Brad Warthen's Blog

Today's puzzler

In the spirit of Click and Clack, I offer the following conundrum. Consider first this letter to the editor from today's paper:

Stupid blue laws thwart purchase
    Government is the only source of such stupidity. Or at least with the authority to enforce such ignorance.
    After church, my wife, Mary, and I went to Wal-Mart for a new sports watch for her. She decided on one and told the clerk to ring it up. The clerk said, “I can’t ring it up until 1:30, and it’s only 1:15. Why don’t you shop around and come back in 15 minutes?”
    We wandered around for about 10 minutes and saw folks were checking out with bananas, potato chips and, yes, even beer, but you can’t purchase a watch until 1:30. I said I’ll have a beer while I wait till 1:30 to buy the watch.
    Woe unto you who think government is the answer. When are we going to vote these nitwits out?

Bruce G. Kelly
Columbia

This is an interesting letter on several levels, but the most immediate question that arises is this: Where in the Midlands do you find a jurisdiction where it would be illegal to buy the watch before 1:30, yet legal to buy beer on Sunday?

The simple answer is that there isn't one. Poor Mr. Kelly would be hard-pressed to find the "nitwits" that he wants to "vote out," since there is no jurisdiction that has made those two decisions that he finds so maddeningly inconsistent.

Give up? I had, but then Warren proposed a potential answer -- while there is no one such jurisdiction, this Wal-Mart was in an anomalous location that was both in the city of Columbia and in Lexington County. It's not a thought that would have immediately occurred to me, but of course there are such places.

My first guess was that we're talking about the new Wal-Mart on Bush River Road, right next to Malfunction Junction. The map on my wall in the editorial dept. shows it as in Lexington County. It does NOT show it as being in Columbia, but it's an old map, and I have the advantage of private intelligence in this case: I recently tried to buy beer there on a Sunday, and succeeded. Ipso facto, to wit, etc....

But that's not where this happened. When Randle, who edits our letters, got back to the office, I asked her to call Mr. Kelly and get to the bottom of the mystery.

The answer: This incident occurred at the Harbison Wal-Mart, which is certainly in Lexington County, and -- while I couldn't find confirmation of the fact on any map readily at hand, the odds are that if it's in that area and developed, it's in the city.

Of course, Mr. Kelly still can't find anyone to vote out of office for creating this situation. Even if he lives in both the city and Lexington County, it's beyond the power of any local elected official to solve his problem. A Columbia city council member, for instance, might change the beer-sale ordinance, but could do nothing about Lexington's blue law -- and vice versa, if you follow me.

His problem is similar to one we've pointed out many times before, in somewhat different contexts. It's not a matter of too MUCH government, but of too MANY governments.

He can vote against EVERY incumbent if he chooses (the Doug Ross solution), just as a sort of universal, howl-at-the-moon sort of protest, but that wouldn't solve his problem. That is, if you consider not being able to buy a sports watch for 15 minutes a problem. And I'm sure many of you would. So commiserate with poor Mr. Kelly, a man without recourse to redress.

Private clubs in Columbia TODAY

Remember that I told you last week that Clif LeBlanc was going to have a follow-up story on the Cap City Club anniversary, a piece that would tell us to what extent local private clubs have become less "exclusive" in the bad old sense over the past 20 years?

Well, he did, and I meant to ask y'all for your thoughts on it. Here's a link to his story. Short version -- most clubs are more open. At least one still has no black members.

If you go read Clif's piece, and you're so inclined, please come back here to discuss it.

We wuz robbed! Pass me the potato chips...

Can't South Carolina be first at anything? Now I see that we're only fifth in the country when it comes to obesity,something I could have sworn we could do better than anybody:

Washington, D.C. August 19, 2008 – South Carolina was named the 5th most obese state in America according to the fifth annual F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies Are Failing in America, 2008 report from the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).  The state’s adult obesity rate is 29.2 percent, an increase for the third year in a row.
     Nationally, adult obesity rates rose in 37 states in the past year. Rates rose for a second consecutive year in 24 states and for a third consecutive year in 19 states. No state saw a decrease.  Though many promising policies have emerged to promote physical activity and good nutrition in communities, the report concludes that they are not being adopted or implemented at levels needed to turn around this health crisis....

Now I suppose we could get all petulant about this and demand a recount, but that would show a poor attitude. There's nothing to do but to pass the potato chips and try harder...

OK, yes, I know -- this is a deadly serious manner. It's just that we hear so much bad news, and we seem to do so little to make things better, even when we know better, that one lapses into irony out of sheer frustration, to keep from going mad. Or from going madder, anyway.

What the Capital City Club did for Columbia (column version)

Yep, once again, my column today was something you've read before here. In fact, the earlier blog version was more complete -- I couldn't fit all that into the paper today.

But there is something new to mention on the subject, which is to urge you to watch for Clif LeBlanc's follow-up story to the one he wrote that appeared on our front page Wednesday. The folo will be in the paper Sunday (or so I'm told), and it will address the question that  has occurred to me a number of times in the years since the Capital City Club opened Columbia's private club world to minorities and women:

Just how open ARE the rest of the Midlands' clubs today?

I look forward to reading it.

Colbert: S.C. is SO not gay

Let's credit Adam Fogle -- the guy who started it all when he broke the story initially -- with bringing to my attention the clip of Stephen Colbert explaining in no uncertain terms why his native state and mine is so not gay, no matter what those British ad wizards may say.

This should settle the matter, as I can hardly imagine a more authoritative source. He knows what's what. Remember, this is a guy who gets all his South Carolina news from Brad Warthen's Blog:

Michael on the Confederate flag

Michael Rodgers, longtime correspondent here and founder of the Take Down The Flag blog, wrote this to me today, and I share it with you:

Dear Brad,
I am writing for two reasons: to point out some common things people often say that are wrong and to describe the stunning lack of leadership from our state government on this issue.

First, the things that are wrong:

1) Our issue in SC is just like the issue in Mississippi or Georgia.  Wrong, because our issue in South Carolina is about the third flag we fly, not about our state flag.
2) The 2/3 vote requirement for this issue is insurmountable.  Wrong for two reasons:

  a. The 2/3 requirement is a legislative hurdle can be taken out of the way with a simple majority (1/2).  Then a simple majority would be able to change rest of the law.
  b. Our state government votes 2/3 all the time when they override Gov. Sanford’s veto, so in fact 2/3 routinely occurs.

3) No one in our state legislature is interested in resolving this issue.  Wrong, because H-3588, a bill to resolve this issue, has seven sponsors. (And as a personal opinion, I think H-3588 completes the compromise).
4) This issue is between flag supporters, who are happy, and flag opponents, who are unhappy.  Wrong for four reasons:

  a. The issue is the FLYING of a third flag from Statehouse grounds, so the camps are flag flying supporters and flag flying opponents.
  b. Flag supporters are unhappy – why else would they get so worked up all the time about this issue?
  c. This issue is between the leaders of our state government, who are happy, and South Carolinians, who are unhappy.
  d. The issue is actually the story (the why!) we tell when we fly or when we don’t fly the flag.  (And as a personal opinion, H-3588 provides a completely consistent clarification of the story of the compromise of 2000).

5) This issue is not worth our time to resolve.  Wrong because this issue is

  a. a defining issue for our state,
  b. tearing our state apart, and
  c. diminishing our state’s stature.

Second, the stunning lack of leadership.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/

Gov. Mark Sanford said, "Everybody has a different perspective. It is a deeply dividing and complex issue that we're not going to try and open and re-examine. Somebody is going to have to place a tremendous amount of political capital to pry open a compromise. This administration is not going to be doing that."

Our state government is flying the Confederate flag, and this action causes people to react viscerally.  And when I say people, I am concurring with Gov. Sanford's grouping:  It's a deeply dividing issue that affects everybody.

Our state government is flying the Confederate flag, and this action causes people to have enormous confusion as to the reason for this action.  And when I say people, I am concurring with Gov. Sanford's grouping: Everybody has a different perspective.

Our state government is causing deep division that confuses everybody, and what does Gov. Sanford propose to do about it?  Nothing.

Gov. Sanford says that this simple issue is too complex for him to re-examine.  He says what he always says, which is if we're going to do anything, we've got to throw out everything we've been given and start fresh -- new constitution, new government structure, new approach to property taxes, new approach to education, etc.  No wonder he doesn't have the political capital to spare for this issue!

I say that we can solve this issue by respecting the compromise and by clarifying the confusion.  Our state government made a compromise in 2000, where they decided a lot of things under a lot of pressure.  By and large, they did a fantastic job, under the circumstances.

