Danville, Va. – Rep. Tom Perriello is this election’s test case of whether casting tough votes is better than ducking them, and whether a progressive who fashions an intelligent populism can survive in deeply conservative territory.
On the face of it, Perriello should be the year’s most vulnerable Democratic incumbent. In 2008, he won his sprawling, largely rural district — it stretches from academic Charlottesville down to this gritty former industrial stronghold on the North Carolina border — by all of 727 votes out of a total of some 317,000. Barack Obama lost the district by more than 7,500 votes.
The normal course for a Democrat in a Southern countryside district would be to declare himself a conservative, ally with the Republicans on as many roll calls as possible, and tell the president to find his votes elsewhere.
Perriello didn’t do that. Instead, he supported the stimulus package, the cap-and-trade bill and health care reform. Not only that, he proudly defends his votes, and sees the administration as not forceful enough in presenting its program as a coherent effort to deal with the nation’s biggest problems.
“If you take the stimulus, health care and energy and you treat them as three discrete debates, you’ve already lost,” he said in an interview over a late dinner Tuesday. “All three were about making us competitive in the world.”
Then he gets to his core argument, which he repeats over and over as he drives his genuinely battered pickup from small town to small town. (He used it long before Scott Brown made trucks the preferred form of political transportation.)
“We have to build, make and grow things in America,” he says. “We can’t win a race to the bottom with China.”
Because of his economic views, Perriello — who has trailed badly in one firm’s polls but is close to even in most others — can’t be pigeonholed as a down-the-line Obama supporter. He has been critical of the president’s economic team for not putting enough money in rebuilding the country’s infrastructure and for being too close to Wall Street.
He voted against the financial reform bill because he saw it as insufficiently tough on the industry, and his campaign literature touts him for “demanding accountability from Wall Street and Washington.”
If a willingness to take politically difficult votes is one Perriello characteristic, a defiant eclecticism is another. On Wednesday morning, several generations of veterans gathered at the Dan Daniel Memorial Park to announce that Perriello had won the endorsement of the political arm of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Perriello is especially proud of his work on vets’ issues, and he uses his record (which also won him an endorsement from the National Rifle Association) as a shield against charges by his Republican opponent, state Sen. Robert Hurt, that he is a conventional liberal.
“The Republican playbook this year has been to stand for nothing, learn nothing from their mistakes, and then use labels and scare tactics,” he said after the VFW news conference. “When you’ve got a guy endorsed by the NRA and the VFW, their attempt to say I’m a rubber stamp for a leftist agenda becomes ridiculous. First and foremost, I’m a populist.”
That’s what conservative business groups recognize, and they are pouring money into the district to help Hurt. But this week Perriello tried to transform their opposition into a badge of honor.
He trumpeted a Center for American Progress report that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was mixing foreign money into its multimillion-dollar fund paying for advertisements against him and other Democrats. The chamber denies this, though it’s hard to know what’s happening because the organization doesn’t have to disclose the sources of its political money. Perriello called the blitz “unethical and unpatriotic” as well as “fundamentally undemocratic.”
His focus on rebuilding American manufacturing and using clean energy investments to jump-start new industries in his district makes the appeal to economic patriotism a natural extension of his campaign. He distinguishes between concentrated corporate power, which he’s against, and innovation and entrepreneurship, which he’s for.
Thus has Virginia’s 5th District become a laboratory test of many propositions. Do politicians who vote their convictions over their obvious political interests get rewarded or punished? Can a Democrat use populism to trump garden-variety conservatism? And will the massive intervention of corporate money turn this election to the Republicans, or instead turn off voters? A lot rides on this one-term underdog who turns 36 on Saturday.
E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
(c) 2010, Washington Post Writers Group
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy