the bulletin of the
U N I V E R S I T Y
O F
V I R G I N I A
Center Prepares to Launch Youth Leadership
Initiative Statewide
“As more people became
aware of the pilot project, the
requests to participate were
coming from all over Virginia,
and there have even been
localities outside the state
asking how they can get
involved with the program.”
–Ken Stroupe
PRESIDENT CLINTON, Barbara
Bush, Tipper Gore, Governor James
Gilmore, Senator John McCain,
Senator John Warner, Senator Charles
Robb, Sam Donaldson, Senator Emily
Couric, Delegates Paul Harris and
Mitch Van Yahres. What do these state
and national leaders have in common? Certainly not political party
affiliation. But over the course of the
last year they have all demonstrated a
commitment to the youngest generation of Americans by supporting and
participating directly in the pilot project of the Youth Leadership Initiative.
With student-conducted debates;
the largest online mock election in the
nation; student-hosted community
symposia; and a rigorous academic
curriculum specifically linked to the
Virginia Standards of Learning, the
success of the program has been overwhelming. Now the Center is making
final arrangements for the official
statewide launch of the Youth
Leadership Initiative in public and private middle and high schools throughout the Commonwealth in August.
“As more people became aware of
the pilot project, the requests to partic-
ipate were coming from all over
Virginia, and there have even been
localities outside the state asking how
they can get involved with the program,” stated YLI Director Ken
Stroupe.
As a result, what started out in the
first half of the school year as a test
project in Charlottesville and
Albemarle County has quickly expanded to include schools in the
Shenandoah Valley, the central
Piedmont region, the City of Danville,
and Henrico County.
“We’ve been adding new schools
throughout the school year. In the
process we have been fine tuning the
program and now we look forward to
offering it to all Virginia schools,” stated CGS Program Director Alex
Theodoridis.
How It All Began
Just one year ago, the Center moved
forward on an idea to select student
Youth Leaders in participating schools
to assist their teachers with the implementation of a new and largely unfamiliar Youth Leadership Initiative.
Forty talented students were nominat-
ı
G O V E R N M E N TA L
STUDIES
winter spring 2000
CENTER FOR
➛!“E-voting” is a signature
component of YLI.
#!Senator John Warner discusses
youth involvement with high school
students from Albemarle County.
ı
winter spring 2000
2
Henley Middle School students
make last minute adjustments with
State Senator Emily Couric before
YLI Senate debate.
YLI student leaders meet with
Senator John McCain.
CHS senior Jay Farmer listens as
candidates for the Virginia General
Assembly debate campaign issues.
ed by their teachers and selected to
lead the citizenship program by
conducting mock campaigns, host
debates and conduct townhall meetings. But, as the students quickly
learned, their biggest challenge was
not the rigorous schedule of YLI
events. Rather, it was finding a way
to convey their energy and interest
in government and politics to all the
other students at their school. True
to their role as Student Leaders, as
the school year progressed student
interest and participation—as well
as that of the general public—did
indeed grow rapidly.
general election voters attended the
first two YLI debates with candidates
for the Virginia General Assembly.
The debates were live-broadcast,
public events that were conducted
entirely by the first class of Youth
Leaders. Delegate Paul Harris (R-58th
District) took on Democratic challenger Ed Wayland (D) at the first
debate, while the second featured
Virginia state Senator Emily Couric
(D-Charlottesville) and Republican
challenger Jane Maddux.
CGS founder Larry Sabato
opened the first debate with a word
of caution to the candidates: “These
students don’t know what not to
ask.” Indeed, as the debates progressed, two things became very
clear: the students knew their stuff,
and they weren’t afraid to ask direct
and challenging questions.
Topics for the debate included
school safety, the death penalty,
charter schools, managed heathcare
systems, school vouchers, education
funding, and lottery profits. Faced
with such straightforwardness, the
candidates themselves replied with
responses that quickly helped the
students and the general public
learn who stood for what before the
upcoming election.
“Thank you for hosting the
debate at Monticello High School,”
wrote the parent of a participating
student. “My son has never had any
political interest until this
debate…You have definitely made a
future voter out of my son.”
Would that level of interest hold
true for all the other thousands of
YLI Hosts First Student-Conducted
Debates
As late fall approached, election season was in full swing as hundreds of
participating students? The YLI Pilot
Project was about to find out.
YLI Mock Elections—Would They Vote?
In the coming months there will be even more innovation and excitement in the Youth Leadership
Initiative.
Early spring will see the launch of the new YLI
website that will further integrate the program and
make it accessible for students in every public and
private middle and high school in Virginia. The new
site will serve as a ready resource and information guide for all YLI initiatives,
including its educational mission, civic participation projects, and other community activities. The YLI website will also be the online location for webcast debates,
as well as the secure poll-site for the YLI Internet-based Mock Election that will
scale to the entire state for the November election.
Growing out of the training sessions last fall, the Youth Leadership Initiative
will host a Summer Camp and Training Seminars for students and teachers in July
on the historic grounds of Thomas Jefferson’s University.
THE YOUTH LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE IS ALSO DESIGNING AN INTERACTIVE CAMPAIGNS AND ELECTIONS
CD-ROM FOR ROLLOUT IN AUGUST. THE CD ROM WILL CONTAIN:
• Interactive versions of all YLI citizenship course units;
• The YLI Town Square where students will have access to the most comprehensive list of local civic organizations available online including contact names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses for
their elected officials, local governments, and civic and community organizations;
• A YLI “polling consultant” to create and conduct classwide or schoolwide surveys and analyses;
• An extensive “Facts” data base that converts to classroom exercises using political and historical
trivia; and
• An impressive interactive exercise that allows students to manage the intricacies of a U.S. Senate campaign, from announcement through Election Day, in the hypothetical state of “Columbia.”
ballot based on the location of a
student’s school, new technology
enables us to offer each student the
same ballot their parents use in a
general election,” said Theodoridis.
YLI Students Conduct the Largest
Internet Ballot in the Nation’s History
3
ı
No one could have anticipated the
level of participation and the resulting impact of the first YLI Mock
election. On Tuesday, October 26,
1999—one week before the
November general election was held
in Virginia—YLI students went to
the polls and participated in what
became one of the most watched
and exciting events of the Youth
Leadership Initiative.
With more than 5,000 students
voting online, Virginia again made
history by conducting the largest
Internet election in the nation’s history. Reported by state and national
media, thousands of YLI students
demonstrated the use of secure,
encrypted cyber-ballots that were
individually customized to their
home precincts.
“I e-voted!” exulted one student
as she exited the polling station.
