Reichley Column: Going along to get along

This paper’s 13th district race endorsement got me thinking about what makes a person a “good delegate.” In the endorsement, the editors had two complaints about the incumbent, Bob Marshall. First,
they feel his focus on “social issues” means he can’t spend enough time on things that have “more direct effects” on his constituents. Second, they argue that his “approach to legislating” “has restricted
his influence.”

On their first complaint, I’d say that first, his focus on “social issues” is important to a good number of his constituents, and the editors are too dismissive of the direct effects his successes have, I
presume because the editors don’t share these concerns. Second, I’ve seen no evidence that advocacy for “social issues” has prevented him from proposing and supporting legislation on other important
issues.

The endorsement cites two examples of high-profile and time-consuming efforts Marshall made: preventing an unconstitutional taxing authority and advocating for autistic children. Bob has also been
active on transportation funding and other issues, such as concerns about new regulations of alternate onsite sewage systems. Last year he managed to represent us well while running for his party’s
Senate nomination.

I’m a supporter of Bob Marshall and plan to vote for him again as I am pleased with his performance. Also, as the editors admit, Bob Marshall has served us with honor, intelligence, and passion — and I
don’t think that is so common a quality in a politician that it should be lightly dismissed. But my purpose here isn’t to endorse a candidate, but to discuss my opposition to the “go-along-to-get-along”
argument.

After the editors brought up the friction between Bob and the Republican leadership, I made an online comment that I paraphrase here: I’m glad Bob doesn’t “get along” all the time with the establishment.
Sure, that means sometimes he fights his own party, but he’s his own man. His willingness to buck his own party when they are wrong could mean he won’t have the power that comes from being a
rubber stamp for the leadership, but is that really what we want?

One major source of friction was Marshall’s successful fight against “unconstitutional taxes and fees.” The Republican leadership had joined with the Democrats to support that bill, and Marshall’s action
made them look bad. But would we be better off if Marshall had made a deal to back off in exchange for support for some other bill, or a leadership position?

In another case, Marshall fought against a Republican rules change which allowed subcommittees to hold secret votes to reject legislation. In part because of Marshall’s work, Virginians were informed
about the change, and complained. The leadership had to change the rule back — but they were upset with Marshall for opposing them, and it cost him a committee chairmanship. I’m glad Bob didn’t
keep quiet just to keep his position.

In another endorsement, the editors made a similar argument. In that case, Jackson Miller had championed an autism bill, but after a committee rejected the bill, Miller voted with the leadership,
opposing a move to overturn the judgment of the committee. As the editors said, “The legislature is a place where compromise and devil’s bargains happen.” So, if Miller didn’t “toe the line from time to
time, he may find himself ineffective.”

Well, maybe if we weren’t so willing to accept the status quo, our representatives wouldn’t have to sell their souls for a place at the table. We aren’t talking about the give-and-take of writing a bill, where
you have to compromise and accept changes to get majority support. We should not fault those who hold the line for their constituents, rather than toeing the line for the leadership.

Instead, we should fault those who create the false “devil’s bargains.” We need to stand up against those who use power for petty retaliation, not reward their bad acts. Those in power use committee
chairs and other legislative perks to influence delegates to “go along.” They hope that by punishing our delegates, they can convince us to remove those delegates and send others who won’t fight for us
but will do their bidding. And if they succeed, it emboldens them to greater acts of retaliation.

We should reject their pressure, and re-elect delegates who care more about what is right than what makes the leadership happy. Maybe this way we can discourage the leadership from using
chairmanships as rewards for “good behavior.”

Charles Reichley has been a Prince William County resident since 1981. He can be reached at: criticallythinking@msn.com.