The GOP Should Recall the Tradition of Moderate Republican Governors Like Linwood Holton

July 18, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

Present day conservative Republicans would be wise if they listened to the more moderate—even progressive—view of former Gov. Linwood Holton of Virginia. Of course, it is not about to happen, given the stances of the GOP in Congress and with most of its governors.

Holton, elected in 1969, was governor when the Old Dominion was ordered by the court to integrate its public schools. Previous governors had circled the wagons behind segregationist positions of Republicans and Democrats, including the once potent machine of Democratic Sen. Harry F. Byrd.

State lawmakers had swallowed the silly argument of "interposition"—a repackaging of the failed "states' rights" argument—which was promoted by a Richmond newspaper. Holton knew it was a loser and a stalling tactic of no merit.

In 1970, Holton sent his three young children to heavily black schools in Richmond. He accompanied his youngest son to grade school and it made the front page of the New York Times.

Only one member of President Richard Nixon's cabinet and team, then-Secretary of Labor George Schultz, contacted Holton and praised his action.

The end of moderation in the GOP South can be traced to Nixon's adopting a Southern Strategy of dividing the races. It elected Nixon in 1968 and has led to the Republicans' keeping a stranglehold on the South.

Look at Virginia now. The governor and one of the senators (and probably the second starting next year) are Democrats and the party is growing in the Washington suburbs.

In the current race for the second senate seat, former Democratic Gov. Mark Warner has a big lead in the polls and $5 million in the bank. His Republican opponent, conservative former Gov. Jim Gilmore, has $157,000 with which to challenge Warner.

Virginia is changing, but some Republicans still don't get it.

Tags:
Republican Party,
Virginia

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Justin of CA: "attaching the straw man argument of race in 1960"

I don't understand this reference. Please explain (with something more detailed than "whatever.")

Jim the veteran

Jim of NY 9:14AM July 21, 2008

Chris from AZ you're right on the money, you addressed the serious flaws in Mashek's comments on republicans need to become 'progressive' (whatever that means) in Virginia. Jim "the veteran" seems to be ignoring your argument and attaching the the straw man argument of race in 1960. Two things that have nothing to do with each other. Furthermore, as a resident of California I can assure you this state is in no danger of moving any closer to traditionally conservative ideology despite having conservative (liberal) republican (democrat) Governor (entertainer) Schwarzenegger (Kennedy) in office for two (one-and-a-half)terms.

Justin of CA 2:24PM July 19, 2008

Chris, that's one way to look at it. And I could say, Bush refuses to come to terms with the need to have a clear idea of when it's time to leave Iraq--except today's headlines indicate the Maliki government has forced Bush to do just that. And sending Undersecretary of State Nick Burns to talk with the Iranians is another example of "coming to terms" with Barack Obama, who was derided when he said he would talk with the Iranians.

My guess is that you see Obama "come to terms" with the military success of the surge during his visit to the Middle East. But his--and Mashek's--reservations about the lasting political success of the surge seems to me valid.

My further guess is that McCain, if he wins, will continue to talk about "winning" in Iraq even as he faces the reality of getting out with only a garrison force remaining; and Obama, if he wins, will continue to talk about leaving Iraq even as he faces the reality that he'll have to stay, at least with a garrison force, as long as it takes to win a stable departure. What do you think?

Jim of NY 9:34AM July 19, 2008

A Capital View

A Capital View

John W. Mashek covered politics in Washington for four decades with U.S. News & World Report, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Boston Globe. His primary beats were Congress, the White House, and national politics. He covered every presidential election from 1960 to 1996. He was a panelist in three televised presidential debates in 1984, 1988, and 1992.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement

advertisement