That phrase, e-voting, caught on
quickly, and is now used by the
Youth Leadership Initiative to
describe its online balloting process.
As a result of the success of the YLI’s
first Internet-based mock election,
State Senator Emily Couric (DCharlottesville and the first Senator
continued on page 14
winter spring 2000
The Youth Leadership Initiative was
developed according to the theory
that if government, politics and the
electoral process were presented in a
manner that interested young people, they in turn would be interested
and active participants in the electoral process. There could be no better proof of such a conviction than
success with the fundamental event
of elective democracy: an election. If
students could be inspired not only
to participate in, but also to help
run, an election—with real ballots,
voting stations, tabulation, and
media coverage—it would show that
the YLI had developed an antidote
to political apathy among America’s
young.
Going into the project, however,
most national statistics and polls
suggested that the challenge was
nearly insurmountable. Voter participation in 1996 among young people (age 18-24) was less than 30%.
During the 1998 mid-term
Congressional elections, voter
turnout was the lowest it had been
since 1942. And with a voter
turnout rate of less than 15% that
same year, it was young people who
showed the greatest level of disinterest. So the question was a troubling
one. Many had registered, but
would they actually vote?
The Youth Leadership Initiative
did have one ace up its sleeve: as
Election Day approached, students
learned that the days of the old
paper ballots and counting by hand
were a thing of the past. With technology as a signature component of
the program, the YLI unveiled a
state-of-the-art cyber ballot for the
student mock election, with ballots
individually tailored according to
each student’s home voting location.
“Rather than vote with a generic
ON THE AGENDA
Director’s Corner
BY LARRY J. SABATO
OF THE MANY PROBLEMS in American political life today, none looms so
large as the crisis of non-participation: the United States consistently has the lowest voter turnout of any industrial democracy. But that is only half of the sad
story, for many Americans who do participate in the electoral process know
shockingly little about the candidates and the issues. The UVA Center for
Governmental Studies has as its goal nothing less than the complete reversal of
this lamentable state of affairs.
From the very beginning of the Center less than two years ago, two objectives
have guided all our activities. First, we want to reach the young people of America
at the earliest possible age, so that the political process becomes familiar to them
and part of the natural rhythm of their year. Second, we want to make politics
comprehensible and accessible to voters of all ages, including those who have
long since finished their classroom education. In such apathetic times as these,
with vital elections drawing ever nearer, America desperately needs to re-discover
the inestimable worth of an active commitment to elective democracy.
These two goals, simple but compelling, are the genesis of Center programs
such as the Youth Leadership Initiative, whose active curriculum leads students to
explore and embrace every aspect of political education and participation.
Similarly, our many public events—attended by the most thoughtful and influential public figures in America today, televised on C-SPAN, and reported in national papers—inform and engage even citizens who have tuned out or turned off
from the political life of the nation. I encourage you to read about past and
upcoming events in this edition of our newsletter.
We are a young and dynamic institute with a broad non-partisan mandate, and
through our efforts to revitalize the political and governmental processes, we are
here to serve you. We welcome your comments and suggestions on our projects
and activities—please call the Center to learn more about us and get involved!
Linwood Holton Governors Conference is Second
in Annual Series
4
“Instead of standing in the school
it. That will be remembered forever.”
–Former Governor Gerald Baliles
ı
winter spring 2000
house door, he walked his kids through
on Linwood Holton
VIRGINIA’S STATESMEN
GATHERED in Charlottesville July
16 and 17 expecting to learn a lesson from the past; in the bargain,
they got advice for the future. Those
present at the second annual
Governors Conference, sponsored
by the Center for Governmental
Studies and the Weldon Cooper
Center for Public Service, examined
the Gubernatorial career of A.
Linwood Holton, the first
Republican governor of Virginia in
the 20th century.
The panel conversation ranged
from lively and lighthearted to serious and controversial as press, cabi-
net members, and other state leaders from the Holton era discussed
the former governor’s accomplishments and failures. Some told stories about their old friend; others
took a more critical tone, discussing
the merits of Holton’s tax increases
and Holton’s role in shaping the
“New South.” “Our panelists did an
excellent job of expressing the controversy of the time but also
acknowledged the success and
importance of Holton’s revolutionary policies. They demonstrated that
Governor Holton was truly the first
New South governor,” said Alex
Theodoridis, CGS Program Director.
Linwood Holton delivers the keynote address at the Second Annual
Governors Conference examining his legacy.
Race Relations
Panelists focused on Holton’s leadership in race relations, often citing
a day that would become a pivotal
moment in the history of the nation
and in Holton’s career. Other southern governors were blocking schoolhouse doors to African-Americans,
but Holton escorted his daughter,
Tayloe, to her first day at a predominantly African-American public
school. Holton also made the inclusion of minorities in government
positions one of his first priorities.
“Several of our panelists were instrumental in Governor Holton’s
administration not only as employees, but also as examples to the rest
of the nation,” said CGS Event
Coordinator Melissa Northern.
“They gave us tremendous insight
into the mood of the times, the
challenges they faced, and the
impact of Holton’s policies on the
Commonwealth.”
Historical Legacy
Former First Lady Jinks Holton
spoke at the First Lady’s Luncheon
on Friday, delighting the audience
continued on page 6
ı
The First Lady’s Story
5
winter spring 2000
Panelists debated Holton’s place in
history, eventually naming him the
catalyst for the downfall of the Byrd
machine and the figurehead for the
rise of Virginia’s Republican party.
Holton’s candidacy in 1969 inspired
a wide-reaching Republican party
that encompassed minorities, suburbanites, labor interests, the conservative right, and leftist voters impatient for the fall of the Byrd organization. Most panelists agreed that
this miracle electorate was merely a
transient amalgamation of voters
and were not surprised that it did
not survive the next election, but
agreed it was an essential boost for
the Republican party.
Holton’s ’69 Democratic opponent Bill Battle attributed his party’s
loss to the influence of liberal
Democratic primary candidate
Henry Howell. He noted that
Howell’s post-primary attempts to
kill off the Byrd machine were a
major reason many voters abandoned Battle, though he still denies
a significant role in the organization. “The conference was intended
to explore a variety of perspectives
on history, so we were delighted to
include Governor Holton’s 1969
gubernatorial opponent in our dialogue,” said Theodoridis.
No matter what the reason for
Holton’s victory, all at the conference agreed that Battle was a true
gentleman on election night, 1969.
Rather than simply phone in his
congratulations, Battle and his family walked over to Holton’s victory
party to shake his hand. “Panelists
commented over and over again on
Mr. Battle’s noble gesture. Many said
they wished politics could be so
honorable today,” said Northern.
