In a debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters of South Hampton Roads, the two candidates for the 6th senate district of Virginia squared off on Oct 26, 2011. Republican, Engineer, and Navy Captain Ben Loyala took on the incumbent Democrat, State Senator, and Physician Ralph Northam amidst a crowd of approximately 200 people at Old Dominion University. By the tenor of the conversation and pre-emptive applause, it was fairly evident that the crowd leaned Democratic, as is to be somewhat expected at a university-hosted event. Nonetheless, the challenger Loyola presented a compelling and focused case for his senatorship, while Northam fended off attacks on his more-evident record. Loyala appealed to reason and to facts; Northam appealed to emotion and desires.
In their opening statements, Loyola emphasized “common-sense solutions” to Virginia’s economy, while Northam expressed his hope to present “accurate information” against his record, and stressed a need for bipartisanship.
The debate was moderated by WHRO’s Cathy Lewis, but all questions were submitted from the audience.
Question 1: With so many delegates and senators running unopposed, would you support a Constitutional Amendment for an independent body to determine redistricting?
Loyola: No. The representative process is a better representation of the people’s desire than an appointed board of appointers every ten years.
Northam: Unanswered, though he stressed the need for more competitive races in unopposed districts, and insinuated that a “bipartisan commission” is the best way of getting the politics out of redistricting. He even went so far as to say that “uncompetitive races do not equal good democracy.”
My take: Loyola’s answer is reflective of the democratic process. Northam assumes that a competitive race is progress, but does not answer why an unopposed district is a bad thing. If the people of a district are dissatisfied with their representative, then it would not be unopposed.
Question 2: What is your stance on uranium mining?
Northam: Corporations must be sensible to environmental regulations and the government has a responsibility to protect its people. “Nothing is more precious than clean air and water,” and we cannot let “big corporations run rampant.” Talked about health complications from over-exposure to uranium.
Loyola: Discussed the existing regulations that make it difficult for anyone to use available natural resources in Virginia, forcing corporations to go elsewhere, even outside the United States. Uranium mining–while profitable and beneficial–is too restricted amidst a widespread demand for energy.
My take: Northam argued from a physician’s perspective, seeing actual isolated consequences of exposure; Loyola argued from an engineering perspective, seeing potential widespread consequences of production.
Question 3: How would you address funding for transportation?
Loyola: Emphasized not raising taxes and making sure existing agencies are fiscally responsible. He took this opportunity to argue against the gas tax supported by Northam, arguing that due to increasing fuel-efficiency averages, it cannot be relied upon. He also addressed the need to alter the funding formula for transportation regions in Virginia, i.e., Hampton Roads would receive more funding per capita than Danville due to volume.
Northam: “The Number One priority in Hampton Roads (other than jobs) is infrastructure and transportation.” He seemed to advocate an increase in the gas tax by praising the 1986 decision to raise it. His only concrete solution, nonetheless, was to form “a bipartisan commission [to] come up with solutions, and take it to the general assembly.”
My take: Northam never directly answered the question, perhaps because he is afraid to say outright that he wishes to raise the price of commuting, distributing, and producing. Whenever someone says their solution is to “come up with a solution,” the answer should be suspect.
Question 4: What short-term plans do you have to stimulate the economy?
Loyola: Eliminate the problem of over-regulation and over-taxation. Get the government out of the way of the private sector, and create an environment where businesses are encouraged to stay in and migrate to Virginia.
Northam: “Invest in infrastructure;” “Invest in offshore energy;” “Invest in Education,” which is “the Great Equalizer.” In re the last, he wishes to “make sure” student with a High School diploma are trained in a vocation.
My take: The buzz-word “invest,” when imputed toward the government, means nothing more than spend. With this in mind, it seems Northam advocates the government shoving others’ money down the throats of industries and services that they deem fit, not the consumer and taxpayer.
Question 5: What is your personal stance on gun control and regulations?
Northam: “I respect guns,” but “as I have matured, I have gained a different perspective.” He stated he believes in people’s right to hunt and protect themselves, but “lines need to be drawn.” Examples of these lines are allowing guns in private commercial establishments and guns on campus.
Loyola: “The ability to defend yourself is fundamental.” Gun control only affects the law-abiding gun owners, not criminals who are intent on breaking the law. Emphasized the need to look at laws and recognize “who are [they] trying to affect?”
My take: Loyola’s answer is much more consistent with the absolute and ultimate individual right of self-preservation. If “lines need to be drawn,” the perpetual question must be, “by whom?”
Question 6: What makes you different from your opponent?
Loyola: Emphasized his spotless attendance record in all public capacities, and contrasted with Northam’s missing 37 out of 39 meetings while serving on the transportation commission (the one that was to oversee the Norfolk Light Rail project).
Northam: Responded to Loyola’s charges of absenteeism by stating that he had over a 99% attendance record in the General Assembly, but never addressed the commission. What made Northam different? His “deep roots in the 6th senate district,” and that he is the only doctor serving the state senate.
