I have been SO busy today that I haven’t had a chance to properly excoriate the horrendous idea put forward yesterday, but here’s what I said about it this morning on Twitter:
This recall proposal is the worst idea SC Dems have come up with in many a day, so of course Nikki Haley is for it: http://j.mp/nTdHqI
As for WHY it’s the worst idea… First, if you don’t know — if you don’t understand, on a fundamental level, why a republic is superior to direct democracy (which this would be a leap toward), then you’ll have to wait for a day when I have a lot more time than I have right now. I might not persuade you then, because this goes to essential values. But I’ll try, when I get time.
For now, I will say that there’s a simple reason why these two parties support it:
- Democrats are out of power, so they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. This is the most desperate of desperate throws.
- It’s a bad idea, so Nikki Haley’s for it.
OK, to elaborate on that second point… Nikki is always for anything that has populist appeal, that is to say, something that sounds good to someone who has never thought carefully about politics. She adores bumper-sticker sayings such as “I want to run government like a business,” which sounds great to the politically innocent, but betrays a lack of understanding of both government and business, why they are different, and why they should be different.
This is like that.
I’ll also throw at you a rushed note I sent a friend this morning who asked me what I thought about recalls:
They are evil. They are cousins to the evil initiative process.Here’s one thought people should be able to relate to (aside from the obvious, emotional argument that this is why things are so screwed up in California — this is how they got Ah-nold as their gov): Already, we almost have a state of perpetual election. This would mean that, quite literally, we would be in a state of perpetual election, with every elected official constantly running to keep his seat. That’s completely unacceptable. There must come a time when officials can turn away from selling themselves to us and devote their attention to governing.Of COURSE Nikki likes the idea — she has no notion of being a governor; she is all about the perpetual campaign. That’s why, instead of a chief of staff, she has a campaign manager.It’s a tough argument to make, because the populist impulse is that voters ALWAYS want to be in the driver’s seat. But if you do this, you might as well have direct democracy — which, unfortunately, ALSO appeals to the unreflective mind.To use a business analogy — in practically every line of work, there must come a time when, in order to be effective, you have to stop talking to the customers and clients and DO THE WORK for which they are paying you.I could go on, but I’ve got to do other stuff.
As for the deeper reasons why it’s such a bad idea, those will have to wait. In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves.
Related Posts
I agree in principal but in this state it won’t matter. It’s like restructuring. Until the people really understand how government works and what it can and can’t do all of these changes, for good or bad, will do nothing more than serve as an exercise in re-arrainging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Well, brad, no one can doubt your sincerity of opinion about recalls.
What does surprise me is how such a “populist” necessity could engender such ad hominem on Nikki.
Asa former editor, certainly you could introduce readers to a more substantive history of recall petitions in progressive states (e.g. California), and what you consider failures and absence of triumphs.
as I clearly recall, their was a hue and cry not long ago in the palmetto state for the head of at least one governor. To that local allusion can be added the names of many lawyers who have been especially foul and corrupt.
Senator John Edwards’s name leap to mind almost immediately. Of course, you are entitled to your inexplicable, conflicted, emotional opinions.
Juan, if I had not been in such a hurry, I probably would have expressed myself more elegantly than “It’s a bad idea, so Nikki Haley’s for it.” There IS a certain frustrated peevishness being expressed there, which affected my choice of words. So take what I said about the governor, or at least the way I said it, with a chunk of rock salt. That was Twitter writing, and it should have improved by the time I got to the blog.
But, with regard to the ideas I am criticizing. I am not in the slightest bit “conflicted.” And I do find the fact that Nikki Haley would jump aboard with Democrats on this abhorrent idea to be quite revelatory of the reasons why I have had so many problems with her since her decision to pursue her recent rapid rise to power.
It’s a perfect illustration of the problem with populism.
I’ll go further. It was wrong of me to say, “It’s a bad idea, so Nikki Haley’s for it,” because there certainly is NOT a 100 percent correlation between the two concepts. Our governor not ALWAYS wrong. Far from it. Certainly not by MY standards, at any rate. For instance, she advocates things that I’ve pushed for nearly a generation, such as restructuring to put the executive in this state on an even level with the legislative (along with an independent judiciary, of course).
But here’s an interesting thing to consider, something that I doubt the governor has considered (and if she has, she has dismissed it too easily): The impulse that leads people to consider ideas such as recall just happens to have been used very effectively to prevent restructuring. Opponents of eliminating the Long Ballot — the independent election of executive department heads such as the superintendent of education and the commissioner of agriculture — have used the very same emotional argument that our governor uses in defending her stance for recall. They say you must NOT take the power to make a certain decision away from the voters (even though you could easily demonstrate that vast numbers of voters know next to nothing, and perhaps nothing at all, about the candidates in those down-ballot races, which calls the value of this power into serious question). And our governor expresses the precise same thought, or perhaps I should say, sentiment: “Anything that empowers the voters, I’m always going to support.”
As it stands, too many of our elected officials — particularly those whose terms are only two years — spend most of their time campaigning for the next election, rather than settling down to study issues in order to determine the best approaches for dealing with them. Why study an issue in any depth, after all, when you’re looking for nothing deeper than a campaign slogan, a bumper sticker?
Our governor is perfectly comfortable with this, because she is in perpetual campaign mode, with her campaign staff in her office. And folks, that is a BAD thing for the voters, not empowerment.
As for giving you some sort of historical overview on recall — I’m sorry I haven’t had time to put anything together on those lines. Today I’ve only had those few minutes in which I posted this, and these few minutes now that I’m spending on these comments. And I’m going to hit the sack soon because I have to get up at 7 or earlier on Saturday in order to be somewhere.
But here’s the Wikipedia treatment on recall in the United States, which provides an overview.
And here is a column I wrote on related ideas in 1998, in response to a Leonard Pitts column:
Note that last sentence. Perfectly true. Which leads to my dismay at my own impatience with our governor. It arises from my belief that she does NOT take these burdens as seriously as she should. But I could always be wrong about that, couldn’t I?
I could always be wrong about that, couldn’t I?
-Brad
Sure you could. As a statistician I fully understand that ANYTHING is possible. But you have to play the odds. In the case of Nikki Haley the odds are pretty overwhelming that her decisions and choices will not advance the prospects of this state for a better future. But there is always a tiny chance that we’ll be wrong.
Let’s take another example to illustrate this point. George W. Bush seemed like a reasonable sort of guy in the 2000 election. Setting all the craziness of that election aside I wasn’t really concerned that Bush would govern much differently than his dad. Although that wasn’t ideal it was at least tolerable. So the odds were good that our country would be okay after 8 years of a George W. presidency.
Well those odds were disasterously wrong. Bush was a horror to this country in every possible way. He defied the odds and became the worst president since at least 1932. On top of that he proved to be a seriously unlikable sort to boot.
Bottom line: Haley could end up as a decent governor. It probably won’t matter much since the governor has little power. Still, odds have been proven wrong before. Perhaps Nikki will prove us all wrong in the end. We can only hope.
Bud,
I think it’s a little early to say whether George W. Bush was the worst president since 1932. Plenty of people found fault with Johnson, Nixon and Carter, not to mention Clinton.
It often takes decades to assess a chief executive’s accomplishments.
This is to neither laud nor malign George W. Bush. But if I recall correctly, Truman, for example, had horrible polling numbers during his presidency. Today, he’s rather well regarded.
Recall is an initiative permitted the voters to respond to outrageous official conduct.
Right now recall is a one-side affair, as the incumbent can always resign.
The Greenville News calls for Ard’s voluntary resignation today.
“The violations, taken as a whole and mixed in with some of his responses to Ethics investigators, make it clear that Ard should not continue to serve as lieutenant governor.”
But it is not the ethical violations at issue here. Those have been adjudicated and Ard has been fined. To hold him criminally accountable likely would be double jeopardy.
What is in play, however, is the absolute certainty that Ard perjured himself (or caused to have his legal advisor provide misinformation to an official body).
That’s why he has to go, and will go.
How could anyone honestly think Clinton was among the worst Presidents? He had sex with an intern and lied about it. Otherwise, he ran the country exceedingly well–
Nixon was an awesome President, until he crossed a serious line directly related to his being President.
I disagreed with most of his policies, but I can admit that Reagan was a good President….
Here’s an interesting thing to consider, folks…
Clinton — even without the lying, even with “just sex,” as his defenders like to say — did something that CEOs would be fired for. He was getting it on with the lowliest, most powerless person in the White House organizational chart, and doing it at the office.
Ard mishandled some money, not in office, but having to do with his campaign. He’s paying it back.
I say this not to defend Ard, but to point out that most, particularly most liberals (such as those who were out for Clarence Thomas’ head for making suggestive remarks at the office), would consider Clinton’s actions more egregious, if they were not inclined politically to defend him.
As for Ard — the answer to the question in the lead headline in the paper today, “Does South Carolina need a Lt. Gov.?”, is “No.” Whether he goes or stays is of little consequence. I’ll be content either way.
But — and here’s the point I was going to make, and forgot: If political officials had the honor to resign when they should, as Clinton should have done, and Ard should do, we wouldn’t be talking about recall. So I understand the emotional center of such calls.
Clarence Thomas did a whole lot more than “make suggestive remarks at the office” and Supreme Court is forever–no do-overs. There was absolutely no evidence that Anita Hill was anything other than grossed out, unlike Monica “Thong” Lewinsky. Plus, we would not have known anything about Monica L if there hadn’t been an unprecedented and unjustified witch hunt, courtesy of Ken Starr!
Isn’t it interesting that Andre’ comes out looking good when compared to Ard? Reminds me of the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for.”. To defend Ard, I don’t know if he has done anything that everyone else in the Statehouse has done, he just got caught.
If we had had a recall situation for POTUS back in 98 Clinton would have easily been re-elected. The public was absolutely correct on that issue.
What the Clinton situation involved was a GOP hatchet job on a dead-end Whitewater witch hunt. They happened to stumble onto a consential sexual fling that they exploited for purely political advantage. Clinton needed to fight this witch hunt and to resign would have been to give in to the disgraceful assault by the most disgusting elements of the GOP. Brad’s contention that Monica Lewinsky was somehow a victim is laughable. She kept the damn dress as a trophy for Pete’s sake. That just doesn’t square with this victim claim.
As for Ard, he could be important is something happens to Haley. He needs to go.
Saying Ard “mishandled some money” significantly understates the issue. “Mishandle” implies some grey area of activity that could be considered open to interpretation. What Ard did was willfully disregrad the clearly stated ethics rules related to campaign spending. He bought stuff with campaign funds for his own personal use. He also apparently lied multiple times to cover up his spending including making up a story about a trip to D.C. to see Senator Graham.
Any regular public employee who did the same thing would be on the street very quickly without an option to resign. If Ard doesn’t have the moral backbone to resign (which evidence seems to imply he doesn’t) then he should be kicked to the curb.
It’s fascinating… arguments really don’t change over time, do they?
Democrats’ very favorite defense of Clinton is the one I mentioned before — that it was “just sex.” Which is both untrue, and so what if it was? That alone was a firing offence. It CERTAINLY was something that would induce an honorable man to resign.
Their second favorite was what we heard from Kathryn and Bud just now — that if there had been no Ken Ard, I mean Ken Starr, there would have been no lying. That is to say, no “lying” in the sense of falsehood, rather that in the archaic sense of “to lie with a woman.” Because we still would have had the second sense; he just wouldn’t have been caught committing THAT firing offense.
That’s such a bogus argument. Let’s see, if aliens from outer space land, and in response the president does something that is wrong and dishonorable and illegal, he should not answer for it, because it was the aliens’ fault? Come on!
Bill Clinton didn’t become an exploiter of women and a liar because of Ken Starr; it’s the way he was.
Whitewater was one of the most foolish wastes of time in the history of political “scandals.” A total waste of time. It was a disgusting, tiresome display, and I barely paid any attention to it, but just waited and waited and waited for it to be over with.
And then, much to my dismay, it accidentally turned up something that was a real problem, a real firing offense. And I could see that it was going to be traumatic for the country. I just had no idea HOW traumatic, or how deeply Democrats would resent it, or how long they would cling to that resentment. (That was really the most surprising thing about it. Newspaper editors were used to being despised and yelled at by conservatives; we didn’t get that from liberals because THEY thought, as did conservatives, that we were on their side. They were wrong, but at least their misperception kept them from bitterly yelling at us. Until Clinton.)
I hated Whitewater, and longed for it to end. I also hated that the Lewinsky thing came up; I think it would have been great for the country if we had never learned just how bit a cad and a liar the president was.
But we did find out. And the proper response was for him to go. Not to put the country through the trauma of impeachment, but simply to go.
Democrats’ very favorite defense of Clinton is the one I mentioned before — that it was “just sex.”
-Brad
NOT TRUE! Clinton had an affirmative duty NOT to allow the scoundrels in the GOP to get away with a disgusting political witch hunt. That’s the critical argument.
And then, much to my dismay, it accidentally turned up something that was a real problem, a real firing offense.
-Brad
Wow. What an unbelievable, and frankly sick, interpretation. You’ve outdone yourself here Mr. Warthen.
Wow. He had “an affirmative duty” to get away with his own contemptible conduct, because of the way the Republicans were behaving?
Wow. Wow.
You know, if Democrats are going to wait for Republicans to behave before THEY start behaving, we’re in for a long, long wait.
I’m like, “Wow.”
And Bud’s like, “Wow.”