Friday night at the Rotunda Dinner,
Holton discussed the GOP today,
calling it “overly obsessed” with tax
cuts and in need of new priorities.
Holton said the Republicans should
once again become America’s moderate party and should “find a way
to serve all the people.” He cautioned party leaders that an extremist stance on issues such as gun control could alienate more voters than
it would attract, and encouraged
realignment of the party towards the
middle of the political road.
Holton also intimated that the
Republican Party appeals to the segregationist element in the south, in
direct opposition to the efforts of
the “New South” governors of the
early 70’s. Mark A. Miner, a representative from Governor James
Gilmore’s office, later disputed
Holton’s claim that the party still
suffers from racial prejudice in the
Washington Post.
“Governor Holton forged an
entire political career out of creating
controversy, so his speech would not
have been fitting if it didn’t raise a
few eyebrows. When you give leaders an open forum to discuss their
legacy and how it can be applied to
the present and future, sparks will
fly. By the time this series runs its
course, though, we will have included voices from many different political eras and divergent points on the
ideology spectrum,” said
Theodoridis.
The Center Goes to the Capital
D.C. Roundtable Hosts Political Celebrities
As the United States began to recover from a year of scandal and impeachment proceedings, the Center for
Governmental Studies took its show on the road to host two events in our nation’s capital.
On May 11, 1999, the Center sponsored a star-studded Washington Roundtable, which drew pundits, politicos
and guests to the Crystal Gateway Marriott for an evening that included a keynote address by Sam Donaldson.
Despite some initial technical difficulties, the program began with a discussion featuring Mark Shields, Al Hunt,
and Kate O’Beirne of CNN’s “The Capital Gang”, as well as NRCC Chairman Tom Davis and House Democratic
Caucus Chair Martin Frost.
After dinner, master of ceremonies Tony Snow introduced former Newt Gingrich Communications Director Tony
Blankley who spoke on the importance of civic participation. Donaldson then proceeded to captivate the audience
with insights and tales from his decades of covering American politics.
The primary function of the Roundtable was to raise the Center’s profile within the D.C. community. However,
with just under 300 people in attendance, it also proved to be an exceptional fundraiser, earning approximately
$150,000.
Conference Draws 100 PAC Leaders
Later in the summer, on August 4, 1999, the Center teamed up with the National Journal’s Hotline for a presentation, which was attended by over 100 PAC leaders, on the upcoming congressional elections. Held at the
Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C., “The Fight for Congress 2000” offered both insightful presentations
about the 2000 elections and a lively forum in which to discuss its impact on the nation’s politics and economy.
The half-day conference brought together a variety of informed sources and political insiders, including
Republican and Democratic pollsters John McLaughlin and Fred Yang, as well as Erik Smith and John Guzik of the
DCCC and NRCC respectively. A panel discussion featured Hotline’s Chuck Todd, Cook Political Report editor
Charlie Cook, and CGS visiting scholar Bruce Larson.
“We were absolutely delighted with the reception these two events received from some of the most important
players inside the Beltway,” said CGS Program Director Alex Theodoridis. “At what many perceive as a low point for
politics in the United States, the success of these forums is a refreshing reminder that the positive message of hope
and empowerment still has tremendous appeal. We’re happy to see that many of our nation’s elected officials, business leaders, journalists, and scholars still believe in the power of America’s democratic process.”
continued from page 5
ı
winter spring 2000
6
with stories of the family’s four
years in the Governor’s Mansion.
Along with tales of their young son
selling unauthorized tours of the
family’s living quarters, Mrs. Holton
described the children’s feelings on
their first day of integrated schooling. She said that Woody was the
most affected by the attitudes of his
new, mostly African-American classmates, saying that he felt like a
“tourist attraction.” The young
Holton was willing to return to
school once he figured out that he
could sell autographs for a dime
each. Mrs. Holton confessed her
original worries about the school
situation, but admitted that the kids
rose to the occasion. She saw her
children as young leaders and good
examples for the rest of the country.
Mrs. Holton and other panelists
will appear in a documentary produced in conjunction with the conference by Central Virginia’s Public
Broadcasting WCVE-TV23
Richmond/WHTJ-TV41
Charlottesville. The documentary, a
history of Holton’s career and political contributions, will be broadcast
in March of 2000.
Other conference attendees
included Lieutenant Governor John
Hager, Congressman Caldwell
Butler, Delegate Richard Cranwell,
Senators Hunter Andrews, Benjamin
Lambert and Henry Marsh; journalists such as Margaret Edds, Margie
Fisher, James Latimer and Charley
McDowell; and former administration officials, such as Staige
Blackford, Alexander Gilliam,
Cynthia Newman, John Ritchie and
William Robertson. •
Thomas Jefferson: Political Strategist
B Y J A M E S R . S O F K A , P R O F E S S O R O F G O V E R N M E N T A N D F O R E I G N A F FA I R S AT T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F V I R G I N I A
This paper was delivered in the
Dome Room of the UVA Rotunda to
participants in the CGS National
Homeownership Conference,
November 12, 1999.
Jefferson’s real
“profound Wisdom” was
using philosophy to
conceal at times cunning
political objectives.
IN 1813, JOHN ADAMS told his
friend Thomas Jefferson that “Your
Character in History may be easily
foreseen. Your Administration will
be quoted by Philosophers as a
model of profound Wisdom; but by
Politicians as weak, superficial, and
short-sighted.” Adams proved
remarkably prophetic. Most studies
of Jefferson’s politics, beginning with
that of Adams’ great-grandson
Henry, treat Jefferson as a modern
philosopher-king whose policies
were rooted in deeply-held principles. The debate on Jefferson is
always about whether those principles were realistic or correct, or from
which sources they were derived. The
more critical issue of whether
Jefferson was really motivated by
principle is often overlooked, and
therefore Adams and successive
interpreters of Jefferson have missed
a defining characteristic of his statecraft: that Jefferson’s real “profound
Wisdom” was using philosophy to
conceal at times cunning political
objectives.
At first glance this assertion
appears preposterous. The American
Enlightenment is frequently personified in the figure of Thomas
Jefferson. His career as statesman,
scientist, and architect seems to
stand as an ideal Renaissance man. A
plethora of specialized monographs
examining virtually every aspect of
his life—including, in a recent case,
his wine cellar—appear with startling regularity. Yet, one could labor
through modern Jefferson scholarship for ages and never learn that he
held elective office or managed
American foreign policy through the
darkest years of the Napoleonic
Wars.