My take: If I were a Democrat, I would charge Northam with Xenophobia and racism for contrasting his inherent Virginia-ness with Loyola’s immigration history and Cuban-ness.
Question 7: What do you think of the Affordable Health Care Act, and is access to health care a right or a privilege?
Northam: Our healthcare is the best in the country, but the system is broken. We have good quality, can improve on access, but the costs will “drive the country to its knees.” Obamacare does not do enough to address costs, tort reform, or personal responsibility. Healthcare is not a right, so long as you are able to work for your benefits.
Loyola: Obamacare forces an individual to purchase a commodity he may not wish to purchase. Unconstitutional. Using precedent, he emphasized that over-regulation actually decreases options and raises costs. The General Assembly did the right thing by passing a law stating that no person shall be forced to participate in an economic service.
Northam’s response: The attempt by Virginia to pre-empt federal law is “Unconstitutional.”
My take: While I was impressed with Northam’s initial response, his rebuttal to Loyola’s critique of the mandatory coverage was absolutely ludicrous. If it is unconstitutional for a state to challenge federal law, then the entire Civil War was illegal, as was the North’s (especially Wisconsin’s) opposition to Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Question 8: What is your view on McDonnell’s decision to reject funds for “Race to the Top?”
Loyola: Supports McDonnell’s education plan. The funding offered for participating in “Race to the Top” came with way too many strings attached. Emphasized the need to return to local education, not federally mandated education.
Northam: “Education is the Great Equalizer.” It was foolish to reject $60 million dollars, and helped to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Argued that rejecting funds for education means needing more funds for penitentiaries. Though he also argued that education is best served at the local level.
Question 9: How much debt did you graduate college with?
Northam: Zero
Loyola: Zero
Question 10: Would you sign a “No New Tax” pledge?
Loyola: Yes. Raising taxes does not equal raising revenue. Emphasized the importance of creating a prosperous economic environment, rather than extracting wealth from the private sector. More jobs means more taxpayers means more revenue. Raising taxes cannot be “the first solution.”
Northam: Likened a “No New Tax” pledge to playing poker, showing all cards at the same time as the bet. Each bill must be played according to its merits.
Loyola’s response: In perhaps the best retort of the night, Loyola responded, “I won’t gamble with Virginia’s economy.” Argued that “No New Taxes” is a matter of philosophic principle, not subservient politics.
My take: While Loyola said he would sign such a pledge, his statement that raising taxes cannot be “the first solution,” seems to indicate that it might, in fact be a solution. Northam’s analogy to every vote being a poker hand was absolutely demonstrative of politics-as-usual, i.e., legislating on convenience, not conviction.
Question 11: What can the General Assembly do to encourage renewable energy?
Northam: “Invest in energy,” and create an environment of “system reliability.” Can’t have the mantra “Drill, baby, drill.”
Loyola: “Get out of the way,” and government cannot be in the business of picking winners and losers. Alluded to Solyndra.
Question 12: What can the General Assembly do to encourage the expansion of the TIDE to Hampton Blvd and the Naval Base?
Loyola: Make the commission “accountable to the taxpayers,” unlike the process that made the recently-implemented line go astronomically over-budget, and allow natural demand to initiate it democratically.
Northam: Rebutted that initial cost overrun of the TIDE was due to the staff, which was subordinate to the commission, and therefore could not take the blame… His solution, such as it was, seemed to channel the methods of the “Occupy” crowd: “It needs to be expanded.” Ahem.
My take: Ahem.
Final Question: Would you support an increase in financial aid funding by the state to ease the cost of college tuition for students?
Loyola: Degrees and state subsidization of degrees mean nothing if the student cannot get a job after graduating. Simply spending money will not solve the issue if it’s not spent wisely. Argued that a better economy would naturally decrease the financial risk of pursuing a college education.
Northam: “The best way to get people working is to educate them,” and recognized Georgia’s plan to pay for tuition if a student can maintain a “B” average.
My take: I’m not sure if Northam agrees with Georgia, or if he believes the state should increase its participation in financial aid, but he is wrong in saying that “the best way to get people working is to educate them,” as many unemployed master’s degree- and even PhD-holders can attest. The best way to get them working is to allow them to pursue a proper education, in accordance with their desire for happiness.
//
Had Ben Loyola not fumbled on his closing remarks, the debate would have easily been his victory, in my opinion. But, like an orchestra cacophonizing the final chord of Beethoven’s Fifth, I am afraid the only thing the audience will have remembered was his momentarily forgetting the last of the three primary responsibilities of government. Surely he knew them; he mentioned them at least five times during the debate (public safety, education, and TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE). A rational audience may disregard that as a momentary lapse in memory; but, alas, we were not amidst a rational audience. We were in an institution of “higher learning,” where, paradoxically, emotion reigns over reason.
Updated @8:49am, 10/28/11 to fix my own embarrassing errors.
