I see I didn’t get around to posting anything yesterday, and that’s a shame because I had meant to post this editorial from Wednesday’s paper, which was based on this news story in Tuesday’s. I wrote it (and I don’t write all that many actual editorials these days, spending most of my writing energy on columns and this forum), because I knew it would come more easily to me than to anyone else on the staff. No one else was as ticked off about it.
Anyway, in lieu of an actual posting this morning, I thought I would throw this topic out and see what your reaction is. I know what Shell Suber, Richland County Republican Party chairman, thinks about it (more or less), because we discussed an op-ed he’s sending me in response. It was an amicable discussion, as always. Even though he and I are bound to disagree about the local party’s outrageous intrusion into nonpartisan preserves, he is in other matters a reasonable man.
So until I can get back to my keyboard, in the immortal words of Linda Richman, talk amongst yourselves. Later, we’ll have some cawfee, and we’ll awl tawk. No big whoop.
Related Posts
You are spot on with your argument, Brad. Just the thought of the injection of our ugly brand of partisan politics currently practiced at the national and state levels into our local elections sickens me almost more than I can say.
Brad, you and the State are taking a reasonable stand in opposing the Richland Republicans in their bid to make all the local races partisan. I like Shell Suber also, he is a nice guy as he was 40 years ago when I knew him as a fellow Republican. However, I agree whole-heartedly with your editorial.
I also appreciated the editorial today about putting the energy and momentum of S.C. Care’s efforts to help Katrina evacuees behind the problem of homelessness in Columbia.
My wife, Judy and I have been feeding the homeless folks every Sunday at 1:00PM in Finley Park for the past three years, along with a very diverse group of religious and humanitarian friends in our loose knit organization called “Food Not Bombs”.
We have been cooking and feeding Katrina evacuees in local hotels and motels under the auspices of S.C. Cares, along with members of Food Not Bombs and the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship of Columbia. Sam Tenenbaum has done a great job with S.C. Cares and will do well in his new task as a leader in dealing with the problems of the many homeless folks in Midlands.
But be that as it may, my main purpose is to comment on the very, very interesting little ad for your blog in yesterday’s paper. You should publish it on the blog. The caption reads, “See Brad Warthen in a Different Way”, and the up-side-down photo of you with your hair standing up on end and your eyes agog certainly draws a reader’s attention.
I do not know exactly what the caption is getting at though. The shock effect of the ol’ upside-down billboards? There might be a bit of realism involved because I have always thought of you as a nice guy but maybe a bit agog in some of your editorial perspectives.
Tom Turnipseed
I have to admit, I am a little conflicted about this issue. I personally hate the blind partisanship that many partake in at the state and national level. But, I think that we as voters have to appreciate the benefit of the two-party system.
The party system helps voters to quickly get an idea of what someone believes based on the “R” or “D” next to thier name. Unfortunately, most voter either cannot or will not take the time to get a good understanding of what a candidate believes. Therefore, many people go to the polls with little knowledge and vote for the person that they have heard of.
Political parties endorsing candidates that share thier beliefs will help voters decide on candidates in many ways.
As for partisanship, I think that you are attacking the wrong idea. The problem doesn’t stem from what party endorses what level of government, but from the level of discourse that we get out of the party. I don’t want party line voting idealogues, but men and women of principle are good for this country.
As for Mark Sanford, I don’t think that he is the partisan that you accuse him of being. He appears to be a man of strong conservative principles (who voted against his party repeatedly in DC) whom you despise simply due to his desire to reform institutions before rather than writing a blank check to them.
Lee Bandy, independent writer and democratic strategist, Brad Warthen, and The State, can say what they want about Sanford, but to accuse him of being a party partisan just doesn’t stand up to a reasonable review of his record.
If the Republican party wants to endorse candidates, let them. Maybe the Democrats will join in. At least people might then have an idea of what they are getting when they cast that vote.
My grandpa says Democrats have been involved in Columiba politics for years. It seems to me the GOP is just following what the Democrats have done all along, although I don’t know if they have a committee-screening process.
Brad-
Looks like I will be in the minority here, but…
I am supportive of the efforts of the Richland GOP to endorse in local elections, and I’d venture to say they aren’t doing anything that the local Democrats haven’t done for years.
Last election cycle, I personally received a get-out-the-vote mailer sent by a democratic organization in Richland County. This piece of mail said “Vote for the Democratic Team” and “Take this to the polls” and proceeded to list all the Democrat candidates for office from John Kerry right on down to school board.
If conservatives are to be successful on the local level, then we must adopt the same obviously successful tactics that our opponents are using in these supposedly “non-partisan” elections.
I often see folks standing in line to vote who are asking others (people they don’t know, I might add!) who to vote for in school board and other non-partisan, down ballot races. If these voters were better educated, perhaps they could make a decision based on their own personal knowledge rather than simply voting for the person the guy behind them happens to know and like.
It is a fact that most candidates for these non-partisan races lack the money or resources to get their messages out to the voters at large. (We might see a change in the upcoming election for City Council with Kirkman Finley’s run.) But, having the resources that the local party can provide–volunteers, email lists, etc–could be just what a strong but poorly financed local conservative needs to win.
If the GOP can help their self-identified supporters in the Richland County area determine which candidate’s views most closely reflect their own, why is that bad?
Some real reforms that local offices need are:
* End the single-member districts which are gerrymandered along racial lines, to guarantee black (i.e. Democrat) seats.
* All school board and council seats should all be up at the same time, so the entire lot of them can be voted out. Right now, a mix of 2 and 4 year seats means the voters have no way to clean up a problem in one, or even two, elections.
* No school teachers or others with a conflict of interest should be allowed on school boards.
* Term limits. No one needs more than 4 years in a local office to do a good job, only to build empires and set up a relationship of bribery and favors for supporters who buy the politician on the installment plan.
* No borrowing. With projects on a cash basis, a lot of games would go away.
* End property taxes, and there will be no incentive for politicians to collude with developers to condemn land from “the wrong people”, in order to “improve the tax base” through development.
Although local politics does get very personal in some specific races, it is hard to imagine how the hate-filled invective of the left at the national level would ever happen the same way in local campaigns. It is much more difficult to hate and attack someone who you may bump into at the local supermarket. At least let’s hope it never degenerates to that point. Organizing a slate of candidates is in itself a smart move. Strength in numbers and united we stand or divided we fall are two phrases that come to mind.
Lee, I agree with your points except the one on borrowing. That is a necessary evil for any type of large capital project. Also, one minor point, police officers and law enforcement should not be on local councils (where they work) due to conflict of interest.
“We have been cooking and feeding Katrina evacuees…”
TOM! Say it ain’t so!
As to the topic at hand, I too am sorry to see the Republicans’ latest. Seems dangerous, but I suppose it was only a matter of time.
I have never seen a legitimate capital improvement project so large that the federal, state or local government could not pay for it in cash out of the current tax receipts.
The amount of interest the city pays on its projects each year is greater than the cash cost of any single project. Had they managed their money better, they would have no debt and have the cash to pay cash.
Update: Richland GOP to field candidates in student council elections
http://scbarbecue.blogspot.com/2005/11/richland-gop-to-field-candidates-in.html
Hmmm…this blog’s okay, but I prefer this one.
As a former Republican who simply Can’t Stand My Party anymore, I have to take issue with the view that an R or D behind a candidate’s name helps voters get an idea of what he believes. That may still be true nationally. But truth is, in South Carolina today there’s a lot more difference among Republicans than between Republicans and most Democrats. I personally would learn a lot more from a ballot that put “LNC” (Libertarian Nut Case) or “CSC” (Common Sense Conservative) behind the candidates’ names. Those are really the only choices there are anyway.
I do agree that we all benefit from a two-party system. Unfortunately, doing away with that system once and for all seems to be what the Republican party is aiming for with its city council/school board campaign. When voters choose blindly based on the R and the D — as we do in South Carolina now — there is no two party system anymore.