Just so you know that the rest of the nation is still embarrassingly fascinated with South Carolina’s political dysfunction, here’s a piece in The Christian Science Monitor that lists “Five reasons Mark Sanford might last as South Carolina governor.” In a nutshell (which is an appropriate venue, if you think about it), the five reasons are:
- The mash notes — this is the most bizarre of the five reasons. CSM speculates that “The governor’s emotional attachment to former Argentinian TV anchor Maria Chapur, while inappropriate, seems genuine and deep – a factor that may have made him a more sympathetic figure in the eyes of some South Carolinians.” Huh. OK. The piece also notes that the e-mails “are full of references to Ms. Chapur’s glowing eyes and ‘the special nature of your soul,'” which kind of conveniently ignores the part where he waxed poetical about her boobs.
- Boeing. This one’s on the mark. Sanford really lucked out on this one. Even though all he did was resolve not to get in the way this once (conveniently dropping his usual opposition to such incentives), he benefits from the reflected glory. Also, the signing ceremony down in Charleston was a bit of a lovefest, a unifying moment between him and some of his chief critics in the Legislature, which bled off a bit of the animosity that would tend to boost impeachment. In short, Boeing was a big help to the gov.
- Andre Bauer. ‘Nuff said, right? That’s what has kept The State from calling for the gov’s resignation. Never mind that I think that analysis is backward. Rather than helping Andre’s candidacy, I think a year of hyperscrutiny in the top job would guarantee that Andre couldn’t get elected to it.
- Who cares? Indeed. Give anything long enough, and South Carolinians’ default apathy will kick in.
- In SC, Sanford doesn’t look so bad. Mentions here of Thomas Ravenel, et al.
That last one, of course, is why it’s so cringe-inducing to have national media paying attention to us at all. The national narrative on SC is that we’re a bunch of Confederate flag-waving, president-insulting, Strom Thurmond-worshipping yahoos. Mark Sanford only added slightly to that, and he can get lost a bit in the mix.
Related Posts
Yeah, the identification does tend to make one wince. I can throw in a 6th reason. I think that the delay in starting impeachment proceedings looks like the whole thing is nothing but a political ploy designed to spotlight certain congressmen during an election year, and that if it weren’t for that other politicians wouldn’t give a hardly. Sound cynical? SC politics frequently puts me in that sort of mood.
When you say “certain congressmen,” do you mean to say “certain legislators?”
“The national narrative on SC is that we’re a bunch of Confederate flag-waving, president-insulting, Strom Thurmond-worshipping yahoos.”
Which part of that is untrue for the majority of South Carolinians?
Confederate flag? check.
President insulting? check (you think Obama has a higher approval rating now in SC than he did a year ago???)
Strom worshipping? check. South Carolina believes in the principle of “we’d rather do it wrong our way than right your way”. Strom was the embodiment of that philosophy.
Yahoos? Drive over to Lexington on Friday night sometime.
Both of you are correct.
Brad, Doug, both of you are correct.
Let us please not forget the difference between “all” and “some”–
Doug–while I laughed appreciatively at your post,and nodded “yes”– I believe that plenty of “us” –not more than half, but plenty, don’t match up. A better phrasing is “most” — we ALL aren’t like that. If we can applaud those who are not, instead of constantly focusing on those who are, MAYBE we can modify some behavior?
or maybe it’s genetic—seriously–they’ve found a lot of genetic bases for political beliefs–or perhaps political preferences–so maybe it’s a lost cause–a slogan for our state? South Carolina, the Lost Cause State
After reading your post, I was about to leave the same comment that Doug Ross left. I have lived in SC all my life and descend from people who settled here in the 18th Century. I am no Yankee, yet I agree with the national narrative that
SC citizens are “a bunch of Confederate flag-waving, president-insulting, Strom Thurmond-worshipping yahoos.” In any conversation with white, born-here South Carolinians most defend these things and would vote for Sanford and Strom again if given the chance. I truly feel like a misfit in most social groups. I stay because my home, my family, and my career are here and I love these things. The reason the national media write of South Carolinians this way is that this is the way white South Carolinians act. Yes, I’m embarassed but often I just walk away from such discussions. I’ve learned from experience that disagreeing with Yahoos only makes them louder. They are not interested in others ideas. They are only interested in talking longer and louder than any dissenters.
C Street will keep in power to cover up his massive crime.
C Street has completely taken over SC’s Family politics.
Careful people. You don’t know the details of what he really did in Argentina yet.
My white born-here friends, like white born-here me, do not defend these things and did not and would not vote for Sanford or Strom. There are plenty of decent folks here in Columbia. Let’s celebrate them, not marginalize them.
Today, The State certainly highlighted some of the questionable aspects of the Argentine trade trip. I would add that when the Sanford defenders say it had to be kosher because the Commerce Department scheduled it, I suggest that it isn’t too far a reach to suggest that Commerce drones didn’t just pull the destination out of thin air, or off of some list of great places for a small, poor right-wing state to go on trade missions….and there’s plenty of great hunting here in SC, just as there are plenty of great vacation spots here–not that Sanford appears to favor them…
Yahoos? Drive over to Lexington on Friday night sometime.
Sounds like typical Columbia arrogance, which is to say an arrogance which is undeserved. Columbia is not exactly teeming with culture.
I’d say that most South Carolinians don’t care about the Confederate flag, don’t hate our President enough to insult him and have moved on from Strom Thurmond. And if I’m wrong then I’d say this state isn’t worth living in. Some of y’all should put down the TV remote and step outside and look around at your communities. Most of us are not yahoos.
David,
Dead Strom would still get more votes than most live politicians if they put his name on the ballot.
And most South Carolinians (especially those in the legislature) DO care about the Confederate Flag — otherwise it wouldn’t require a compromise to move it from the top of the State House to its current prominent “in-your-face” position.
I’m all for putting the question about the flag on the ballot. Are you?
I think that many issues that have a lot of traction in the legislature don’t have as much among the population at large. Between special interests and the legislators’ personal quirks (Glenn McConnell and the Confederacy), lots of things loom larger at the State House than they might in a referendum.
and, David, there *is* the “Southern Patriot” shop over by I-26/I-77 on Charleston Highway….we don’t have one over this side of the river, last I checked. (Not to say we don’t have a ton of problems, of course) I like to call it the Southern Traitor store–since when is seceding good patriotism?
Maybe a vote on the flag would be helpful. Maybe more South Carolinians would prefer that the confederate flag finally take its place in history and move on and a secret ballot might accomplish that. Those that would keep it where it is are so loud and vulgar that the real, decent, and kind South Carolinians are too sensitive to risk a head-on fight about it. It is so ridiculous that this occupies so much political energy in 2009.
I am glad that South Carolina voters now include Hispanics and Blacks and people from the north. I think they are already enriching our lives and will eventually bring about political change. I contend, however, that in rural counties 80% (not all) of the white, born-here voters are Confederate flag wavers. I do think it is something genetic that influences political opinion. My primary influence growing up was my mother who believes Christian and Republican are synonyms. As adults most of my paternal cousins and I are all Democrats. I am Methodist, not Baptist, and most of my friends are Democrats. My neighbors and work colleagues whom I don’t get to choose are confederate flag wavers. Where we live white Democrats are very much a minority, and I am careful where I express my views. I am not comfortable being jeered at. When others depict white, born-here South Carolinians as Confederate flag wavers, I believe that is an accurate representation.
Certainly, Doug, most in the legislature care about the flag. But they’re also a bunch of morons who like wasting our time on issues such as this which advance our state none. Beyond that I cannot say for sure. All I can say is out here amongst the yahoos of Lexington County, most people that I know personally don’t care.
Sure, put it on the ballot; I believe the flag should be removed. But it’s not that big of an issue to me.
A couple of points: First, no, neither this nor any other legislative issue should be settled by referendum. I’m a stickler for republican government; to me government by plebiscite is an abomination. The proper way to decide something like this — something that is not a constitutional issue, but merely statutory — is to do so through our elected representatives.
Second, about those representatives. David and KB and Doug are laboring under a very common misconception — that our lawmakers are fascinated with the Confederate flag. They are not; in fact they are quite the opposite. They don’t want to hear about it or talk about it, and they don’t. They definitely are not “wasting our time on issues such as this;” in fact, they completely refuse to take the issue up. (Mind you, I’m talking the consensus here; certainly you can point to a few with a neo-Confederate obsession, but even those don’t spend legislative time on the subject, insisting that the issue was “settled” by the compromise of 2000.)
No, our problem is that lawmakers will not spend ANY time on the issue. And as long as they don’t, those of us who want the flag gone have no way of exercising our will (remember, lawmakers would have to take up the issue even for the referendum some of y’all call for).
Some of this is due to their fear of a no-win issue. For them, it really doesn’t matter how many people call for removing the flag; they fear the angry minority that will take its revenge upon them.
Another factor is the NAACP, which is following a perfect strategy for making sure the flag stays up forever. By capturing all the headlines on the subject, the NAACP has managed to frame the issue as being between South Carolina and an interest group that is set on FORCING South Carolina to do its will, with the threat of economic harm if it doesn’t say “uncle.”
Well, you don’t make white South Carolinians do anything, even if it’s in their interest. (Think, how did the slaveowning minority get all those poor sap whites to take up arms against the Union in 1860? By persuading them that the gummint was going to try to MAKE them do something.) And never mind that the boycott lacks teeth; the problem is that the NAACP means for it to be effective, and white South Carolinian resentment of that intent is so vehement that there is no way lawmakers — even some who may be slightly inclined to do so — will take up the issue, as long as the NAACP succeeds in portraying the issue the way it does.
My periodic campaigns to try to move the flag are timed when I think that maybe we can get a loud enough conversation going to drown out the NAACP, so that MAYBE lawmakers will see their way clear to doing the right thing, forgetting for the moment that the right thing happens to be the thing the NAACP wants to MAKE them do. But most of the time, it’s like butting my head against a wall. The media like conflict, and will conspire with the extremists to portray this as a battle between irreconcilables, which keeps most of us from being able to reach consensus.
No, the problem is getting the Legislature to take up the issue at ALL.
Even in 2000, when you may have had the impression that the Legislature was doing nothing but talking about the flag, the real problem was that it was keeping such debate to a minimum. In fact, the reason we’re stuck with this unacceptable “compromise” is that the House refused to spend more than a day on it. The GOP leadership decided that it would cram through the Senate “compromise” in that day, and not allow any alternative plans to be seriously considered. A lot of attempts were made, mostly by Democrats, to offer plans that would truly have settled the issue. The very best was a proposal by former House Speaker Bob Sheheen to do away with all actual flags, and replace them with a bronze plaque that explained that the flag once flew here — truly putting the flag in its proper historical context, and eliminating it as a present-day issue. But his successor, Speaker David Wilkins, was determined not to be slowed down by considering anything other than what the Senate had proposed.
That was an extremely frustrating day for me. I wrote several editorials, as the debate ebbed and flowed, to advocate for the better ideas. I kept rewriting late into the night, but in the end didn’t run any of them because late that night the House voted, rendering all such things moot. In other words, the House leadership rammed it through before there could be any input from the public on the various good ideas that were put forth and tabled that day.
Remember, the Legislature’s sin with regard to the flag was then, and remains now, ignoring it, not spending too much time on it…
Why does it take a piece of legislation to decide where a flag of some ancient government should fly? Why couldn’t they just call up some maintenance man to take it down and give it to the museum? I know that’s not reality, but shouldn’t it be?
Maybe our legislators don’t care about the flag. Maybe they were just taking up the wishes of a few of their constituents who were yelling the loudest about keeping it up. That doesn’t change the fact that moving a piece of cloth about the State House doesn’t make anyone’s life better. And if they thought that that compromise would make the issue go away then they are either naive or worse.
If it is important to you, then I guess you would think they aren’t spending enough time on it. That’s a matter of perspective I suppose. I 100% believe it should come down. But it’s also not as important to me as nearly any other issue that could actually affect my life.
I think the portrait Brad paints of our legislators is even worse than the one of flag-loving, time-wasters. So they refuse to take up the public’s will for fear of being voted out of office and they let their egos take over when the NAACP gets involved? And they thought that moving the flag from the dome to a prominent location on the grounds would actually solve the issue? So what are they, gutless, self-interested, pigheaded and either stupid or naive? That’s probably more accurate.
David, it takes legislation because back in the 90s, the Legislature passed a statute requiring that it fly — a statute that was amended when they moved it from the dome to the Confederate soldier monument in 2000.
Before that, the governor could have just said “take it down.” Lawmakers didn’t want the governor to have that power. They prefer to retain it (as they choose to retain all other power) to themselves, and then refuse to use it. That was a classic South Carolina move. The S.C. Legislature has always been about maintaining the status quo, and the best way to do that is to retain all authority, and never use it.
I wondered how that came to be. Thanks. There are so many facets of the flag issue that are ridiculous.
Speaking of legislative bodies wasting time on the trivial…