Part of this is due to a uniquely
American view of politics, which
tends to look for saints and sinners:
statesmen are either pigeonholed as
idealistic and pure—such as
Woodrow Wilson—or as cunning
and devious strategists, like Richard
Nixon. Europeans don’t have this
problem—they can praise their
politicians for enlightenment and
political agility simultaneously—
Catherine the Great, Frederick the
Great, and Francois Mitterand come
to mind.
But in American context traditional Jeffersonian scholars are loathe to
consider their hero an ordinary
politician. They prefer to discuss his
ideals rather than the at times
Machiavellian means by which he
pursued them. Contemporary scholars are caught up in the current academic rage for identity politics rather
than his diplomacy or partisan
infighting. While both schools have
their merits, and certainly the field
of Jefferson studies is broad enough
to offer both a home, tonight I’d like
to try to fill a gap—unfashionable as
it may be—by examining Jefferson as
an American political leader and
assess his character and methods in
the turbulent political climate of
early America.
From his birth in 1743 six miles
east of this spot, on what was then
the frontier of colonial Virginia,
Jefferson was groomed for a leadership role in politics. His father Peter
was one of the wealthiest landowners in the colony, and from his youth
Jefferson was directed towards the
study of law to prepare for an active
role in colonial government. He
entered the College of William and
Mary in 1760, and soon became
acquainted with the Royal Governor
and his circle who took the young
man into their orbit.
By his account Jefferson found the
study of the law tedious, and his
chief interest in Williamsburg was
the political process. Through many
conversations with the learned
Governor and his observation of the
proceedings of the House of
Burgesses, Jefferson thoroughly
absorbed the nuances of Virginia
politics. Indeed, he admitted that
Williamsburg politicians
had a more lasting
impact on him than
the faculty of William
and Mary.
To be sure,
Jefferson’s interest in
science was profound,
but he never seriously considered
a career in this field. Yet, any man
who could seriously argue that “the
greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful
plant to its culture,” or who spent
part of his vacation in 1791 analyzing an obscure species of fly, was
heavily indebted to the scientific
advances of the eighteenth century.
Although he claimed to detest
statecraft, it was his consuming
passion, and he could never stray
from it for long.
Jefferson’s own contributions to this
field are legendary: in one case he
went so far as to commission
American soldiers to capture a
moose and send it to him in Paris so
he could more concretely refute
French claims as to the inferiority of
American species. In the field of
architecture Jefferson attempted to
reconcile the competing styles of
classical and contemporary, though
never to his his satisfaction: Work on
Monticello was begun in 1769, the
structure was torn down and rebuilt
three times, and Jefferson would
likely regard it as unfinished if he
toured it today.
But appealing as it was, the natural world was distinct from the political for Jefferson. He did not
approach politics from a scientific
viewpoint, and was loathe to apply
mechanistic or biological formulas
to the body politic. Metaphorically,
he kept the portfolios of his two
Presidencies—that of the American
Philosophical Society and that of the
United States—in separate drawers.
Condemning politics as “base” was a
disingenuous tactic Jefferson frequently deployed, and his brilliant
success at obscuring his intrigues
behind the facade of science and
learning partly explains the modern
reluctance to treat him as an expressly political figure.
Jefferson intended posterity to
view him as a reluctant politician, a
sage never quite at home in the turbulent affairs of state. Thus any miscalculations could be conveniently
excused as the products of scholarly
naivete. This was a useful means of
distancing himself from his opponents—whom he frequently disparaged as “professional politicians.”
Jefferson therefore measured
American politics by a double standard: one for men of letters like himself and his allies, and one for the
lower species of politicians who by
coincidence populated the Northeast
and supported the Federalist Party.
Two days before leaving the White
House he sighed, “Nature intended
me for the tranquil pursuits of science, by rendering them my supreme
delight. But the enormities of the
times in which I have lived have
forced me to take a part in resisting
them, and to commit myself on the
boisterous ocean of political passions.”
Yet Jefferson did not tenuously
sail on this ocean at the mercy of its
breezes and currents, as this account
suggests; rather, he dominated it
with an impressive armada of political tactics. A quick glance at his correspondence reveals an encyclopedic
grasp of American politics which has
been exceeded by few subsequent
Presidents. Although he claimed to
detest statecraft, it was his consuming passion, and he could never stray
from it for long.
When one thinks of Jefferson and
politics one usually conjures the
image of a bookish and scholarly
man rather than a skilled and savvy
political operator. Indeed, this is the
man who admitted that “I cannot
live without books.” Yet these books
were intended for practical rather
than academic use. He once argued
that “I am not fond of reading what
is merely abstract, and unapplied
immediately to some useful science.”
Like Isaiah Berlin’s celebrated “fox,”
Jefferson rejected broad ideologies:
“No one axiom can be laid down as
wise and expedient for all times and
circumstances,” he declared.
Believing that context was vital in
determining the correctness of an
action, Jefferson abhorred rigid
canons of thought, approached texts
with a skeptical eye, and used their
ideas to suit a specific purpose.
He drew most of his lessons from
concrete examples: “Forty years of
experience in government,” he
argued, “is worth a century of bookreading.” As a politician, Jefferson
was more concerned with establishing and implementing his own agenda than in remaining faithful to a
philosophical tradition.
Indeed he quickly tired of speculation and proclaimed himself “satisfied and sufficiently occupied with
the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about
those which may indeed be, but of
which I have no knowledge. “When I
meet with a proposition beyond
finite comprehension,” he sighed, “I
abandon it as I do a weight which
human strength cannot lift: and I
think ignorance, in these cases, is
truly the softest pillow on which I
can lay my head.” A study of
Jefferson’s reading of political theory
leads to rapid frustration. He read
and criticized almost every work
popular in the eighteenth century,
but generally disparaged their usefulness in day to day politics. “What is
practicable,” he claimed, “must often
control that which is pure theory.”
In terms of political character,
throughout his career Jefferson consolidated his power base by feigning
indifference to politics. “I have no
ambition to govern men,” he wrote
to Adams after the 1796 election. “It
is a painful and thankless office.”
Such typically apolitical comments
were disingenuous at best coming
from one of the most sophisticated
political operators of his day. Indeed,
the day before he had just run second in a close race for the VicePresidency! Jefferson was perhaps
...throughout his career
Jefferson consolidated his
power base by feigning
indifference to politics.
the most ambitious leader in the
new republic with the possible
exceptions of his chief adversaries,
Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
Indeed, Hamilton noted in 1792
that “‘tis evident beyond a question,
from every movement, that Mr.
Jefferson aims with ardent desire at
the Presidential Chair.”
But how could Jefferson hope to
maintain an image of scholarly
impartiality in the heated political
climate of early America? His preferred tactic was to maintain a low
profile when confronted with anything controversial. “My great wish is
to go on in a strict but silent performance of my duty: to avoid
attracting notice and to keep my
name out of the newspapers,” he
wrote in 1789, “because I find the
pain of a little censure, even when it
is unfounded, is more acute than the
pleasure of much praise.” Even
among his friends Jefferson’s reputation for being thin-skinned was
notorious, and despite what he
wrote about the virtues of a free
press, he could not tolerate criticism
of himself or his policies. He
observed in 1796 that he was
relieved at not attaining the
Presidency, as “I know well that no
man will ever bring out of that office
the reputation which carries him
into it.”
This zealous regard for maintaining his personal standing led him to
a wily secretiveness which characterized many of his political actions.
He was unwilling to champion
unpopular causes, even if he considered them “right” in the abstract, for
fear of negative publicity. This trait
manifested itself most clearly in his
approach to slavery. Jefferson constantly rejected appeals to denounce
the institution on the grounds that it
would undermine his reputation and
power base in Virginia and the
nation. It is necessary, therefore, to
reluctantly accept Richard
Hofstadter’s famous conclusion that
while Jefferson spoke “the most
advanced and liberating ideas of his
time he was not in the habit of
breaking lances trying to fulfill
them.”
Jefferson therefore attempted to
stay as far removed from political
battles as possible. He would offer
minutely detailed policy briefs to his
friends, which betrayed the hours of
thought he put into them, only to
conclude that he had utterly no
interest in the matter at hand and
preferred to cultivate his potatoes at
Monticello. His true masterpiece was
the dinner party: After plying his
guests with liberal quantities of
wine, Jefferson encouraged airing of
the latest political gossip and took
careful notes!
At times, however, Jefferson found
it necessary to fight for an important
issue. In these instances he employed
another favorite tactic: letting his
friends do the heavy lifting. He
could thus simultaneously provoke
battle while peering down at the
fight from the Olympus Monticello
and keep his own hands clean.
Indeed, Jefferson paid journalists to
uncover personal information about
his rivals—including on one instance
Hamilton’s sex life—and write editorials denouncing their politics. When
confronted, Jefferson shrugged and
argued that he had no control over
the emotions of his supporters.
Consequently Jefferson never
made himself the prisoner of a party
platform, and never proposed radical
measures that might serve as a lightning rod for criticism. Never did he
embrace an idea of such controversial originality as Hamilton’s financial policy, and suffer the political
consequences of it, as Hamilton did.
He was not prone to take risks,
especially where his reputation was
concerned, and thus he was extremely reluctant to transform bold ideas
into practice. Ironically, this has
served brilliantly to enhance his
reputation even at the distance of
250 years.
Tonight we converse in the physical center of Jefferson’s last and
greatest political achievement: the
University of Virginia. While
Jefferson had contemplated an educational mission for the United
States since the 1780s, the immediate impetus for this University was
expressly political: specifically, the
issue of slavery. The Missouri Crisis
of 1819-20, which began the forty
year sectional divide of North and
South over control of the Senate,
convinced Jefferson that American
politics was beginning to splinter
and a new generation of leaders
required training in the doctrine of
states’ rights. He was horrified at the
number of young Virginians going to
Harvard, Yale, and Princeton for
their education. “How many of our
youth [the north] now has,” he
lamented in 1821, “I know not; but
a gentleman, lately from Princeton,
told me he saw there the list of the
students at that place, and more than
half were Virginians. These will
return home, no doubt, deeply
impressed with the...principles... of
[slavery] Restrictionists.”
In Jefferson’s Ptolomeic conception of federalism the American
political system revolved around
Virginia. He was convinced that the
only way to preserve the political
culture of the Old Dominion was
through the careful indoctrination of
the states’ rights principle. This was
best accomplished in the friendly climate of central Virginia, where his
personal and political influence was
unrivaled. As he observed to John
Taylor in 1821, the schools of the
North “are no longer proper for
Southern students. The signs of the
times admonish us to call them
home. If knowledge is power we
shall look to its advancement at
home where our resource of power
will be unwanting.” He observed
that “we are now trusting to those
who are against us in position and
principle, to fashion to their own
form the minds and affectations of
our youth... This cancer is eating
away at the vitals of our existence,
and if not arrested at once, will be
beyond remedy.” He would not
allow the sons of the Virginia gentry
to be “infected with the doctrines of
consolidation.” Therefore he prohibited a distinguished New York judge
from teaching law at the University
because he had ties to Hamilton’s
old political machine. “An angel
from heaven who should inculcate
such principles in our school of government should be rejected by me,”
Jefferson solemnly declared.
Jefferson’s intolerance of ideas he
deemed “heretical” led him to personally select textbooks in the field
of politics, and to make his own
brand of “political correctness” the
standard for hiring faculty. “There is
one branch in which I think we are
the best judges,” he argued to
Madison, “It is that of government. It
is our duty, to guard against the dissemination of such [Federalist] prin-
ciples among our youth, and the diffusion of that poison by a prescription of the texts to be followed in
their discussions.” He, of course,
would be the judge of what would
be taught. For this reason Jefferson
sought to recruit U.Va’s first professors in Europe. He did not trust
American scholars; most had been
educated in the North and therefore
lacked a proper appreciation of
Southern politics. He insisted that
every student read his Kentucky
Resolutions of 1798, in which he
argued that the states retained ultimate sovereignty in American politics.
Jefferson’s chief political objective
in founding the University was to
restore the unrivaled power of
Virginia in American politics which
it had enjoyed in colonial days.
Realizing that within several decades
its alumni would be occupying positions of power in the federal and
state governments, Jefferson was
determined that they be trained in
the principles he deemed vital to the
existence of the South. “Our sister
states,” he noted, “... will bring (us)
their genius to be kindled at our fire,
and will carry back the fraternal
affections which, nourished by the
same alma mater will knit us to them
by the...bond of early personal
friendship. The good Old
Dominion...will become a center of
ralliance to the States whose youth
she has instructed.”
Jefferson sought to prepare another generation to carry on his legacy
and lifelong defense of his beloved
Virginia. The Academical Village, he
told a friend, “will become the rallying centre of the South and the
West.” Truly the “lengthened shadow
of the man,” the University—like
much of Jefferson’s legacy—is the
expression both of an extraordinary
political will and living monument
to one of the consummate political
strategists in American history. •
P
Dominion Resources, Inc./ Virginia Power
ESG Companies
Mr. Randolph G. Flood
Mr. and Mrs. William H. Goodwin, Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. Bruce C. Gottwald
The Haney Company
Mr. and Mrs. James B. Murray, Jr.
