An attack on a major public festivity like the Boston Marathon is not trivial. Still, the question remains: Should the nation allow its consciousness to be so dominated by every terrorist attack?

All this attention rewards the terrorists, and is an incentive to others who may be lurking in the wings.  We’re telling the world  – in which there is no shortage of potential suicide bombers who would like to make as big a splash as those two young Chechen immigrants — that if you want to completely capture the attention of the world’s leading nation for days on end, just come and blow up a few of us.

It’s a strategic mistake to magnify the importance of the damage our enemies can do to us. We’ve seen this before, in 1979-80, when the Iranians held Americans captive.  President Carter made himself hostage as well, curtailing presidential travels. And on television, Nightline was born, with Ted Koppel giving nightly reports about “America Held Hostage.”

Better, perhaps, to respond to our wounds more stoically.  We are a great nation, and through our history we’ve repeatedly suffered pain and trauma, and we’ve shown that we can endure and triumph despite it all.  As the football coach said to his players about excessive celebration when they get to the end zone, we should act like we’ve been there before.

Two forces may be driving our nation to pay excessive attention to such attacks.

First, there are the news media, who are concerned about ratings, not about what the nation needs.  A shooter holed up in the mountains above Los Angeles can get wall-to-wall coverage because cable news can dramatize that kind of event for great ratings. (The disruption of Earth’s climate is hard to display in endless loop video.)

As a nation, however, we do not want the American dog to be wagged by the media tail.

A possible second force that could lead to excessive coverage may derive from the administration that reigned at the time of the 9/11 attack. That presidency exploited our national trauma for years, stirring up the people’s fears, even though there was nothing for us to do with our agitation, and continually bidding us to support a “war on terror” with no conceivable end. Fear-mongering was decked out as patriotism and used to make those leaders seem like our protectors, even as they assaulted many of the values and liberties for which our flag is supposed to stand.  

That precedent, ingrained over the course of seven intense and frightful years, may have created an expectation, a pressure, on subsequent leaders to give any subsequent attack center stage lest they appear lacking in patriotism or insufficiently involved in our protection.

Sometimes a trauma does warrant being kept in the forefront of our consciousness.  

There was good reason, for example, to “Remember Pearl Harbor.”  That attack required a nation at peace to transform itself – quickly, dramatically, totally – into a nation engaged in the biggest war in human history.  Millions of men had to be mobilized, the whole economy had to be redirected, and the lives of all Americans had to change in significant ways.

The focus on the Pearl Harbor attack was not about ratings for news media or patriotic posturing of a commander-in-chief.  It was an event to which we had to respond, as a people, in deep and long-lasting ways.

The “war on terror” is nothing like that. After the 9/11 attacks, our president told us to go out and shop. We had no need to mobilize as a nation.  We had, and we have, expert people who can deal with such things.  And as a nation, we have plenty of other urgent challenges that need our attention.

Our attention is a precious resource.  It should be wisely allocated.

Andy Schmookler, who was recently the Democratic nominee for Congress in Virginia’s 6th District, is an award-winning author, commentator, and teacher whose books include The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution.