Category Archives: Mail call

Lawmakers dodge flag issue

27 Replies

Everybody thinks the flag’s an issue
except those who can act on it

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
‘I JUST WANTED to touch base with you and let you know I enjoyed your editorials this morning,” said the phone message. “You don’t have to call me back, but read ’em and thought you did a great job. Thanks.”
    Pretty routine, except that it was from a Republican S.C. House member, Ted Pitts — my own representative, as it happens — and the column and editorial were asserting the need to remove the Confederate flag from the State House grounds.
    Assuming this wasn’t just constituent service, I called to ask why he liked them. He was a little vague, saying “it’s a very interesting issue” with “an interesting dynamic,” but not taking a position.
I think he was feeling a little odd because after he had called me, he had found that he was about the only person in the State House who wanted to talk about the subject at all.
    “I just walked around and said, ‘Are we gonna talk about this?’ and to a man, there was just no interest,” he said. “There just seemed to be no appetite around here, from African-American members” or anyone else.
    “They don’t think it’s an issue right now.”
    But apathy has always been the Legislature’s way on the flag issue. Contrary to popular impression, it did not spend the 1990s (before Mr. Pitts was elected) discussing the issue — everyone else did. The apathy was even apparent during the all-too-brief debate in 2000 that left the flag in our faces, although it was removed from its position of false sovereignty.
    If the House hadn’t been in such an all-fired hurry, lawmakers could have dealt with the issue once and for all. A lot of people from all over the political spectrum were pushing them to get something done, and some of the main advocates — such as the S.C. Chamber of Commerce — believed that the put-it-behind-the-monument approach qualified as “something.”
    So they did that, quickly. If the House had discussed the issue more than one day, a proposal to strike the flag for good might have had a chance, but the leadership wasn’t willing.
    If you ask lawmakers about the flag, they’re aghast: Why ask them, of all people? Yet thanks to a law passed by the Legislature in 1995 (in response to an abortive attempt by then-Gov. David Beasley to exercise some leadership), only the Legislature can do anything with the flag. But they don’t even think it’s an issue.
    USC football coach Steve Spurrier thinks it’s an issue, but what does he know? All he knows is that the flag should not be there, and that it projects an absurdly and unnecessarily negative image of our state to the entire world.
    I heard from other people who don’t know any more than the old ball coach.
    One said,

   “I am one million percent behind you on the flag issue…. We should not be putting down anybody, just like your column says, we should just be doing it because it’s the right thing to do. I’m born, bred South Carolina, go back generations … but I could care less. I do miss ‘Dixie,’ now, it did make my skin crawl, but the flag doesn’t mean a damn’ thing… I think you’ll be surprised at the momentum can get going now. Good job.”

    As for e-mails, there was a problem: The special [email protected] address I had set up malfunctioned for the first two days. But during that time, 39 people were determined enough to look up my personal address. Thirty were for taking the flag down; only nine seemed opposed to our message in any way — and a couple of those were fairly indirect in saying so. Not all, of course, were so shy: 

  “You know as well as I that this is not about the Confederate flag, it is about blacks — period! If removing that flag from the Statehouse grounds would cure the 70+% illegitimacy rate, children having children, the over 50% dropout rate and the substantial crime and incarceration rate within the black community, I would say remove it now but it will not and you and Spurrier know it!… You are simply using the flag issue as a diversion from the real issues I mentioned above.”

    More typical is this one:

    

“I grew up in this state and I am proud to be from here, but I am embarrassed by that flag and the people who support it. I travel all over the country for my work and every time someone asks me where I am from and I say SC, they bring up the flag. I have to defend myself and my state by saying not all of us are backwards and ignorant…. It is an insult to the troops fighting for our freedom today…. I will say it as plainly as I can: It is un-American to support the flag and what it stands for.”

    As of midday Friday, my blog had received 253 comments on the subject since Mr. Spurrier’s remarks. Few were vague.
    Rep. Pitts remains sort of, kind of uncommitted. “I feel kind of like an outsider looking in on this,” he said — which sounded odd for one of the 170 insiders who have the power to act on the issue. He explained: “It’s an issue that means very little to me — and, I think, to my generation.” Mr. Pitts is 35.
    “Our state shouldn’t promote anything that offends a large block of its people,” Mr. Pitts said, in his strongest statement one way or the other. “In 2007, we’ve got a lot of other issues to talk about, but why can’t we talk about this?”
    “It’s almost like we’re hiding from the issue.” I would have added that it’s exactly like it, but he was on a roll. “Let’s defend why it’s still flying there” if lawmakers believe it’s justified.
    “But let’s not just not talk about it.”
    If you’d like to let Mr. Pitts know that it’s an issue to you, let him know. Or better, let your own representatives know.

    Find out how to reach your representatives here and your senators here. If you don’t know who represents you, check here.

Spurrier vs. the Nazis?

5 Replies

Just in case you didn’t suspect that this post and this one might be connected, I received an e-mail from a friendly correspondent saying the following:

I am planning on coming up to watch the silliness of the NAZI’s on Saturday.  I am waiting on a call from a close friend of mind (with) C-Span. They are thinking seriously about covering it in light of all that has happened with Spurrier.

I don’t know whether that’s true, but whether C-SPAN is interested or not, it might be interesting to see what kinds of flags appear at the rally Saturday. I mean, aside from the usual swastika sort.

Weird, but good, flag news

17 Replies

You can generally count, in my trade, on hearing more from people who are mad at you than from those who agree. People who are ticked off pick up the phone or send a e-mail; those who agree just tell you if they happen to run into you personally.

Things are running the other way on the confederate flag issue.

I came back from being out of the office late this afternoon, and my voicemail was full. There were only six message, and only the last three were about the flag. But here’s what’s weird about that: All three were from people who agree that we should remove the flag (although one prefers Mayor Riley’s approach). They were all nice, which is just plain odd on this issue.

But catching up on e-mail, I got a greater shock: Of those on this subject, 30 people want to take the flag down, and only nine disagree — including this one. And that’s giving the pro-flag position the benefit of the doubt — three of the nine didn’t actually say keep it up, but you could catch their drift. An example:

The flag should have never been removed from its place atop of the capital to start with.I believe if these people that dont want it on the grounds would pack there bags and leave the state we would be better off, its all hertiage and not hate or a race issue and as long as we bow down to these people our state will suffer, so if you dont like it here theres two options go back to your yankee state or too the bannana boat you came over here on.

By contrast, the 30 were clear and emphatic. An example:

    I cannot begin to tell you how much I appreciate you for trying to help with this.  I love this state so much but am so embarrassed about the flag being where it is.  It is so hurtful to so many.
    I have just retired from 30 plus years in Human Resources so let me know what I can do to be helpful with this cause.
    My grandmother was a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy but she would be so sad to see that we are causing hurt to others. Let’s get it down!

It will probably swing back the other way. Usually, when we write about the flag, we start getting angry mail from the neo-Confederates several days after the piece appears. Apparently, few of them read newspapers, and I’m guessing they communicate with each other via couriers on horseback. At least, that’s how long it tends to take.

But for now, I’m encouraged by the trend.

Classy disagreement

19 Replies

After all my efforts to foster constructive dialogue that can promote understanding on issues here on my blog, some of the most thoughtful people still respond via e-mail. Here’s an example of someone I’ve corresponded with since Sunday on my abortion column.

If that subject can’t generate incivility, what can? So it is that I deeply appreciate someone who can disagree with someone so completely, and yet so reasonably:

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:07 PM
Dear Mr. Warthen:
    I have yet again been touched by the thoughtfulness of your writing about the proposed ultrasound viewing requirements for those seeking abortions. I would like to suggest you consider two additional concerns you did not acknowledge: one, everyone does not believe life in the sense of a human being, rather than a clump of living cells with the potential to be a whole human being when and if born, begins at conception. I believe that fetal cells are living only insofar as cancer cells are or the healthy tissue excised along with the cancer cells. None of these cells can live independent of the host body. I truly respect your views, though, especially as they are consistent — if a fetus is a life, no rape and incest exceptions–even if a family member of someone powerful is involved. Many of our legislators and anti-abortionists waffle on this point, implying that they do not truly equate the fetal cells with a fully born human, such as their wife or daughter. Kudos to you also for pointing out the lack of legislative concern for the afterborn lives!
    Two, I do not know that an ultrasound is medically necessary or advisable, especially in the first trimester. If it is, giving the patient the option to view it is fine, but requiring it — I was not required to view the results of my prehysterectomy ultrasound, nor did I desire to do so….If it is not medically advisable, we should not require anyone to pay for it — there is enough life being wasted because of inadequate medical funding, don’t you think?

Kathryn Braun Fenner
Columbia, SC

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:27 PM
    Well, as I said, I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other.
    As for the medical advisability — I just had sinus surgery last month, which only involved going about two inches up my nose, and didn’t even involve cutting anything, just widening the passage with a balloon. Yet I had to have multiple CT scans, and I made sure to see them, to help me decide whether I thought the procedure is worth doing.
    And I deeply appreciate the kindness of your note, especially since we obviously view this very differently. You don’t see the fetus and a person, and I can’t imagine how anyone could see anything else. I certainly can’t see a logical analogy to cancer cells. Cancer is a serious dysfunction in which cells grow wildly in a manner that will kill the individual if not stopped. Pregnancy, from the very beginning, is not only a healthy, normal process, but one that is essential to life’s very existence.
    I was present each time my wife gave birth to our five children. Six years ago, she developed breast cancer that spread to her liver before being discovered. Only the most aggressive attacks on the tumors that were trying to kill her have kept her alive.
    What I’m saying is that I can tell you without any doubt that there is an enormous, night-and-day difference between a baby and a tumor. Our children, when they were growing inside her for nine months, were not the moral equivalent of tumors.
    One other point, take that term, "baby." Under our current system, we give one person — the mother — absolute godlike power to determine whether what is inside her is a "baby." If she wants it, it’s a baby. She and her family will speak constantly of "the baby" — when the baby will come, how the baby’s room is coming along, the baby shower, baby names, etc.
    If she doesn’t want it, it’s "just a fetus," and can indeed be treated legally as a tumor.
    That makes no sense in the world. It’s either a baby or it isn’t. Its existence does NOT depend upon the attitude of anybody toward it. It is or it isn’t. That’s the nature of reality.
    Well, you got me started. What I mean to say is, thank you for your kind note, and for the opportunity for dialogue.

— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:50 PM

Brad-
    I am so sorry about your wife’s illness. My thoughts and prayers are with her and your family. Please forgive my apparent trivializing of the pain of cancer by comparing a tumor to a fetus–although as you acknowledged in your piece, to some, a fetus may be a death threat.
    I am glad you have five welcome children. People like you and your wife should have enormous love-filled families. I have done a lot of work with juvenile offenders and with DSS "clients." I do believe abstinence is the best option for those who are not going to have loved, two-parent children. The Supreme Court notwithstanding, everyone does not have a fundamental right to sex, or to have children; it is a privilege at least as worthy of respect and control as driving! I bemoan our sexualized society. However, it is what it is, though courageous journalists like you are certainly speaking up to try to change this. Given our culture, and the many generations of "lost children" from DSS-land, can we at least agree that maybe teaching and making available alternatives to abortion that are more likely to avoid pregnancy than abstinence is advisable, the Pope notwithstanding.
    BTW, pregnancy is not always a healthy normal process. Ectopic pregnancy is one obvious example. Is that a baby, absolutely not a baby or something in between?
— Kathryn Fenner

From: Warthen, Brad – External Email
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:06 PM
    Well, you exceeded my vocabulary on that one. I had to look it up to learn that "ectopic" referred to what I think of as "tubal."
    Indeed, given the complexity of life, particularly in the higher animals, many things can go wrong with otherwise healthy processes. For instance, it’s a good thing to have a strong immune system. But if it becomes TOO reactive, you end up like me, spending thousands a year treating allergies.
    I see the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control as something to be embraced by the faithful, NOT to be imposed on a pluralistic society. I would not, for instance, seek to have civil law ban the eating of meat on Fridays in Lent.
    But life or death, once the process of life has begun — that’s a different matter. The state has a legitimate interest there; it just depends upon how we decide to define that role. Unfortunately, Roe forbids us even to discuss it, placing the issue of life and death absolutely in the hands of the most interested, least impartial party. That’s not a standard we would apply in any other area of the law where the stakes are so great.
    Thank you again for the kind exchange. Do you mind if I post it on my blog?
— Brad Warthen

From: Kathryn Braun Fenner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:59 PM
    I exceeded your vocabulary? Wow!
    Process of life….What about fertilized in vitro eggs? When is something "living" –in the independent "life" sense (rather than the "my fingertip is living but my fingernail tips are dead" sense) as opposed to merely potentially able to live on its own?
    Roe does not forbid US or anyone else from discussing abortion (God bless America–freedom of speech is what makes this country great) I’m not planning on being arrested for this e-mail exchange, are you? We can even publish it (post it on your blog, if you must–I’m not keen on being identified to the nut-jobs like Fetus Man–does he really think he will change anyone’s mind with baby dolls pinned to his jacket?–, but I will stand behind what I say–though my brother, the copy editor, would surely fix up the language!).
    Roe says, basically "Congress shall make no law" impeding on an adult woman’s right (with her doctor), during the first trimester, and possibly the second, to decide when the cells in her are a fetus and when they are a baby. (BTW–why do we have a good old word "fetus" but no "old" word for "post-birth baby" as opposed to just "baby." Historically, I believe we have been ambivalent at best about when an independent life begins.)
    Absolutely I agree that IF abortion is murder, if a fetus is a baby is a fully protectable legal person–indeed far more so than a corporation, say– then the State has an interest, indeed an imperative, in outlawing abortion. I do not believe that a fetus is the same as baby. You do, and as I said, I applaud the strength with which you stand for that. I truly respect that. I believe that, God forbid, if one of your loved ones were raped, you would protect that fetus with the same fervor as the child of a lawful marriage.  Many "pro-life" advocates would not, which makes me think they are a lot about punishment and enforcing morality on a wayward woman, rather than protecting a potential life…and as you say, they pro-life movement is not overly concerned about the welfare of the "afterborn"….
    Oh and the Legislature, backed by at least one court, won’t let us outlaw cigarette smoking in the workplace, —which is proven to kill lives-in-being–and as you have written, prevent the allergic/asthmatic among us from fully participating in public life. There are 
other "no go " zones besides abortion….but that is a discussion for another day.

Peace–
Kathryn

Peace, indeed. I think I’ll leave it there with her having the last word. No, I’ll let Stephen Wright have the last word. I love this postscript Kathryn tagged onto her last message:

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.

— Steven Wright

 

Tomorrow’s letter today!

2 Replies

Why wait until tomorrow to read this letter on the Wednesday page? Such fine Energy Party-style sentiments should not have to wait in the queue:

Net metering part of sound energy policy
    Our country needs to adopt an energy policy aimed at promoting energy independence and reducing greenhouse gases.
    We can all work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by buying more fuel-efficient cars and conserving energy.
    Alternative energy resources such as solar and wind power are proven technologies that should be encouraged for use in our state right now.
    The only thing standing in our way is the approval of net metering by the S.C. Public Service Commission.
    Net metering allows for the interconnection of privately owned solar and wind power generation systems with the grid. This measure is essential to giving all citizens of South Carolina a choice in how we power our homes and businesses and will encourage efficient energy use across the state.
    The end result could be higher-paying jobs, new distribution centers and more alternative energy businesses operating in South Carolina. We might even look at resurrecting the electric car as a much more efficient, non-polluting means of transportation to and from work.

DANIEL E. COLLINS
Columbia

Of course, he doesn’t actually mention the Energy Party, but I think he’s a likely member.

We get this a LOT

11 Replies

A missive came to us labeled "Letter to the editor," but it also shouted "NOT FOR PUBLICATION." So we’ll compromise. I’ll put it on the blog, but without attribution:

     Warren Bolton’s religious opinions ("Why seek ye the living among the dead?") belong in the religion section, not on the editorial page. While IBolton respect his right to practice Christianity, his religious beliefs do not interest me. Frankly, I’m surprised The State feels they belong in the main part of the paper.
    However, may he keep beating up on payday lenders. Good job!

My colleague Warren puts folks who despise both religion and predatory lenders in a tough spot; they don’t know whether to spit or cheer.

For my part, I just cheer.

Long before Stephen Carter put out The Culture of Disbelief in 1994, I wondered why we in the press regarded religion as off-limits. Newspapers could deal with people’s views about politics, sports, sex, food, popular culture, health issues, and pretty much anything else, but God needed to be neatly walled off, confined to a page that was the personal domain of a less-than-favored reporter whose job it was to have lunch with preachers to keep them from bothering editors.

It was as though the Fourth Estate had misread the First Amendment, confusing a couple of the clauses:

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, so long as the press makes no articles respecting religion, or the free exercise thereof …

But don’t just blame the press. A lot of readers seemed to buy into the same premise. Still do.

I had noticed that editorial pages ditched letters that quoted Scripture routinely — sometimes as a matter of rigid policy. I always thought this was utterly ridiculous. Still do. What do you think?

Lipstick Vogue governments

12 Replies

Yeah, I know I’ve been kind of silent, but that’s because those of us who are still in the office have been working our steely buns off just trying to get editorial pages out every day.

But I just had to share this typo, on a proof I’m reading of our Saturday page. It’s in a letter to the editor:

    It is beginning to look a lot like 1938.
    Last week the Iraq Study (AKA surrender) Group issued its report. The report writers believe that Iran and Syria can be good partners shaping a new Iraq. History has left a message for us about dealing with rouge governments…

The same transposition is repeated later in the same epistle, as "rouge states," which the writer suggests are not trustworthy.

Well, I certainly don’t trust them. They may not be as obviously wicked as those "excessive mascara states," but they’re pretty bad. And don’t even get me started on those "Lipstick Vogue governments."

By the way, I have no idea whether the errors mentioned here are those of the writer, or our fault. I do know it’s our responsibility to fix it. I just thought I’d share it with y’all, since mere newspaper readers will miss out.

There is, of course, the possibility that this is not a typo. It could be a reference to the cultural decadence of Germany in the early ’30s, as symbolized by Joel Gray‘s makeup in "Cabaret." But I’m sort of doubting it.

Mayor Bob on smoking

30 Replies

Still catching up on that e-mail. I got this one from Mayor Bob Sunday, regarding my column of that date. I guess Tony Blair showed it to him or something:

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: No Smoking
Date: Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:46 AM

    Brad, I am in the UK on an economic development mission but read your editorial (or column). I believe that Columbia City Council could address the issue of a no smoking ordinance as early as August. I believe the Surgeon Generals report will be critical. While I have not talked with all of City Council I am very pleased with the level of support at this point. I addition to the health issue, I think it is also an economic development issue. People are going to want to invest and live in cities that have no smoking (I believe).
    Thanks
Sent Wirelessly while away from the City of Columbia with my International Blackberry.

May be. May not be.

