30 Minutes With Tom Bush

Charlotte Mayor Pro Tem Susan Burgess calls herself a "moderate" and a "progressive" Democrat. Pro-choice and anti-lottery, a former staff member of a Presbyterian (PCUSA) church in Charlotte, she has established a reputation of avoiding divisive issues. And though she says she has no ambitions for higher office, many political observers say she has to be on the "short list" for mayor or – possibly – US Congress, depending upon how reapportionment goes next year. We sat down with her just one week after the election, to ask her about what she saw in the voting patterns, and what she sees as the future of Charlotte.

Warren Smith: Some people are saying that the most recent election was merely close. Some are saying that it reflected something new and different on the political landscape. Which is it?

Susan Burgess: I think something new and different happened in American politics. I did follow the returns closely because I was a political analyst on WBT. It was exciting to be a part of breaking news. I thought America came out in mass and let their voices be heard. The turnout needs to be higher. Nevertheless, people were pretty passionate about voting this time.

The results were interesting in that the presidential candidates had real affinity groups. Identifiable groups of supporters. And they were very diverse. Al Gore had 91% of African-American voters. George Bush had over 80% of those who identify themselves as Christian conservatives. I wonder what happened to African-American Christian conservatives?

Women were very much attracted to Democrats. That is because women do not like negative campaigning. I believe all the campaigns that used that as their primary strategy really turned off women.

WS: At the presidential level, though, it’s hard to tell whether George Bush or Al Gore was more negative. They both ran negative ads. Are you referring to the governor’s race?

SB: Unfortunately, because North Carolina was not a battleground state, we did not get to participate in the presidential election. I really complained about that to the national Democratic party. That’s not fair to us. We deserve to get information just like any other state.

I’m ready to get rid of the Electoral College. I think it’s obsolete. An anachronism. It robs us of our one person-one vote opportunity. A handful of states got all the attention at the presidential level, and I understand they were barraged with negative campaigning.

Most of our was at the governor’s race level. I was very disappointed, especially in Richard Vinroot, whom I know and admire. If you did not know Richard Vinroot, you would never expect that he is the nice person that he really is. Obviously, that backfired for him.

WS: Did it really? He was not well known in the eastern part of the state. He had to do something to differentiate himself. He had to put doubt in voters minds where Easley had high name recognition but not necessarily high positives.

SB: It surprises me that Richard Vinroot fell for that technique.

WS: Yet he ran well in parts of the state where someone from Charlotte has never done well. His problem was that his margin in Mecklenburg County was too thin.
SB: Using negative campaigns here or down east was not the right thing to do. What happened with Richard was that as he attacked Easley, Easley’s negatives did indeed go up. In the end they were, I believe, around 31%. But Vinroot’s negatives were 38%. Because all many people know of Richard Vinroot was that he was an attack dog. Obviously his political advice was that this was the only way he could get elected. I think it was bad advice, and that his concession speech was the first time in months that we saw the real Richard Vinroot.

WS: Since you were an analyst on TV the night of the election, I have a bone to pick with local coverage. Richard Vinroot did give a compelling speech that night. Very emotional and thoughtful. Compelling speechmaking and compelling television. Yet all three of the local stations cut it off in mid-stream. That raises a question for me, especially in light of Florida being declared so early that evening, only to be put – obviously – back in play. How do you think the media’s coverage of this race was?

SB: I had a front-row seat and I was disappointed. They were in a race to see who was first, not who was most accurate. All night long, they did the teaser "We were the first to bring you the results."

WS: We’re still waiting to find out who was the "first to tell us the truth," I guess.

SB: Exactly.

WS: At the local level, was the race between Jim Puckett and Maggi Markey in District 1 a surprise to you?

SB: Not at all. The first district is heavily Republican. The bigger surprise was that Maggi Markey won in the first place.

WS: What about Ruth Samuelson and Chip Ward. She won by a wide margin, even though she is pretty conservative.

