Nice letter, Shell

13 Replies

That was an excellent letter to the editor we ran from Shell Suber on today’s editorial page. Am I saying that because I agree with his point? Well, yeah. But there’s another reason — the way that he expressed the point.

After pointing out that he was not in the room when the filibuster compromise was reached, he said he just has to trust Sen. Lindsey Graham‘s judgment as to whether it was the right deal. He then added,

Leaders lead. Politicians who only take us where we wanted to go in the first place are bus drivers. I did not volunteer my nights and weekends to help elect a bus driver.

This demonstrates that Mr. Suber (pictured on the last night of last year’s Republican National Convention), the chairman of the Richland County Republican Party, is a true republican in the "small R" sense. That is to say, he believes in representative democracy. Too few people do today, including — judging by some other letters we received and ran on this subject in the past week — a lot 6a_2 of people who misleadingly call themselves "republicans."

Here’s the way republican government is supposed to work: You vote for (and in the case of a dedicated supporter such as Mr. Suber, campaign for) a candidate whom you trust. You trust his values, you trust his judgment, so you do your best to elect him.

If he is elected, you then trust him to act as your delegate in the representative governing body. That doesn’t mean he checks with your every five minutes to see how you would vote on a given issue, or act in a given situation. If you had the time to study the issues and engage in debate and do all the things an honest representative should do as part of the discernment process, you wouldn’t need him. You’re sending him because he’s volunteered his services to do all that for you, and you trust him to do that.

This enables him to be, as Mr. Suber says, a leader: He acts in accordance with his judgment and conscience, applied to a body of information to which he has access by virtue of being there and doing the job while you’re back home doing your thing. Sometimes, his actions will be just what you would do (based on your own relatively limited knowledge of the situation), and of course you will be find that gratifying.

But sometimes he’ll do something you wouldn’t have done — or at least you think you wouldn’t, based on the limited information at your disposal. When that happens, a mature voter has a couple of options. He can just take it on faith that since this is a representative he trusts, the representative knows what he’s doing, and move on. Or he can demand, or await, an explanation of his representative’s behavior, giving him the benefit of the doubt until said explanation is presented (and a good representative will give such explanations). And he should truly listen to that explanation before making up his mind whether his representative is still trustworthy, or has gone off his trolley.

What a mature voter does not do is immediately holler, "That’s not what I would do!" or "I’ll never vote for him again!" or "He’s betrayed me and all the right-thinking people like me!"

In other words, he doesn’t berate the representative as though he were a bus driver who had made a wrong turn on his route. Not if he understands what our republic is about, he doesn’t.

13 thoughts on “Nice letter, Shell”

  4. Sandy Gibson

    Governor Sanford constantly lectures us that he is all about getting a great return on our tax dollars; and that he also wants all South Carolinians to have a better quality of life, and to increase trade and wages. That is great, I could not agree more.
    So what is with all of these vetoes? Especially the veto of funds to help the struggling community of Willington in rural McCormick County? The funds earmarked for that community amount to seed money to enhance tourism and ultimately income, and more jobs! Let’s see that sounds like a good investment of tax dollars that will net an increase in the quality of life for Willington Citizens, and increase in wages. WOW, sounds like that money is in line with helping meet the Governor’s goals. What gives. I think this can be explained by looking at the Governor’s background of wealth and privilege. He does not know what it is like to live from pay check to pay check, to have to work nights and weekends just to feed the family. He is not even a native South Carolinian! And you know, he never sponsored legislation in Congress that resulted in any change or improvement. This man is all talk – and no action. He could not get a consensus to get himself out of a wet paper sack!
    Furthermore, He is also an egg headed Libertarian and he allows these pointy headed ideas to over rule common sense. This is not pork! This is about helping people to help themselves. But Mark cannot understand that, after all this is the same Mark Sanford who tells poor black children in Allendale County that they can have better schools if they just study harder, and their parents pay more taxes, and get local business to pay for school related expenses. Sure Governor, and I have lake front property for sale at a real deal in the center of the desert in Saudi Arabia!
    Another example of his being out of touch with the people of South Carolina, is this odd notion of his to sell off Santee Cooper. He says it does not make enough money, that he could get more for it if he were to sell it, so private for profit company could run it and he say run it better!!!!??? I guess the operative term here is FOR PROFIT. At least that is what a tax funded study he ordered says. And what is with his wife running meetings with the Board of Santee Cooper!
    Sounds kinda like Hillary Clinton stuff to me!!!!!
    http://tinyurl.com/7c29q

    Reply ↓
  5. jim cothran

    Who, exactly, is Senator Graham leading? His actions have been rejected by most Republicans, including his forty eight colleagues in the Senate. This is not a “Profiles in Courage” moment – what was at stake was a filibuster rule that has been changed before, most recently in the mid 1970’s. I do not have to know what happened behind closed doors to know that the senator double crossed the other members of his party. The kind of thinking you would have us embrace is only for simpletons. Can I expect you to embrace this type of thinking in your editorials? For instance, I would assume you would have had to trust John Graham Altman’s actions a few weeks ago, since he was in meetings that you were not in. Or does your line of reasoning only apply to decisions with which you agree?