We’re having a real dialogue here…
The Constitution makes no provision for recall by the people. Which is a good if statesmen are elected, and if those elected strive to put the common interests of the state or country first. However, when it has come to the point where the elected legislators prioritize their goals as 1) get re-elected, and 2) make sure the other party does not, then their decisions regarding impeachment/removal of any elected official are likely to be questionable, if not unethical. Our political situation has devolved to this low point. Now what do we do? I agree that pure democracy is unwise (and probably one of the worst tyrannies available to humans). At the same time, there needs to be a way to get the worst culprits out. I suspect, Brad, that your response is to hold the legislators accountable at the next election, but the elections are essentially being bought by those legislators who curry to those who have the big money, so unless those folks want a legislator out, they’ll keep buying the commercials that keep getting those guys elected. I, personally, don’t see an answer. However, I do think we need some means of getting rid of the baddies while the situation is fresh.
The Waterwater episode was the event that turned American politics on it’s head. Until then the 2 parties disagreed on the substance of POLICY issues, some times very passionately, but were not focused on personality politics and hate-mongering. Then somehow the GOP started this investigation of something that occurred BEFORE Clinton even became POTUS. No one distinguished themselves well during that whole episode. And I don’t defend Clinton for his cadish (though non-impeachable) behavior. But the long-term implications of this were to change the political discourse in our country to making things personal, rather than policy oriented.
The GOP is much, much better at this game than the Democrats. When George W. Bush actually did commit an impeachable offense by lying us into war the Democrats were helpless to respond. Of course they didn’t control congress until late in Bush’s presidency so the timing was not the best.
Still, it’s pretty clear from all that has transpired over the last few years that the GOP has lost it’s way in dealing with issues in a grounded, rational way. The Democrats and Democrats alone stand in the way of a complete meltdown of our nation at the hands of the Plutocrats.
Whitewater of course.
Clinton DID commit an impeachable offense, and he WAS impeached for it.
I thought that was appropriate, even though I was sorry to see it come to that.
Then the Senate failed to convict. I also thought that was appropriate. I did not want to see him forced from office.
All I wanted was for him to do the right thing, and resign. But he did not have it in him.
I agree with Brad on Clinton. It wasn’t just what he did, it was who he did it with, where he did it, and what his job was at the time. It was also how he responded to the allegations.
Clinton’s escapades were far worse than Mark Sanford’s and I thought Sanford should have resigned immediately.
But let me repeat, Ard should be gone immediately as well whether by his own choice or by whatever means necessary to force him out.
Doug, you’re totally right about Sanford. He should have resigned immediately.
And you’re right that what Clinton did was worse.
What makes it hard for Democrats to see that is that they believe — and they are completely right — that Clinton was a much better president than Sanford was a governor.
But that doesn’t change the fact that what Clinton did in that case made it imperative that he resign.
But Clinton didn’t resign. How did that make the country worse off? Clinton stayed on and the country was much better because of it.
And by the way I didn’t think Sanford should have resigned either for his sexcapade. But he did abdicate his duties as governor while doing so and didn’t fully inform his staff. That was the more more serious offense and possibly THAT was an impeachable offense. But not the sex.
If you are talking about lying under oath, there’s a good arguement that he should have resigned. If you are talking about his sexual indiscretion(s), well in a perfect world he should have, but if all of the elected folk who have committed sexual indiscretions had resigned after doing so, we wouldn’t have had enough people left to run the country throughout history.
@bud
I didn’t realized Clinton informed his staff of what he was doing while he was cavorting in the Oval Office alcove with Lewinsky. Or maybe he was multi-tasking at the time.
@Karen
Maybe if more people were forced to resign due to those types of indescretions, we’d have fewer people in the offices with a penchant for doing it. The issue is a society that doesn’t just forgive bad behavior but celebrates it.
At least Clinton’s staff knew how to get in touch with him during his romp in the Oval Office.
@Doug – You mean there was no appointment to “not have sexual relations with that woman” in his appointment book?
We ALREADY have recall. Called “elections.”
@ Doug, at issue is that power breeds arrogance, a conviction that they don’t have to behave like everyone else.
If Clinton had resigned, the next election would have gone differently. And that had enormous repercussions for everybody.
@Karen–research suggests that politicians do behave just like everybody else–they just don’t behave *better* than everyone else, as they would have us think. Look at the statistics on infidelity…
@ Kathryn, Ah, but most folks have the sense to hide their behavior a bit better. The various politicians seem to assume that they can get away with anything.
Politicians are Type A personalities who keep pushing the envelope, and they do so inside a cocoon. People like Sandford were perfectly capable of having an affair without anyone finding out about it, but they couldn’t help exposing themselves.