The Richard S. Reynolds Foundation
EXECUTIVE TRUST MEMBERS
Bell Atlantic Corporation
Capital One
Patricia Cornwell
Mr. and Mrs. William H. Fishback, Jr.
Mr. and Mrs. John T. Hazel, Jr.
William A. Hazel, Jr.
Markel Corporation
Mobil Oil Corporation
Oracle Corporation
Mr. and Mrs. E. Claiborne Robins, Jr.
Ralph Rocks
Waste Management, Inc
V
America Online
Bond Market Association
CSX Corporation
Davenport & Company LLC
The Fund for American Studies
GTE
Lockheed Martin
Mays & Valentine, L.L.P.
McGuire Woods Consulting
Norfolk Southern Corporation
NVR, Inc.
Pepsi
Phillip Morris
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Robert E. Pogue & Associates, Inc.
Sallie Mae
Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert J. Sullivan
Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield
UST Public Affairs
Value Options
Virginia State AFL-CIO
Virginia Waste Industries Association
WEST Group
F
I
L
E
Ken Stroupe
AT 33, KEN STROUPE has already experienced
more in the political arena than most people do in
an entire lifetime. Today, he is using his experience
in politics and his lifelong interest in student
government to guide the statewide and
national kick-off of an exciting new
program called the Youth Leadership
Initiative.
Since he was first elected as
statewide President of the Virginia
Student Council Association in high
school, Stroupe has always held a
strong interest in the workings of politics
and government. Over the years, that interest
has served as the springboard for an impressive
career in state and national politics.
He began his career in politics as an assistant on
Capitol Hill to then-Congressman George Allen.
Less than three months had passed in Washington
when Congressman Allen asked Stroupe to serve as
his Press Secretary. Then in 1992 when George
Allen announced that he would seek the Republican
nomination for Governor of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, he asked Stroupe to leave Washington and
join him on his campaign. In November 1993,
George Allen was elected and at 25, Stroupe became
one of the youngest people ever appointed as
Communications Director and Press Secretary for
the Governor of Virginia.
When George Allen’s term ended, Stroupe moved
to Charlottesville and enrolled as a graduate student
at the University of Virginia where he is completing
a Masters Degree in American Government. In early
1999, Stroupe was encouraged to run for a seat in
the Virginia House of Delegates from his home district in Page County, but chose instead to complete
his graduate studies and take on the role of Director
of the CGS Youth Leadership Initiative.
“We’re very fortunate to have Ken leading the
development and implementation of the YLI.
Under his stewardship, the program has grown
faster than any of us ever imagined,” stated CGS
Director Larry Sabato. “A statewide and national
program with an ambitious agenda like that of the
Youth Leadership Initiative required an enthusiastic
person with tested leadership skills and an excellent
understanding of the political arena. In Ken Stroupe
we found exactly that.” •
11
ı
U
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL MEMBERS
O
winter spring 2000
A
C
E
N
T
E
R
F
O
R
G
O
V
E
R
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
S
T
U
D
I
E
S
S
P
O
N
S
O
R
S
CHARTER SPONSOR MEMBERS
R
American Democracy Conference 1999 Surveys Politics
Past, Present, and Future
THE CENTER’S AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY CONFERENCE
1999 ended on December 6 with a
few conclusions reached, some new
questions raised, and one widely
accepted sentiment best expressed
by National Journal’s Charlie Cook:
“This election really is just huge.”
Panelists cited many reasons to keep
an eye on this coming November,
saying that the outcome would
decide much about our nation’s
future.
“Congress on the Cusp”
Panelists in the first session,
“Congress on the Cusp,” engaged in
a thorough exploration of Hill happenings, including the ramifications
“[The Senate Race in] in New
12
York is whatever you choose to
believe New York is—I mean,
ı
winter spring 2000
it’s a freak show.”
–Jim Jordan
of the 2000 elections. With the help
of some hard statistics from Rice
University’s Dean Robert Stein, the
panel showed that the outcomes of
only a few races might make a large
difference in the upcoming cycle.
Cook predicted a one or two seat
loss for the Republicans, but the
NRCC’s John Hishta said he
“tend[s] to be a little more optimistic about the Republicans’
chances, provided we have a good
nominee at the top of the ticket.”
On the other side of the aisle, Jim
Jordan of the DSCC said, “we need
some luck—we need to win the
close ones,” including the “freak
show” that is the New York Senate
race. Hishta referred to the
Clinton/Giuliani contest as a “psychodrama” and a “national race in a
state,” and Jordan said, “no one
who votes in New York is going to
be either ignorant or agnostic in
that race.”
According to Stein, party affiliation will not mean as much in the
2000 elections. “When I was born in
1950, you could go to the bank on
just knowing party ID and predicting the world,” he said. “Now, you
have to look at 4 or 5 other variables.” Stein also cited the expanding Hispanic population as one of
the main considerations every candidate will have to face in the near
future.
Babes on the Plane!
The Washington Post’s political correspondent Ceci Connolly began the
next panel, “The Road to
Pennsylvania Avenue on the Media
Bus,” saying that the “the boys on
the bus” have now become “the
babes on the plane.” The panel continued with a lively discussion
about media bias, reporter’s ethics,
and the impact of the Internet and
“wallpaper coverage” of politics.
America’s Voice Producer Ann
Klenk suggested that although journalists seem to report anything and
everything, they are filtering out
quite a bit of unsubstantiated rumor
before press time. Even though all
admitted that the drive for sensationalism has had a negative effect
on reporting, they also said that it is
up to the reporter to uphold journalistic integrity, and they oppose
any control over the media.
Tammy Haddad, former producer
of Larry King Live, emphasized the
internet’s contribution to reporting.
“If John McCain gives a speech for
10,000 people in New Hampshire
and none of us (press) are there,
does it count?” She went on to say
that “wallpaper” coverage provided
by services like MSNBC and The
Hotline is important—that it gets a
message out quickly and effectively.
Luncheon Speakers
During their lunchtime keynote
speeches, Virginia Lt. Governor John
Hager and former Colorado
Governor Roy Romer both stressed
the importance of encouraging people to become involved in government. Romer also brought up the
contentious issue of an internet tax,
suggesting that keeping the internet
tax-free would eventually hurt funding for schools and the businesses
on “main street.”
Insiders Speak Out
The third panel of “insiders” included Senator Dole’s former press secretary, Nelson Warfield, the DCCC’s
John Del Cecato, Curt Anderson
from The Anderson Group, and
political researcher Celinda Lake.
Their opinions on the apparent
White House favorites were varied
but strong, except when the conversation turned to the unpredictable
Reform Party. “I left my Ouija board
at home – I can’t figure out the
Reform Party,” said Warfield.