    Reply ↓
  6. Jake

    I think Shell’s letter is brave, yet misguided. There should never have been a compromise on judges, every one of them deserves and up-or-down vote…period. I only hope the Democrats’ penchant for over-the-top rhetoric enables the 7 Republicans in the Gang of 14 to vote to support the constitution and reaffirm the fact the judges, ambassadors, and cabinet nonimees require 51 votes for confirmation.

    Reply ↓
  7. Mike D in SC

    You wrote these two phrases in consecutive paragraphs:
    your own relatively limited knowledge
    the limited information at your disposal
    Mr. Warthen, it is your job to expand our “limited knowledge”. And while you do raise a valid point (one expressed eloquently by the character Dr. Lyman Hall near the end of the play 1776), I believe that Senator Graham has erred on this issue. The Democrats are already talking about filibustering four more judges. If the Democrats’ reservations about these judges are well founded, they ought to be able to convince some of the moderate Republicans to vote against confirmation on the floor, in order to defeat them in a fair vote.
    The filibuster originally was a tool to delay a vote so that Senators could acquire all the relevant information needed to make a well informed vote. On the matter of the judicial confirmations, the Democrats have not been seeking more information, and have never intended to have any vote.
    Sure, Senator Graham’s compromise wil get a few judges confirmed, but at the cost of destroying the principle that ALL nominees that come out of committee should be voted on by the full Senate.

    Reply ↓
  9. Trudy C

    Mr. Graham made his only redeeming decision since his attempt to impeach Bill Clinton in keeping the filibuster. When either party can load the courts with ideologues, our citizenry loses. Most thinking leaders understand that thoughtful, intelligent moderates on the bench are the best bet so that no particular side has an edge if you have business in the courts before them.
    It amazes me that Americans are so willing to be led by what is essentially cult personalities these days. A CULT is:
    a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader (think James Dobson, Tim LaHaye etc.).
    b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
    If you don’t think some of the Evangelical groups like those led by James Dobson and LaHaye are cults then you need to think again. A cult discourages thinking on your own and developing your own conclusions. People who do that are not so easily led. That is why intellectuals are usually the first to go in any regime where the goal is control like in China and other countries that were “purged” by communists and dictators. It is also the reason the right wing is so intent on attacking our schools, colleges and universities because free thought limits fear and FEAR is what keeps people in line. People like Dobson and LaHaye focus on fear of hell in order to keep their literalist sects motivated and to retain their own power over the purse strings of their sects.
    LaHaye takes many of his views from the John Birch Society:
    “From its beginning, the John Birch Society put forward a comprehensive program that went far beyond the Cold War. The Birchers campaigned vigorously to “Get the US Out of the UN,” which they saw as trying to build a one-world Socialist government. They also worked to impeach Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, stop school busing, end social security, and abolish the progressive income tax.
    Many of the leading Birchers were wealthy, and wanted to protect their wealth from reforms that helped the less fortunate members of society.
    [Tim] LaHaye pushes the same approach, using religion to subvert the Constitution, repeal the New Deal, and turn America into a an undemocratic “Christian nation” that favors the rich.” (Steve Weissman)
    Once, Americans were very leery of extremist religious cults like the Moonies and some Evangelical groups. Now, the “Rev.” Moon is a welcome person at the White house as is Mr. LaHaye, James Dobson and their ilk.
    Many of the “mega-churches” these folks lead are organized in pods or groups with a leader who answers to another leader on up the heirarchy. If that leader fails to toe their doctrinal line, then they are ousted and replaced with another true believer. The Moonies also use this method successfully to subvert individual thought. That is how any cult functions. You must not have free thought or the leaders lose power because they cannot control their people and their purses.
    Too many normally thoughtful Americans today are far too willing to be led by people like LaHaye and Dobson than by rational, reasonable folks who understand the diversity and uniqueness of our nation and why each minority group matters in achieving the great nation dreamed by our Founding Fathers where each individual would have the right to the pursuit of LIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS no matter their religious, ethnic or individual background as long as they were living within the bounds of our laws and not hurting their neighbors.
    It is too bad that we have moved so far away from that ideal thanks to rigid people like LaHaye, Dobson and others who think that a thoughtful, caring nation is to be feared over one that recognizes the uniqueness of each and every individual who lives here.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *