Mark Warner is a Southern Governor whose the most popular governor in the history of Virginia polls.
This is true, and a valid point as to why he's electable. But that's not really why I support Mark Warner at all. To me, that is an after-thought. Rather, I support Mark Warner because I look at the state of the country. I look at the state of the Democratic Party. And I look at the state of Virginia. And I look at the state of the Virginia Democratic Party. And I can't help but notice the difference. And as I've lived in Virginia all my life, I trace back to a bygone era (6 years ago) where both Virginia and the Virginia Democratic party seemed to be in a position eerily similar to the national state of affairs today. And I ask: what is the difference? Mark Warner.
Somewhere between the ultimate low of Gilmore's victory in '99 and Allen's victory in 2000 (which still stings), it changed from "He's a Democrat." as the end-all to a conversation to "So, he's a Democrat, well, there's nothing wrong with that" as the beginning of a conversation. And it has made all the difference.Perhaps that is not enough for some, who will not be satisfied until "He's a Democrat" is the end all of a conversation (but positively). But, frankly, you can't reach that point unless you first get past the negative perception. And while I respect theories of polarization and creating a stronger brand, I can only say that what we're doing, it's working. Not, it will work, but it is working. And people, not just Democrats, but everyone, are genuinely satisfied with the results, and as such are becoming more enamoured and accepting of the Democratic brand and, more importantly, Democratic values and ways of life.
To put it more practically, it is acceptable to ask for a tax increase or revenue adjustment in Virginia to pay for a program with a clear public benefit. This might sound like something entirely basic and intuitive, but runs counter to anything that has been going on in the rest of the country since 1994. The Commonwealth as a whole has actually decided, and backed it up with votes, to pay for things instead of putting it all on credit, in large part because they trusted the guy in charge (Warner) not to buy it unless it was a good investment.
Why did they trust him? Well, because he earned it. I know he gets grief for having supporting NAFTA. And I'm usually quite the little populist myself. But I'm not worried about it with Warner. Why? Because anyone who takes the time to include far-flung rural Appalachia in his job creation plans, and works so hard to make sure these depressed regions whose textile mill jobs are simply gone, forever, have a place and part in the new economy and the technological boom that has nourished Northern Virginia for years, I trust to include the little guy when it comes to trade. Nobody forced him to look out for these communities. While he might have made in-roads, most of them still didn't vote for him. But he did because nobody else was. So I trust him to approach the national economy from that vantage point, and from a creative perspective that thinks beyond the usual.
And I'm not just talking about job training. Job training is vital. It's a first step. But job training runs a little hollow when at the end of said training there aren't any jobs to enter. I have a friend who has two years of college education and is applying for a job in a coffeeshop against fifteen other applications. Now, this would be fine if that's what she wanted to do with her life, but it should be a choice. There should be employment so that someone with education can seek a job that requires those skills if they choose to regardless of where they live. There should be a choice so that people who are willing to work hard are not competing with those on public aide, because there are enough jobs to go around, and those jobs have upward mobility.
And this is the essence of what Mark Warner understands that win him fans and converts to the cause of the Democratic party. He is not a purist. He will never be a check-off-this-issue type of candidate. Because his main concern at the end of the day is, what works? What actually accomplishes something that is a net positive for our values at the end of the day? Will it be easier to keep companies if we lower the cost of health insurance to the employer? Yes. And so forth. You cannot create a lasting revolution unless you also build a consensus, and often that means speaking the other guy's language when you explain your solution.
The one thing that drives me crazy is the DLC, or Republican-lite argument that somehow suggests that Warner is weak or lacks vision, because to me, this is a very idealistic tone that has an idea about both what the Democratic party stands for and how it represents the vast majority of America. It's about believing that what's good for the center and what's good for the left are in large part the same thing, and that what's good for the city is what is good for the country. And his great success is being the one thing the city and the country in Virginia agrees on. I can't think of anything I would rather see in our nation than that.
And that brings us back to the triple-bank-shot question. If you can get the attention and speak the language of rural regions, you become insanely electable. It's impossible to ignore. But I'd rather not think of it as "who will get Missouri's attention?" I'd rather think of it as a candidate who is not afraid to walk into a rural Missouri district meeting, get nothing but dirty looks, and the next day go to Kansas. Don't you think that if Bush was willing to go before the NAACP or New York City, ask for their support, receive none, then ask for it again, we would have a better world right now?
So that scratches the surface of why I'm a Warnerite. Sure, it's cool what he's doing with his website, especially when digi-Warner reminds me that I haven't signed my email up yet. Yeah, it's great that he's not a Senator. Yeah, it's too bad that by virtue of not being a senator and it being so far out from the election he's not ready at the flip of a switch with an opinion on various issues. Yeah, it's prolly a good idea to have an anti-Hillary. And yeah, most headlines concerning him will include "Southern Governor" in their first sentence. But I'd still be sitting on the sidelines like I did in 2004 if I didn't think he was the real thing who had the potential to rock the party and the country for the better.