SB: Actually, I would not call Ruth pretty conservative. She’s a social conservative. Her other positions were moderate and in line with the present county commission. Ruth is a product of District 5. Born and raised in a very prominent family in Eastover. People know her and trust her. I spoke to one of her teachers, who had her at West Charlotte High School. She said that when Ruth came in that school as a 10th grader she was a shining star. She’s just that kind of person. She’ll be a very good representative.

And I’ll have to say that the attacks on her by her Democratic opponent backfired again. People do not like negative campaigning, particularly against a woman by a man. That was not a good strategy on Skip Ward’s part. I assume he thought that was the only way he could win. But it’s almost impossible for any Democrat to win District 5 and District 6 and probably District 1.

WS: Ward also attacked Samuelson on the issue of abortion. Do you think abortion is an issue in local politics?

SB: Really, not, in the county. There was a time when the county funded Planned Parenthood, but they do not do that anymore. The next issue that had to do with sexuality and reproduction had to do with the counseling provided by the health department. That definitely was an issue that the county commission had to address. But it turned out to be very divisive and did not much change how the health department operated. Now, we have an abstinence-based program in this county, and everyone is comfortable with that. So I don’t see the commission addressing those issues.

WS: What should the city council be debating? The city council took up the death penalty moratorium, but shouldn’t debate abortion?

SB: Should we be debating the death penalty moratorium? Probably not. But the moratorium leaders came to us.

WS: But doesn’t a member of the council have to introduce the resolution? You didn’t have to consider it or vote on it.

SB: That’s right. In fact, we took the resolution that they brought to us, which had a lot of facts that we could not substantiate, we took those facts out and just endorsed the concept of a moratorium until there’s been more research on how it’s carried out. The data now says that capital punishment is not being fairly administered.

But I have learned a lesson. I’m out of the resolution business. What seemed a reasonable thing to do at the time I’m not sure was worth it.

WS: So if, for example, a resolution came to you regarding abortion, or the lottery, you would not be in favor of considering it?

SB: I learned my lesson.

WS: But the state employees’ health insurance plan – which is a self-funded plan that uses taxpayer money – pays for abortions. And the lottery will have a major influence on North Carolina, Charlotte in particular will receive a tremendous amount of pressure and media attention if it goes to a referendum.

SB: On the lottery I break with my party. I do not like the lottery at all. I think gambling is wrong. It is so addictive. Why it is right for the state to sponsor it but it is illegal for anyone else to sponsor it is beyond me.

I also believe that saying the proceeds will go to educate our children is a bogus argument. We know now that educating our children is our number one priority. We should fund that with our first dollars, not with proceeds from an illegal game. I was very disappointed that South Carolina passed the lottery, because with Virginia having it, we are getting squeezed.

We will have a referendum on it. It will not just be done by the General Assembly. And Mike Easley supports the lottery. I hope the good people of North Carolina will defeat it.

WS: While we’re on the subject of education and its funding, what is your position on vouchers?

SB: I’m opposed to vouchers. If they’re privately funded for poor children, that’s fine. But I think public money should go to public schools, not private schools. Richard Riley once said that if you have a boat full of children and the boat springs a leak. Do you fix the leak or do you lift a few people out?

Our public schools need help. They need a few leaks repaired. And I’m not talking about leaky roofs.

WS: Some people would say, though, that your metaphor is not valid. That we have boat that is rudderless, has no engine, and has serious rot below the waterline. It’s not just a leak.

SB: I totally disagree with that. My husband and I, and our four children, are all products of the public schools. You can get a good education, but society has changed. The traditional support mechanisms of family, community, and church are not what they used to be. Children are presenting themselves to the public school system at age 5 and they are offering tremendous challenges to the school system.

Children are born innocent. It is what happens to them between birth and age 5 that makes such a huge difference. That’s why I support publicly funded four-year-old pre-school.

