Time to turn back to serious matters — such as the election of our new speaker of the House, a week ago today.
You may have read that all members present (save one, who voted "no" for his own esoteric reasons) voted for Bobby Harrell — the very man we had endorsed for the position.
That includes all the Democrats. They all voted for Bobby, some with apparent enthusiasm. Former Minority Leader Gilda Cobb-Hunter, rather than mumbling "Harrell" as so many did, joined a few of the Republicans in singing out "Bobby Harrell!" loud and clear. (I mentioned it to her later, and she said she had meant to say "Robert W. Harrell," just to be more emphatic. I’m not sure what she really meant by that, as Gilda has a strong sense of irony.)
Of course, by this time there were no alternatives.
Earlier there had been, including a Democratic alternative, Doug Jennings from my hometown, Bennettsville — also a former minority leader. He had only been in it for leverage — to try to get something for the hapless Democrats, who under Speaker David Wilkins had been pretty much shut out of decision-making, or even meangful debate, for more than a decade. The hope was for some small concession from the winner in return for Democratic support, assuming there was still a contest on election day.
But there wasn’t, and when it was over, Doug came to speak to me at the back of the chamber.
"What did you get," I asked. "Did you get anything?"
"Nope," he said. "We didn’t."
He and his caucus had hoped for something like, say, the new speaker agreeing to let the minority leader appoint a member to each conference committee. ("At least that," Rep. James Smith, yet another former minority leader, said later when I asked him about it.) There were even hopes for proportional representation on Ways and Means and other key committees, or perhaps a say in which Democrats were appointed to key panels, rather than just the ones the Republicans considered tame.
I followed some of the Democrats over to an informal lunch Denny Neilson was hosting for the caucus over at the Capital City Club. (And if you saw me there with them, I hope you noticed that I paid for my lunch — or rather, the paper did.)
Anyway, there seemed to be some feeling among some of the Dems that they would have fared better if their current minority leader had not declared early his personal support for Mr. Harrell — for reasons they weren’t entirely clear on. After that, they believe that Mr. Harrell saw no reason to treat with the opposition, so Mr. Jennings’ shadow candidacy was a waste of time from then on.
Rep. Harry Ott happened to drop by the table where I was sitting with Mr. Smith and Rep. Ted Vick, so I asked him about it. He had an answer ready. He said he had criticized the Republicans so often for the way they make decisions as a bloc in their cloistered caucus meetings that he was not about to do the same, by trying to herd Democrats behind a single candidate. He said he declared his own choice openly and urged his fellow Dems to do the same for whichever candidate each of them preferred.
That explanation sounded pretty reasonable to me (and one I wasn’t in a position to argue with, seeing that I have often criticized the GOP for the very same thing). But it didn’t satisfy some of the Democrats I spoke with later.
At the same time, they weren’t all that furious. You may have noticed that Democrats seem genetically incapable of working up a good mad over party unity the way many Republicans can do at the slightest sign of independence in their ranks. This is an endearing trait in Democrats. It’s also an important clue as to why they lose so often.
In fact, some of them even begged me not to write about this. One seemed to feel better when I told him I wasn’t doing a column on it, but was planning to get into it on my blog. It occurs to me that perhaps he thinks not many people read my blog. He hasn’t seen the numbers I’ve seen. It’s positively scary how many do. In fact, if you’ve read this far in this item, why don’t you stop and go out and get some fresh air? A little exercise wouldn’t hurt, either.
And by the way, Mr. Ott, Reps. Smith and Vick were not the ones who put the idea in my head that you were to blame. In fact, Mr. Vick was more interested in talking about how he got "Scopped" (pronounced SKAH-peed) over the subject of cockfighting recently.
In the end, while the Jennings ploy didn’t work, I doubt there is any reason for Democrats in the House to despair. Compared to the recent past, there is reason to believe that life could get better. They should be encouraged that Bobby said some of the things he did last week about his desire to work with all House members. Maybe Mr. Ott can even claim some credit for that, for having declared his support early on. But I suspect that if Mr. Harrell’s words turn out to be more than talk, it will be because it is in his nature to run things differently from his predecessor.
At this point, I really don’t know. But it would be a good thing if it turned out that way — and not because I hold any brief for the Democrats. I don’t like parties. And I particularly don’t like parties that govern as though its own members are the only ones whose opinions matter. So let’s hope for something better.
Related Posts
You raise some good points in your column Brad, but for the life of me I don’t know why you dislike political parties. They are the folks who stamp the envelopes, make the volunteer phone calls, put out the yard signs, and spread a candidate’s message to their neighbors, co-workers, parents at their kid’s baseball games, etc. Without political parties Bobby Harrell, Harry Ott, John F. Kennedy, or George W. Bush would never have been elected. Strong political parties with thousands of volunteers spreading the message of their candidates is crucial to a working republic. Political parties bring more people into the public arena than any other organization, and our government functions better when more people are involved and affect the decision-making process.
Political parties may not be perfect, but I think they are more accountable for their actions than a MoveOn.org or Progress For America. I wish you had the same dislike for the shadowy 527’s as you do political parties.
Dear Brad,
Since I enjoy your newspaper editorials this is my first visit to your blog. Seems like the “good-ole-boy” political system has worked once again.
Off the subject but, I personally think the General Assembly members are a group of circus clowns with Altman being a huge elephant with a chronic intestinal gas problem sprewing from his mouth.
When I read The State every day I first scan the headlines and then turn to the editorial page and “letters-to-the-editor” for my daily amusement and entertainment. Some of the letters are better than reading the comic section.
You’re doing a great job. Forgive my rambling.
Why is no one reporting on the state cost of living adjustment raises that were just passed? Law enforcement received 10%. State employees received 4%. Teachers only received a 1.6% raise. That is one point six percent! The Legislature has mislead everyone with their descriptions of the raise. There is a “step process” where teachers get slightly more pay with each year they have been teaching. After twenty-three years they get no more step increases. The legislature makes it sound like teachers received the step increase and four percent. They did not. They received the one point six percent. The most experienced teachers, with over twenty-three years experience, the teachers everyone claims are most valuable and important to keep in teaching, ONLY received 1.6%! They get no step increase. Why isn’t someone reporting this? Meanwhile, USC now costs almost $4,000.00 per semester. The money is not spent to educate our children. It is spent to run a country club for professors called USC. The money goes to $150,000.00 per year and higher salaries for professors who teach almost no one. Meanwhile teaching assistants do the work and the teaching. Assistants make almost nothing. Education has become an elitist racket for a handpicked few at the expense of parents, students and the taxpayer. I have a Masters degree. At todays prices one would be better off going to tech school and getting out and working. You will never recover the cost of the university and time lost from the work force. It has become a racket! Parents and taxpayers need to clean out the Legislature for allowing this.