University of Virginia Library

Rod MacDonald

The Work Has Just Begun

The work has just begun for the Virginia
Progressive Party. Besides the responsibility
to live up to its promises that it has
acquired, the new party faces a different
type of problem in the next year or two if it
will survive. This problem is essentially
internal.

A political party cannot live on ideas
alone; it must produce men whom the
electorate elect to enact the promised
platform. But, once established, the party
cannot draw from outside each time an
election is held. It must produce its leaders
within its own ranks and as an idea party
those leaders must commit themselves to a
body of ideas.

The caucus system, despite charges that
it is completely useless, has one merit above
all other such parties at present: fraternity-oriented,
it has access to all the fraternity
organizations that breed leadership and
serve as providing grounds for the next
year's candidates. The IFC, with its
committee structure, the University Union
in the same way, and individual fraternity
houses all provide opportunities for a rising
politico to become known, what his desire
to serve the student body, and prove his
ability.

No Structures

Non-fraternity structures do not now
have this structure to develop its leadership.
The University Party was formed two years
ago; although it tried valiantly to bring
younger leaders through the ranks, it was
unable to offer any candidates for the
Student Council elections this semester. It
had failed in the primary task of a political
party: building a party organization that
will train and develop leaders to fill
positions of leadership a year or two later.
And it went under to the Progressive Party.

In a sense it was necessary to begin a new
party for liberals, for none of the
Progressive candidates would have been at
home on a UP sate. So a two-year cycle
emerge a liberal party forms with liberal
leadership and wins an election on its ideas.
Then it has to complement these same ideas
with a party organization and bring up new
leaders, or go under to the next liberal
party. The VPP must escape this death-trap,
or it too will not outlast Bruce Wine and
Buzz Waitzkin.

Not Too Grim

The prospects are not too grim, however.
The VPP is not merely a party of ideas, it is
a party devoted to bringing liberal fraternity
men into its structure. Such a stand, if it
succeeds, may very well bridge the gap
between the fraternity-dominated structures,
such as the University Union, and the
liberals, making those bodies the basis of
University conservatives no longer. We
suspect, however, that the rising VPP
politics will find it a much tougher fight to
rise in the Union or IFC than will the
traditional fraternity men, for as of now
they are still a minority in the fraternity
political system.

Lest the VPP think it may escape this
trap, let us draw some comparisons between
the University Party's rise and fall and the
VPP. Al Sinesky and Paul Bishop made a big
issue of party solidarity; but last winter the
UP candidates also drafted a platform and
all endorse it, leading to the ultimate
absurdity of Bill Wright (former YR
president and a well-known conservative)
and Pieter Schenkkan claiming "solidarity
of ideas.'

One Man, One Vote

The UP started out with a better
structure, moreover; it had recruited men
on a one-man, one-vote basis and had an
active membership; the VP has no
members now, only a steering committee.
From where will it draw its future leaders?
By contrast, every fraternity man is a
potential voting member of the caucuses.

In the end analysis, the Virginia Progressive
Party will last only as long as its
present leaders are influential unless it can
establish a structural method for younger
leaders to emerge. At present it will have to
infiltrate fraternity organizations, as they
are the ones existing. Should e VPP
remake them as it wants to remake the
caucus system, it will have worked a true
revolution in University politics; but unless
it can provide a proving ground for a new
class within two years, it will fold to the
next liberal party that provides new faces.

Postscript

Last week's column urging Abe Fortas
not to resign from the Supreme Court was
beautifully ill-timed, appearing on the
morning he did resign. Accordingly, we have
been asked whether we still stand behind
our original position.

The question of his innocence was never
our main concern; Justice Fortas chose to
protect his private life by resigning his
public life, a choice he certainly has the
right to make. We lament the passing of a
liberal from the Court, especially since we
are well aware of the type of man who will
be appointed to replace him and clear the
Dirksen Senate; yet we cannot defend his
innocence.

We stand behind the position of that
column firmly, however; that Mr. Fortas
was a liberal, and true to Washington
custom, would have been let along by
Congress had he been conservative. And
further we still believe that the American
people have missed a golden opportunity to
do something about the whole Washington
graft tradition. Instead they have followed
an even stronger custom, and allowed a
scapegoat to be sacrificed while clouding the
real issue. Farewell Justice Fortas.