WS: If parents are not doing their jobs, why should the government make it easier for these same parents not to do their jobs by essentially taking their children away from them at age four. The good intentions are duly noted, but doesn’t that – culturally and systemically – contribute to the problem.

SB: Not if done properly. Bright Beginnings, here in Mecklenburg County, for example, does it right. There is screening, and the privilege of participating in the program also brings responsibilities. The parents must do certain things. Come to teacher conferences, read to their children.

It’s one thing to say we should let the parents raise their children, but let me tell you this. I used to be on the staff at Covenant Presbyterian Church, and we had a program there for abused children. We would get them together for meals, give them a bath. Tuck them into bed at night. And we would let the parents see us doing these things. We’d bring the parents in and we had to teach them to do these things that you and I take for granted. These parents didn’t know, because their parents had not done these things for them.

One day the director asked me to move a parent up on the list to get a refrigerator, which put some things in motion for that person to get a job and get their child back. I thought to myself, "This person is an abuser. Why should I help this person get their child back?" The director then told me a story of a parent watching as their child was put into bed by the staff. After the child was in bed, the director was talking with the parent, and the parent said, "I wish I could crawl in your lap. No one has ever held me like you just held my child. No one has ever read to me."

We have to take our chances to intervene as they present themselves.

WS: That is obviously a compelling story, and certainly – on a theological level – none of us is worthy of God’s grace. None of us is truly self-sufficient. But on the other hand, which of these issues should be handled as a matter of charity – our response to God’s love and mercy toward us – and which of these matters should be handled by public policy? Public policy has a responsibility to the common good, and not to the good of the individual. As laudable a goal as saving an individual is, is that government’s responsibility? And sometimes, as the government gets large and unwieldy, even its previously effective efforts to help individuals are blunted by size and bureaucracy.

SB: Many government programs have been self-defeating and have created a dependency on the government. I believe in three principles. First, opportunity. Give them the tools to be successful. For example, education. The other two principles are responsibility and community. We have to learn how to live together. If we separate ourselves into different cultures, the greatness of our country will not be sustained.




