A lot of people believe that one of the problems with politics today is that the press poses unfair, unanswerable questions to politicians. This causes good people just to stay out of politics, rather than be abused so.
Such critics have a point. And here’s proof positive, as if we needed any.
My colleague Mike Fitts is a decent-enough sort, for a journalist — kind to children and dogs, tries to do his bit for the environment and such (drives a Prius). But check what he did today.
As our op-ed editor, Mike was charged with asking each of the gubernatorial candidates to contribute a guest column making his final pitch to the voters before next week’s election. This is something we’ve done for years.
But this time, Mike proposed to encourage a certain degree of relevance in that use of precious space by asking each of the candidates to devote their essays to answering this question:
"Where would the candidate’s leadership take South Carolina in the next four years?"
Well. Obviously this trick question is loaded against Mark Sanford. He can say what his leadership vision is, but given his performance over the last four years, there’s nothing he can say that would convince anyone that any of his proposals will actually be translated into reality.
The only consolation the governor might take from such a grossly unjust question is that it is every bit as unfair to Tommy Moore, since he’s good at getting stuff done, but has no particular vision to speak of.
I pictured each of the candidates having trouble filling his 600-word space, since about all they could say would be:
Sanford: "Nowhere, because nobody would follow, even though they should."
Moore: "Wherever it wants to go, I guess. What does that have to do with me?"
Mike claims that his purpose in posing such a stumper is that he’d like there to be some substance in these pieces.
Yeah, right.
Related Posts
Brad,
Cynicism is rarely flattering. And certainly not enlightening.
Chris
Why bother publishing the columns? Sounds like you’ve got PSAD(Political Season Affective Disorder).Don’t feel alone,though,I’ve got it too.Blog readers are particularly susceptible.
Cynicism is actually the best way to survive this dreaded malady.
Why don’t you journalists try asking some thoughtful and specific questions, instead of the rote ones you highlighted in Cub Reporter 101, some 30 years ago?
I know, you folks really wanted to, but you have to bring it down to the 8-year-old level of your readership.
Ahem. No comment, Lee.
But yeah, I’ve been undergoing the rhetorical shelling for quite some time now, and it’s natural that some form of fatigue should set in.
However … it’s not cynicism to see things as they are. I’ve been hoping and praying and writing and dreaming and wishing for better things for South Carolina for so long, and I haven’t seen a candidate for governor worth enthusiastic support since Joe Riley barely lost the primary runoff in 1994.
That’s a long dry spell.
Brad, your despisement of Sanford is overflowing. And recently you had a blog called “Hey, I like Mark Sanford”. Sanford can answer the essay question in one sentence. Lower taxes, streamlined and more efficient government, business and job growth, higher quality education for children, and a brighter future for all in the state.
I won’t posit a Moore answer.
Brad, it is newspapers themselves who claim to write for a low level of literacy, yet their editors claim to be so knowledgeable – they just can’t share their great expertise and insight with their lowly audience.
What baloney!
I say Cindy Scoppe on ETV the other night with Howard Duvall and others discussing property tax reform. Duvall kept repeating slogans without ever being challenged by Scoppe to explain his claims. She seemed to be spinning, unable to keep up with the topic.
South Carolina cannot continue to increase taxes and spending at a rate 50% greater than the increase in personal incomes. It has been doing that for over 20 years. All that spending needs to be rolled back in order to reduce taxes and spending to levels that do not stifle our economy.
The editors of The State fail to grasp that basic economic reality. They continue to beat the drum for more taxes, more spending without accountability, and support the deadwood who put our ox in the ditch.
Skilled wages in Charlotte are 40% higher than in Columbia for the same jobs. In Atlanta, they are 60 to 100% higher. That is why our best young people are voting with their feet.
Chris, it isn’t cynicism, it is instead a reflection of Warthen’s idiotic obsession with one of his 3 or 4 idées fixes – in this case, the idea that what is important is a grand, comprehensive plan. Warthen values the ability to articulate a desire – not really a plan – to achieve grand goals, and is continually shocked and outraged when the ability to articulate goals doesn’t materialize into the actual achievement of those goals.
Take the idiotic obsession of Warthen’s with “reforming state government”. First, the ability of someone like Sanford to say “state government should be reformed” doesn’t represent a plan for reform or an ability to carry out reform. Second, reforming state government isn’t actually a goal that will, in and of itself, achieve any worthwhile objective for the people of South Carolina. Reforming state government is a process-oriented goal, not a substantive goal. Warthen is obsessed with ideas such as “reform”, “nonpartisanship”, “compromise”, “cooperation” and the like. Warthen is obsessed with ideas like this, because they can be articulated in terms of the broad platitudes that are the only language he understands.
However, ideas such as cooperation, compromise, and nonpartisanship have no value in and of themselves. They are important only insofar as they contribute to the achievement of worthwhile substantive goals. Warthen doesn’t value people who work to achieve substantive objectives, because he doesn’t like the way substantive objectives are actually achieved. Substantive objectives are usually achieved incrementally, you come up with this idea, you figure out that it will take this, this, and this, to do it, you do those things, you see what happened, you then are in a new place from which it may be possible to go here, you figure out that to go here, you have to do this, this, and this, and so on.
Warthen doesn’t like that, because it’s not big and sweeping enough for him. So he gloms onto people who can articulate a “grand vision,” whether or not they can areticulate and practical means of achieving their grand vision. And then Warthen is astonished when the plan either fails completely and causes chaos and hardship, as in the case of the Iraq disaster, or sort of dirbbles away into either stagnation or incremental change, as in the case of Sanford’s vision.
Warthen doesn’t admit error or failure, so long as he articulated a worthy goal. That’s why he doesn’t blame himself for advocating the policies that led to the Iraq disaster, that’s why he’s content to have all the burdens fall on others, and that’s why you’re not going to see him volunteering at the VA, not now, not ever.
Contrary to the wishes of socialists and other traitors, our military is winning the war with radical Islam. They just need few political restrictions, so they can eradicate the cleric ringleaders in Iraq and mop up.