Clinton presidency as eventful rather
than event making, and engaged in
a heated debate with Clift over the
finer points of Clinton’s policies. In
a final word, Cannon called Clinton
“a great story—I wouldn’t have
missed it for the world.”
Alexander Advocates Political Reform
Debating the Clinton Legacy
Lamar Alexander, twice governor of
Tennessee and twice a presidential
hopeful, speaks at the ADC ’99 keynote
on campaign reform.
Fred Barnes makes his case for future
interpretation of Bill Clinton’s legacy.
Eleanor Clift gives her opinion
on the effectiveness of Clinton’s
legislation and policies.
13
ı
winter spring 2000
The last panel, “The Clinton Legacy,” was an obvious crowd favorite.
Moderator Doug Bailey, the founder
of Freedomchannel.com, asked the
audience and panelists to fill in the
blank of the following statement:
“Today in 2050 a monument was
erected to President William Jefferson Clinton, who….” Some, including panelist Eleanor Clift, Contributing Editor to Newsweek, chose
to highlight Clinton’s economic
achievements. She described him as
the “Democrat who brought fiscal
discipline to the economy, and
changed the tone of the country on
some important issues” like guns,
tobacco, health care reform, and
trade. National Journal’s White
House correspondent Carl Cannon
said that years from now historians
will not only take into account the
domestic issues, but will also look
at Clinton’s foreign policy successes.
He pointed out Clinton’s contribution to the progress in Northern Ireland, the incursion into Kosovo, the
expansion of NATO, and also the
failures of Somalia and Rwanda.
Cannon concluded, however, saying,
“to have a president that doesn’t tell
the truth—I think historians will
conclude that that had a corrosive
effect.”
Many in the audience sided with
Fred Barnes, Editor of The Weekly
Standard, in his analysis of Clinton’s
Legacy. “Fifty years from now you’ll
be able to sum up the Clinton
Presidency in one word—and that
word is obviously impeached,” said
Barnes. He also described the
At the final event of the Conference,
the Rotunda hosted panelists,
guests, and former Tennessee
Governor Lamar Alexander for an
elegant Dome Room dinner. The
two-time presidential hopeful
addressed the audience in the form
of a Socratic dialogue with Sabato
and Bailey, and had two pieces of
advice for improving the electoral
process: first, remove all limits on
campaign contributions, and second, spread out the presidential primaries so more Americans have a
say in party nominations. Holding
up a recent newspaper article that
pictured the four “favorites,”
Alexander said, “What’s wrong with
this picture? No one’s voted yet…
The media picks a winner, the
fundraisers place their bets, and the
$1000 limit runs everyone else out
of the race… no one else can raise
money at a $1000 limit.”
The evening concluded with
questions from the audience and a
strong round of applause for all participants in the event. CGS Program
Director Alex Theodoridis said,
“This conference has been a great
success for the Center and a big day
for the University—to have so many
respected political minds in one
place and engaging in the sort of
discussion we had today is always a
valuable experience, but particularly
important today because of the
weight of the upcoming elections.”
Coverage of the conference aired
live on C-SPAN, and repeatedly over
the following weeks on both CSPAN and local public-access television. •
CNN’s Bob Franken answers a question
from the audience during “Congress on
the Cusp: The Battle for 2000.”
continued from page 3
in Virginia’s history to be “elected”
using the Internet) introduced legislation in the Virginia General
Assembly to study the viability of
Internet voting in a general election.
Regardless of the outcome of the
legislation, the students of YLI had
made their mark by demonstrating
the potential of this new technology
for the electoral process. Through
the YLI debates and the online student elections, the citizenship education program had achieved its
goal—at least in the short-term—of
getting young people interested and
involved in the American political
system.
“When young people see that
they have a stake in the outcome of
an election, when they see that their
opinion matters, they will participate,” said Stroupe. “But the message of the Youth Leadership
Initiative is that our responsibilities
as citizens do not start or end at the
ballot box. What sets the Youth
Leadership Initiative apart from a
student mock voting program is its
ongoing effort to show how our
roles as citizens span the entire
democratic process—not just the act
of voting.”
S
In total, students cast online ballots in 57 state and local races or
referenda during the 1999 YLI Mock
Election. Interestingly, the results of
the mock election correlated with
the actual general election results in
more than 90% of the races, with
some schools matching—exactly—
the general election results in their
local community.
Students will repeat the process
in February 2000 as they, and thousands more of their closest friends,
participate in the largest online
Presidential Primary in the nation’s
history. And for our friends in the
Democratic Party, the Youth
Leadership Initiative is already
working on plans to facilitate a
mock Presidential caucus in April.
“From our first training session to
their attendance at this year’s State
of the Union Address, it’s been a
great year for the Youth Leadership
Initiative.” stated Sabato. “Virginia’s
young people have already made
history and the program is just getting started!”
“We’ll do this every year from
now on!” said Dr. Irving Jones, principal of Albemarle County’s
Monticello High School. •
ı
winter spring 2000
14
Tipper Gore speaks on the importance of political
participation with CGS interns and UVa student
leaders on September 29, 1999.
T
A
F
F
Larry J. Sabato
DIRECTOR
Alex Theodoridis
PROGRAM DIRECTOR
Howard Ernst
VISITING SCHOLAR
Brett Ferrell
U N D E R G R A D U AT E S TA F F
Mike Greenwald
U N D E R G R A D U AT E S TA F F
Bruce Larsen
VISITING SCHOLAR
Melissa Northern
E V E N T C O O R D I N AT O R A N D
I N T E R N C O O R D I N AT O R
Danelia Robinson
BOOKKEEPER
James Sofka
HEAD SCHOLAR
Ken Stroupe
YOUTH LEADERSHIP
I N I T I AT I V E C O O R D I N AT O R
Matthew Wikswo
SENIOR WRITER/
RESEARCHER AND LECTURE
C O O R D I N AT O R
Interns, Spring Semester 2000
Josh Abrons
Margaret Ashby
Allison Barrett
Corey Benjamin
Iain Bolton
Laura Burkholder
Jonathon Carr
Malika Good
Courtney Hagen
Emily Harding
Tina Hong
Melissa Huhn
Louisa Jilcott
Tim Johnson
Jay Lazus
Naureen Malik
Colleen Maloney
Anne Martin
Eric McDermott
Tom McKee
Andy Oldham
Dan Payne
Michelle Perrin
Andrew Rogers
Josh Scott
Chris Smith
Chris Thomas
Shulamit Warren
Center, Cuomo, MBA Explore Politics of Homeownership
AT THE CGS NATIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP
SUMMIT, Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Human Development,
seized the opportunity to introduce a new computer
program that will greatly ease the application process for
a government home loan. During his closing remarks on
Friday, November 12, Cuomo described the benefits of
the new program, saying that it will give homeowners a
detailed explanation of their chances of securing a loan.