			Susan Burgess
	Accentuating The Positive Charlotte Mayor Pro Tem Susan Burgess calls herself a "moderate" and a "progressive" Democrat. Pro-choice and anti-lottery, a former staff member of a Presbyterian (PCUSA) church in Charlotte, she has established a reputation of avoiding divisive issues. And though she says she has no ambitions for higher office, many political observers say she has to be on the "short list" for mayor or – possibly – US Congress, depending upon how reapportionment goes next year. We sat down with her just one week after the election, to ask her about what she saw in the voting patterns, and what she sees as the future of Charlotte. Warren Smith: Some people are saying that the most recent election was merely close. Some are saying that it reflected something new and different on the political landscape. Which is it? Susan Burgess: I think something new and different happened in American politics. I did follow the returns closely because I was a political analyst on WBT. It was exciting to be a part of breaking news. I thought America came out in mass and let their voices be heard. The turnout needs to be higher. Nevertheless, people were pretty passionate about voting this time. The results were interesting in that the presidential candidates had real affinity groups. Identifiable groups of supporters. And they were very diverse. Al Gore had 91% of African-American voters. George Bush had over 80% of those who identify themselves as Christian conservatives. I wonder what happened to African-American Christian conservatives? Women were very much attracted to Democrats. That is because women do not like negative campaigning. I believe all the campaigns that used that as their primary strategy really turned off women. WS: At the presidential level, though, it’s hard to tell whether George Bush or Al Gore was more negative. They both ran negative ads. Are you referring to the governor’s race? SB: Unfortunately, because North Carolina was not a battleground state, we did not get to participate in the presidential election. I really complained about that to the national Democratic party. That’s not fair to us. We deserve to get information just like any other state. I’m ready to get rid of the Electoral College. I think it’s obsolete. An anachronism. It robs us of our one person-one vote opportunity. A handful of states got all the attention at the presidential level, and I understand they were barraged with negative campaigning. Most of our was at the governor’s race level. I was very disappointed, especially in Richard Vinroot, whom I know and admire. If you did not know Richard Vinroot, you would never expect that he is the nice person that he really is. Obviously, that backfired for him. WS: Did it really? He was not well known in the eastern part of the state. He had to do something to differentiate himself. He had to put doubt in voters minds where Easley had high name recognition but not necessarily high positives. SB: It surprises me that Richard Vinroot fell for that technique. WS: Yet he ran well in parts of the state where someone from Charlotte has never done well. His problem was that his margin in Mecklenburg County was too thin. SB: Using negative campaigns here or down east was not the right thing to do. What happened with Richard was that as he attacked Easley, Easley’s negatives did indeed go up. In the end they were, I believe, around 31%. But Vinroot’s negatives were 38%. Because all many people know of Richard Vinroot was that he was an attack dog. Obviously his political advice was that this was the only way he could get elected. I think it was bad advice, and that his concession speech was the first time in months that we saw the real Richard Vinroot. WS: Since you were an analyst on TV the night of the election, I have a bone to pick with local coverage. Richard Vinroot did give a compelling speech that night. Very emotional and thoughtful. Compelling speechmaking and compelling television. Yet all three of the local stations cut it off in mid-stream. That raises a question for me, especially in light of Florida being declared so early that evening, only to be put – obviously – back in play. How do you think the media’s coverage of this race was? SB: I had a front-row seat and I was disappointed. They were in a race to see who was first, not who was most accurate. All night long, they did the teaser "We were the first to bring you the results." WS: We’re still waiting to find out who was the "first to tell us the truth," I guess. SB: Exactly. WS: At the local level, was the race between Jim Puckett and Maggi Markey in District 1 a surprise to you? SB: Not at all. The first district is heavily Republican. The bigger surprise was that Maggi Markey won in the first place. WS: What about Ruth Samuelson and Chip Ward. She won by a wide margin, even though she is pretty conservative. SB: Actually, I would not call Ruth pretty conservative. She’s a social conservative. Her other positions were moderate and in line with the present county commission. Ruth is a product of District 5. Born and raised in a very prominent family in Eastover. People know her and trust her. I spoke to one of her teachers, who had her at West Charlotte High School. She said that when Ruth came in that school as a 10th grader she was a shining star. She’s just that kind of person. She’ll be a very good representative. And I’ll have to say that the attacks on her by her Democratic opponent backfired again. People do not like negative campaigning, particularly against a woman by a man. That was not a good strategy on Skip Ward’s part. I assume he thought that was the only way he could win. But it’s almost impossible for any Democrat to win District 5 and District 6 and probably District 1. WS: Ward also attacked Samuelson on the issue of abortion. Do you think abortion is an issue in local politics? SB: Really, not, in the county. There was a time when the county funded Planned Parenthood, but they do not do that anymore. The next issue that had to do with sexuality and reproduction had to do with the counseling provided by the health department. That definitely was an issue that the county commission had to address. But it turned out to be very divisive and did not much change how the health department operated. Now, we have an