32 Replies

Trying to get through 330 e-mails from the last few days (I’ve been having some trouble with Outlook) before starting my Sunday column, I ran across this one that came in on Saturday. Since I spontaneously responded, and I’m trying not to say anything to readers as individuals that I don’t share on the blog, I will now do so. Share, I mean. Here is the e-mail:

From: C Hugh Campbell
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: Letter to the Editor

After innumerable columns proclaiming, and straining to justify, the vital importance to the U.S. of democratizing the Middle East, Thomas Friedman has finally run out of rationalizations and is forthright enough to suggest what should have been obvious from day one: "It may be the skeptics are right: Maybe democracy can’t be implemented everywhere."  Because of Brad Warthen’s deep regard for Friedman I hope that he, too, will face up to this reality.

C. Hugh Campbell, Jr.

Here’s my response:

He’s right. It "may be." It also may be — and this is more likely —
that if the world’s most powerful nation says to itself "We’re gonna
fail! We’re gonna fail! We’re gonna fail!" about a million times, it
just might fail to accomplish that which it was perfectly capable of
accomplishing at the start.

Oh, and here’s what Mr. Friedman actually wrote:

     It may be the skeptics are right: maybe democracy, while it is the most powerful form of legitimate government, simply can’t be implemented everywhere. It certainly is never going to work in the Arab-Muslim world if the U.S. and Britain are alone in pushing it in Iraq, if Europe dithers on the fence, if the moderate Arabs cannot come together and make a fist, and if Islamist parties are allowed to sit in governments and be treated with respect — while maintaining private armies.

Moffly blasts the press

37 Replies

Moffly72
This past week was so hectic at the office, I forwarded home some e-mail to read later. One that I had thought at first glance was a personal message was actually intended, apparently, as a letter to the editor. I’ve forwarded it back to the office for consideration on Monday. (That’s my bad, but for future reference, please send letters to the editor submissions to [email protected].)

Anyway, it was from Elizabeth Moffly, former candidate for the GOP nod for superintendent of education. She seems to be fairly angry at us ink-stained wretches of the press. I’m not sure why, because we hardly wrote anything about her. I look back and see I never even posted notes from our endorsement interview with her. Of course, maybe that’s why she’s upset.

Anyway, here’s her cover note:

Dear Brad, In my opinion some thoughts I wanted to share that are attached. Thank god we didn’t get status quo Bob, go with the flow Mike, or computer geek Kerry. We did get the circle of no return I can talk and never answer your question(show teeth). I thought more of you when I first meet than what I know now. Father of many with out an original thought. Happy Father’s Day! Thanks for nothing, Elizabeth Moffly

And here’s the letter:

Elizabeth Moffly
362 Schweers Lane
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

June 17, 2006

Mr. D. Bradley Warthen
Vice President/Editorial Page Editor
The State
P.O. Box 1333
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Brad,
    Remember your comment at the end of my interview that “nobody’s listening to common sense” including yourself. Lee Brandy’s satirical blog on education issues that needed to be addressed are exactly the same issues of my own platform. The good ole boy network of status quo runs rampant here in South Carolina especially with the media. I blame the state of affairs on the biased press whose only focus is the money not issues.
    I’ve come to realize there is a lot of John’s in the industry of reporting and the dictionary defines the name as a prostitute, one who willing uses his talent or ability in a base and unworthy way. The media has lost all credibility with the people and papers are only good for birdcage linings.
    The abuse of one opinion to influence the people is corrupt. A review of the Code of Ethics would find the press guilty as charged. There is a distinct difference between the 1st Amendment versus slander. We are equally protected under the law. The lines of right/wrong, black/white are clear until it comes to the maybe gray area that requires a ruling. I see a lot of gray in the abuse of Editors and Reporters today using personal opinions in the coverage of issues that concern the welfare of all citizens. Luckily for the press illiteracy runs rampant in South Carolina and status quo is in your favor.
    Mark Twain asks, “What is the hardest thing in the world to do? To think.” I think and read between the lines and find the press guilty of abuse of power to influence election outcomes in my own court of law. I am not alone in my views and there are more people than press making majority rule. Discrimination makes for a good case based on merits alone that in the end will be the demise of the press and the people’s abdication.
    The future unemployment forecast is on the rise once again in South Carolina as the deadline for extinction of the printed press is drawing near. Politics is not looking good for the unemployed press as an option.

Carpe Diem, 
Elizabeth Moffly

Me wonder, too

11 Replies

Some folks suspect that the very choicest bits don’t make it into "Letters to the Editor." And in some ways, they’re right. Sometimes letter-writers get so mad at us they lose all ability to communicate, and it would unfairly hold them up to ridicule to run what they submit.

I usually don’t see these things in raw form, but sometimes they are copied to me, or (erroneously, let me hasten to add; the correct address for letters is [email protected]) sent to me first.

A favorite from the last few days was one that took issue — to put it mildly — with Associate Editor Cindi Ross Scoppe.

"What planet does her reside?" the overwrought writer demanded to know.

I sometimes wonder the same thing myself.

Reflections on letters

95 Replies

Some reflections on letters in Saturday’s paper.

First, there was the one headlined, Grand Old Party is losing its way. My thoughts on it:
A person whose identity as a Republican reaches back to 1932 is bound to feel a bit lost, for a number of reasons. It is now the majority — or perhaps I should say, the plurality, party. (There are enough of us independents to keep either from being a majority, but I suppose you could say the Republicans are the majority among partisans, certainly here in South Carolina.) That means it has had to expand its membership beyond what it once encompassed. The letter mentions Glenn McConnell (unfavorably) and Mark Sanford (favorably). The two men are very different from each other, but united in two facts: They are both very libertarian, and it’s hard to imagine either of them fitting in with, say, Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon. Actually, it’s a bit hard to imagine Ike and Nixon being in the same administration. Anyway, my point is that people looking for consistency and reassurance in a party large enough to win elections are almost certain to be disappointed.

Here-and-now issues should determine vote:
This letter is related to the first, in that it illustrates the way that many Democrats are determined to keep their party the minority among partisans by rejecting certain lines of thought. Take for instance the writer’s dismissal the idea that ideals, or faith, might outweigh material considerations. Or at least, that they should not do so among practical, right-thinking individuals. But that’s not the really telling bit. What really points to the main fallacy among many (but not all) Democrats is the suggestion that right-thinking (i.e., socially concerned or liberal people) cannot choose the "moral path" of their fathers. Why on earth would concern about the direction of the country or current events be inconsistent with faith or a "belief system." Why can’t a person who is concerned  about the future still embrace the faith of his fathers? This writer seems to assume that traditional morality is utterly inconsistent with moving forward. Why so closed-minded? As long as supposed liberals think this way, they are doomed to failure.

Townsend did what he thought was right:
This writer says "Ronny Townsend worked tirelessly for the people he represented, for conservative values and for bettering public education." Exactly. A person who embraces conservative values would certainly be committed to serving and improving public education. It is a fundamental institution of our society, and one that is essential to building the kind of future that those who went before us envisioned. Anyone who would dismantle it, rather than protecting, strengthening and improving it, is a radical, leaning toward anarchy — anything but conservative.

Liberators not always what they seem:
Why would this writer believe that the idea that "there has always been a thin line between ‘invader/occupier’ and ‘liberator’ … was not considered three years ago?" It was and is to be expected that there is a delicate balance to be struck between such concepts. I certainly considered it, worried about it — still do. This is a short missive. Is the writer suggesting that those of us who favored the invasion must not have seen the inherent risks? Is he suggesting further that if anyone had seen the risks, the endeavor would not/should not have been undertaken? If so, I couldn’t disagree more. Those are merely reasons to proceed wisely — which certainly hasn’t always been done in this enterprise. I believe concern over that fact underlies this letter. But if leads the writer to conclude that it should not have been undertaken to begin with, or should be abandoned now, I have to disagree.

Feting Bernanke may be premature:
Why? So we don’t know whether he is a Greenspan or not? Why wouldn’t homefolks celebrate the fact that one of their own is the Fed Chairman. Seems sort of like a big deal in and of itself to me.

