University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Enfranchising 'The Middle'

By Paul Hurdle

I hesitate to add my comments to the
many observations on the upcoming election
which have recently appeared, but as a
former Skull and Keys candidate for
Student Council, and now as an observer
from the other side, perhaps my reactions
are of greater immediacy.

This election will be a crucial test,
determining, to a large extent, as Mr. Rosen
has said, the validity itself of Student
Council. I would like to deal with two
central issues: the relationship of personalities
and ideologies, and the failure of the
caucuses to see their own weaknesses.

Too many observers have overlooked
what seems to me to be the lingering
problem in University elections; namely,
voting along lines of personal sensibility
rather than ideological agreement. Fundamentally,
the conservative or fraternity
reaction to many liberal candidates is not
based on an intellectual appraisal of their
substance, but an emotional reaction to
their style. This often leads to a vote for a
caucus candidate with plenty of style but no
substance whatsoever - yet this "substance"
is what is so critically needed on
Council now. No one has found this truer
than myself.

As a caucus candidate and fraternity
man, it shocked the sensibilities of many
that I should participate in the Coalition.
This is the problem: until now, lines of
judgment drawn according to personality
preference have generally coincided with
lines of ideological difference. But in this
election the caucuses have unfortunately
stressed style over substance and the
Virginia Progressive Party has presented men
of widely varying styles all dedicated to the
substance of their party platform. Liberals
or moderates suffer the most when this
transition is made, because they "got it from
both sides."

The conservatives resent the liberal in the
three-piece suit as somehow "unnatural,"
and the radicals reject the liberals as "too
slow." In the middle, the liberal appreciates
the responsibility of the conservatives and
also appreciates the disgust and resignation
to absurdity of the radicals, as manifested in
the Liquifactionists. Yet he suspects the
intolerance of the radicals and the "behind
the scenes" reactionary tactics of the
conservatives, which are going on, for
example, in this election.

The radical would say, "Leave the
caucuses alone, and they will fall of their
own weight." Perhaps this is true. Certainly
at this time, when the caucuses could have
restructured themselves and taken a stand,
their failure to do so is baffling. I have
discussed a possible merger or restructuring
of the Societies with certain members of
those Societies, and was surprised that
nothing was done for this election.

Perhaps after the College elections the
Societies felt this was unnecessary. But
when will they see that Student Council
elections are different? There are crucial
issues, and an insistence on skirting these
issues to stress personalities is, ultimately,
politically dishonest. If the caucus candidates
choose not to have a platform (an
attempt was made at a platform by Skull
and Keys when I ran for Council), why are
they unwilling to have their party affiliation
after their names on the ballot? If they feel
(and I frankly think they do) that this
would be detrimental to their chances of
winning, then something is wrong with the
Society.

Also, why are there only three
candidates running for five positions from
each Society? This seems to be a tacit
realization that the two Societies are really
functioning as one.

Most damaging to the Caucuses is the
emergence of the Virginia Progressive Party.
The fraternity-independent split was
widened by the University Party, but has
been obfuscated by the VPP. There are
fraternity men, athletes, and their opposites
all committed proudly to real, rather than
verbal, change.

Now the student "in the middle" can
vote on issues rather than fraternity
affiliation or personalities. Those who do
not realize that this situation has developed
will be slowly but surely left behind by the
rest of the University, clinging in
bewilderment to what could have been a
viable tool for political activity but fell to
dust in their hands.