abstinence-based program in this county, and everyone is comfortable with that. So I don’t see the commission addressing those issues. WS: What should the city council be debating? The city council took up the death penalty moratorium, but shouldn’t debate abortion? SB: Should we be debating the death penalty moratorium? Probably not. But the moratorium leaders came to us. WS: But doesn’t a member of the council have to introduce the resolution? You didn’t have to consider it or vote on it. SB: That’s right. In fact, we took the resolution that they brought to us, which had a lot of facts that we could not substantiate, we took those facts out and just endorsed the concept of a moratorium until there’s been more research on how it’s carried out. The data now says that capital punishment is not being fairly administered. But I have learned a lesson. I’m out of the resolution business. What seemed a reasonable thing to do at the time I’m not sure was worth it. WS: So if, for example, a resolution came to you regarding abortion, or the lottery, you would not be in favor of considering it? SB: I learned my lesson. WS: But the state employees’ health insurance plan – which is a self-funded plan that uses taxpayer money – pays for abortions. And the lottery will have a major influence on North Carolina, Charlotte in particular will receive a tremendous amount of pressure and media attention if it goes to a referendum. SB: On the lottery I break with my party. I do not like the lottery at all. I think gambling is wrong. It is so addictive. Why it is right for the state to sponsor it but it is illegal for anyone else to sponsor it is beyond me. I also believe that saying the proceeds will go to educate our children is a bogus argument. We know now that educating our children is our number one priority. We should fund that with our first dollars, not with proceeds from an illegal game. I was very disappointed that South Carolina passed the lottery, because with Virginia having it, we are getting squeezed. We will have a referendum on it. It will not just be done by the General Assembly. And Mike Easley supports the lottery. I hope the good people of North Carolina will defeat it. WS: While we’re on the subject of education and its funding, what is your position on vouchers? SB: I’m opposed to vouchers. If they’re privately funded for poor children, that’s fine. But I think public money should go to public schools, not private schools. Richard Riley once said that if you have a boat full of children and the boat springs a leak. Do you fix the leak or do you lift a few people out? Our public schools need help. They need a few leaks repaired. And I’m not talking about leaky roofs. WS: Some people would say, though, that your metaphor is not valid. That we have boat that is rudderless, has no engine, and has serious rot below the waterline. It’s not just a leak. SB: I totally disagree with that. My husband and I, and our four children, are all products of the public schools. You can get a good education, but society has changed. The traditional support mechanisms of family, community, and church are not what they used to be. Children are presenting themselves to the public school system at age 5 and they are offering tremendous challenges to the school system. Children are born innocent. It is what happens to them between birth and age 5 that makes such a huge difference. That’s why I support publicly funded four-year-old pre-school. WS: If parents are not doing their jobs, why should the government make it easier for these same parents not to do their jobs by essentially taking their children away from them at age four. The good intentions are duly noted, but doesn’t that – culturally and systemically – contribute to the problem. SB: Not if done properly. Bright Beginnings, here in Mecklenburg County, for example, does it right. There is screening, and the privilege of participating in the program also brings responsibilities. The parents must do certain things. Come to teacher conferences, read to their children. It’s one thing to say we should let the parents raise their children, but let me tell you this. I used to be on the staff at Covenant Presbyterian Church, and we had a program there for abused children. We would get them together for meals, give them a bath. Tuck them into bed at night. And we would let the parents see us doing these things. We’d bring the parents in and we had to teach them to do these things that you and I take for granted. These parents didn’t know, because their parents had not done these things for them. One day the director asked me to move a parent up on the list to get a refrigerator, which put some things in motion for that person to get a job and get their child back. I thought to myself, "This person is an abuser. Why should I help this person get their child back?" The director then told me a story of a parent watching as their child was put into bed by the staff. After the child was in bed, the director was talking with the parent, and the parent said, "I wish I could crawl in your lap. No one has ever held me like you just held my child. No one has ever read to me." We have to take our chances to intervene as they present themselves. WS: That is obviously a compelling story, and certainly – on a theological level – none of us is worthy of God’s grace. None of us is truly self-sufficient. But on the other hand, which of these issues should be handled as a matter of charity – our response to God’s love and mercy toward us – and which of these matters should be handled by public policy? Public policy has a responsibility to the common good, and not to the good of the individual. As laudable a goal as saving an individual is, is that government’s responsibility? And sometimes, as the government gets large and unwieldy, even its previously effective efforts to help individuals are blunted by size and bureaucracy. SB: Many government programs have been self-defeating and have created a dependency on the government. I believe in three principles. First, opportunity. Give them the tools to be successful. For example, education. The other two principles are responsibility and community. We have to learn how to live together. If we separate ourselves into different cultures, the greatness of our country will not be sustained.