Accepting differences leads to better world:
One would be puzzled why someone would be compelled to write that "I am of the belief that God doesn’t hate." I mean, who isn’t? One would be further puzzled to read, "One day, I hope to find a community of faith that believes in love,
tolerance and acceptance. Maybe that is too much to hope for…" All true communities of faith believe in those things. They welcome sinners, and invite them to be penitent. The problem is that some do not wish to be penitent, and choose to characterize any suggestion that they should be as "hate." This is an obvious fallacy for anyone seeking a community of faith. It’s astounding how many people fail — or refuse — to see that.

Finally, Tests give teachers too little to go on:
OK, if you’re going to insist on standards being taught, why would you let teachers know what questions will be on the test that will measure whether they are teaching the standards. If you let them know the test, they would be able to — as many claim they already do — "teach to the test." It’s not about you improving test scores. It’s about teaching the standards. If test scores do improve, we’ll know how successfully you’re doing that. The letter presents one real reason for concern, when it suggests that students have seen "subject matter on tests that was not included in the standards." If so, something should be done about it. Of course, if the standard were not taught properly, the student would find the measuring test unfamiliar. So it’s difficult to tell from this missive where the fault lies.

Re Jim Rex, whom we will meet later

6 Replies

I got this e-mail this morning from Zeke Stokes of Columbia:

Brad:
     While I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment that South Carolina’s schools are improving and that we must continue the progress, I have to take issue with your implication that only one candidate in this race is equipped to do that. I mentioned to you at Galivant’s Ferry that I am running Jim Rex’s race for State Superintendent of Education, and regardless of who the Republican nominee is, South Carolinians will have a qualified, electable alternative in Jim come November, yet you didn’t mention that in your column on Sunday. 
    I ran Inez Tenenbaum’s races for this seat, and she has proven that this is a race in  which South Carolinians will take a strong look at the candidates’ credentials before considering the Party to which they belong, as evidenced by the fact that she carried the ticket in 1998, ahead of strong showings by Fritz Hollings and Jim Hodges, as well as in 2002, when most Democrats lost their races for statewide office. If, before the primary, there is an opportunity to make this point in your coverage of the race, I hope you will do that as well. 
    In addition, I have to take issue with your assertion that Democrats should cross over to help Mr. Staton in his primary. Party primaries are designed to allow each party to select its candidates and to put forth the candidate that it thinks will best represent its views in the general election. Democrats have done that in this race, by choosing to nominate Jim Rex without a primary. In fact, when Jim entered the race, the primary field cleared, in part because his strong education background, coupled with the support of people like Dick Riley and Inez Tenenbaum, made him the obvious choice for Democrats. On June, 13 Republicans have the same opportunity, and Democrats ought to allow that process to unfold without crossing over to "sabotage" the outcome. 
    I hope you will take a fresh look at this race after the primary, regardless of who Republicans choose. As always, Jim and I are available to speak with you should you have a need to do so. The best way to reach me is on my cell at (deleted for blog purposes).

Many thanks,
Zeke

I replied to Zeke as follows:

    My column had nothing to do with your guy; he’s not, last time I looked, seeking the contested nomination. I would have mentioned the three also-rans before I would have mentioned a guy who’s not even in a primary. And I had no space to waste on them.
    Maybe you want to run against Mrs. Floyd (maybe to fire up your base or something), but given the chance that she could well win the whole thing, I’d much rather not see South Carolina take such a risk.
    We’re far better off with a choice between Staton v. Rex.
    Do you disagree?
    You seem to be concerned about parties and their prerogatives; I despise parties, and the sooner voters divest themselves from all partisan identification whatsoever, the better off our state and country will be. I care about what’s good for South Carolina, not what’s good for a party.
    By the way, I plan to post this exchange on my blog (I hate to spend time typing if readers can’t see it). I’ll leave out your cell number. I’ll be glad to put up any responses you have, as well.
    I look forward to talking with you AFTER this mess is over. One hill at a time.
— Brad Warthen

That’s it, for now.