Cuomo called the program “a glass box, exposed to the
light of day and public scrutiny,” as opposed to the
“black box” blind system formerly in use.
The two-day Homeownership Summit was co-sponsored by the Mortgage Bankers Association of America,
and was sub-titled “Developing a Public/Private Agenda
to Increase Homeownership.” Christopher J. Sumner,
MBA President and President/CEO of CrossLand
Mortgage Corp. said, “The overall vision of the Summit
is to engage national leaders in a dialogue that seeks
common ground on actions to responsibly increase
homeownership in America.” The politically high-profile issue of homeownership and its potential impact on
both local and national governments’ economic polices
R
E
C
E
N
T
P
connected the missions of the MBA and
the Center and made the conference a
success for both groups. Center Director
Larry J. Sabato said “the critical issue of
homeownership [is] a matter that should
be fully discussed in the 2000 elections.”
Along with Secretary Cuomo, 5th
District Representative Virgil H. Goode
discussed the Piedmont Housing
Alliance, and New York Congressman
Rick Lazio, Chairman of the House
Banking Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity, gave Thursday
night’s dinner keynote.
In connection with the Summit, CGS
Visiting Scholar Howard Ernst prepared
an extensive statistical analysis of poll
results exploring the relationship
between home ownership and political
behavior. The analysis is available for
download from the Center website at
www.virginia.edu/govstudies/publications. •
U
B
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
“a glass box, exposed
to the light of day
and public scrutiny.”
–Andrew Cuomo,
on the government’s
new home loan
approval program
N
S
The Housing Gap: A Political Analysis of American Voters by Housing Tenure
The Center is pleased to announce the web-publication of The Housing Gap: A Political Analysis of American Voters by
Housing Tenure, Professor Howard Ernst’s assessment of the relationship between homeownership and political attitudes in the U.S. The study analyses the results of a national survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted between March
23-24, 1999. It contains extensive tables, graphics and figures, as well as written commentary, exploring the prominent and unique role that homeowners play in contemporary American politics. The Housing Gap is published by
the Center for Governmental Studies, and is available for download in both MS-Word and Adobe Acrobat formats
from www.virginia.edu/govstudies/publications.htm
15
Virginia Votes 1995-1998
ı
winter spring 2000
The Center is pleased to announce the recent release of the latest installment of Virginia Votes,
Professor Larry J. Sabato’s regular series of exhaustive analyses of the voting preferences, outcomes, and implications of both Virginia elections and Virginian voting in national elections.
The present volume, the eighth in the series, covers the election years from 1995 to 1998,
including the Gilmore gubernatorial victory in 1997, when Republicans swept all three
statewide offices. Virginia Votes contains extensive statistical tables, graphics and figures, and
written commentary, and will be a valuable resource to anyone concerned with current
Virginia elections and politics. The series is published by the Weldon Cooper Center for
Public Service at the University of Virginia; to order copies of Virginia Votes 1995-1998, contact the Cooper Center at (804) 982-5522.
Calendar
Upcoming Events on the CGS Calendar
YLI Mock Election
These late-breaking or future events appear in
February 28
This Internet election will be the largest
online mock presidential primary in the
nation, with students in every region of
the Commonwealth casting votes using
state-of-the-art cyber-ballots.
chronological order and will be covered in the
next edition of the CGS Newsletter. Please
contact the Center or check the Center
website (www.virginia.edu/govstudies) for
Peepshow: Media and Politics in an Age of
Scandal, by Larry J. Sabato, Mark Stencel,
and S. Robert Lichter
more information.
Barbara Bush appearance for YLI
Livingston, Jean Elshtain, Don Regan,
Paul Taylor, Charles Krauthammer have
already agreed to appear and speak on
panel topics such as “Morality and
Ethics: The Struggle to Define America’s
Values,” “Media Influences: What’s Public,
What’s Private?,” and “The Public Figure’s
Point of View: Life Under The Magnifying
Glass.”
Initiative Conference
April 1
As the line dividing public life and private behavior in
American politics
becomes more
blurred than ever,
Peepshow looks
behind the scenes
at news coverage of
political scandals,
analyzing what gets
reported, what doesn’t, and why. With
historical case studies
and prescriptions for
reform, Peepshow offers
an alternative to the prurient side of
election coverage, helping newsroom
decision-makers and campaign managers see through the inevitable scandals of election year 2000 and gain
insight into presenting a politics of
public trust.
June 8 & 9
The Center will host a two-day national
conference bringing together scholars,
politicians, and media experts to discuss the growing use of initiative
politics at the state level. Several
conference participants will contribute scholarly essays and
responses to a volume co-edited by
CGS Director Larry Sabato and
CGS Visiting Scholars Bruce
Larson and Howard Ernst.
YLI Legislative Day
The First Annual National Symposium: The
Role of Character in Public Life
February 24
Students will visit the state capitol in
Richmond, where they will meet their
local legislators and other prominent
members of the Virginia General
Assembly.
April 3 & 4
The first installment of our annual
National Symposium Series, the 2000
“Character Conference” will be the
Center’s biggest public event to date.
Bill Bennett, Paul Wellstone, Bob
July 20 & 21
Third in the well-attended series of
annual CGS Governors Conferences,
this conference will examine the
political legacy of Governor John
Dalton, governor of Virginia from
1978 to 1982.
February 9
A YLI Community Forum will feature
former First Lady Barbara Bush and students from YLI 2000 in a discussion of
the importance of youth participation
in the American electoral process.
Richmond Benefit Dinner
February 24
Continuing the tradition begun by the
1998 benefit roast of Larry Sabato, the
Center’s second Richmond
fundraiser will feature an
evening of bipartisan revelry.
The event will honor James
Gilmore and feature the
complete slate of potential
candidates for the 2000
Virginia governor’s race.
The event will also serve as
the premiere of the new YLI
video, “Imagine A Nation’s
Future.”
YLI Summer Camp and Teacher
Workshop
July 12-16
The first annual YLI Summer Camp
and Teacher Workshop will bring
together students and teachers from
across the Commonwealth for the
official launch of the statewide implementation of the YLI.
John Dalton Governors Conference
T H E C E N T E R F O R G O V E R N M E N TA L S T U D I E S
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
2400 Old Ivy Road
P.O. Box 400806
Charlottesville, Virginia 22904
(804) 243-8468 TELEPHONE
(804) 243-8467 FAX
www.virginia.edu/govstudies