One part of this compromise, the flying of the Confederate flag from Statehouse grounds, is deeply dividing everybody because everybody has a different perspective on this action. We can focus on solving this last remaining issue because the complex parts of this issue have already been solved.

We can solve this last remaining issue, the simple one, with H-3588.  This bill says that confusions about racism and sovereignty can be resolved by flying our state flag in place of the Confederate flag.  This bill says that confusions about respect for heritage can be resolved by commemorating Confederate Memorial Day every year by flying the Confederate flag at the flagpole where it is now.

H-3588 respects the compromise of 2000 by honoring the Confederate Soldier Monument, Confederate Memorial Day, and the Confederate flag.  H-3588 clarifies the message about why our state honors the Confederate flag: because we respect the service and sacrifice of the Confederate soldiers and not for any other reason.

Because H-3588 respects the compromise and clarifies the confusion, H-3588 completes the compromise.  A leader can easily solve this problem.  Who's going to step up to the plate?  The governor's mansion awaits.

Regards,
Michael Rodgers
Columbia, SC

WHAT 'gay beaches?'

Readers of this blog learned yesterday that "South Carolina is so gay," or so a just-aborted British ad campaign would have it. I can't take credit for that "scoop," of course -- Adam Fogle broke it.

But it wasn't until I saw a reproduction of the poster itself in the paper today (and aren't those posters, on display at a station in the London Underground, going to be a hot item on E-Bay?) that I learned that among South Carolina's "gay" charms are "gay beaches."

That's a new one on me. Where would these "gay beaches" be? Certainly not on the Grand Strand -- must be somewhere further down the coast.

Not that I'm interested for myself, you understand.

And not that there's anything wrong with that...

Sanford? Jake? No Republicans here

One more thing I meant to say before this runoff was over, and AFTER the Sunday page was done sort of wish I'd written my Sunday column about...

There are few things more ridiculous than Mark Sanford and Jake Knotts arguing over who is NOT a "real Republican."

Folks, neither of them is. Jake certainly isn't. He is a populist, and will act in accordance with that philosophy, or non-philosophy, pretty much all the time. Once, that would have meant he would have been a Democrat. In recent decades, white populists in the South have flocked to the Republican party.

And Sanford? Come on. Do a poll of the real-life Republicans who serve in the State House -- in the aggregate, a pretty good cross-section of the party today -- and ask them if they think the governor's a "real Republican." They'll laugh in your face. And they probably haven't been privy to some of the gestures of contempt toward the party that he used to exhibit to me back when we were closer, I suppose because he knew the degree to which I held all parties in contempt. It was sort of a bond between us. Still is, I suppose. Here's one of those anecdotes, which I wrote about at the New York convention in 2004:

    I got a floor pass every night so I could mix with our delegates, but the truth is, the South Carolina delegation could hardly be said to be "on the floor." They were at the very back, up off the floor, where the risers begin their climb up to the nosebleed section - behind Vermont and Idaho, right next to that other crucial electoral factor, the Virgin Islands.
    "Obviously, what they've done is put the battleground states up front and personal," says Rep. Harrell from Charleston. He quickly adds, "I want to be clear, it is fine with all of us."
    Besides, "I'm closer to the floor than I am during Carolina basketball games." Which is saying something. I've seen where he sits.
    But on the big night, the night the president speaks, South Carolina was no longer in the cheap seats. In fact, now only New Mexico was between South Carolina and the president as he spoke. It was a choice spot, looking straight into the president's right ear from about 20 feet away. Any closer -- say, where New Mexico was sitting -- would be too close. You'd have to crane your neck too much.
    ...
    That night, Gov. Sanford was standing in the shoulder-to-shoulder aisle, quietly observing the process of whipping up enthusiasm before the acceptance speech. Suddenly he leaned over to me to say, in his usual casual tone, "I don't know if you've read that book, Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds . . .."

    It was a classic Sanford moment.

Folks, I know Republicans. I've known Republicans all my life. As my father has told me, the one thing he knew about HIS father's politics was that he was a Republican. One of his earliest memories is of Granddaddy Warthen arguing with the man down the street about FDR.

My Granddaddy wouldn't have recognized either of these guys as members of his party.

'Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story'

Kevin Alexander Gray just brought something to my attention, along with the following note:

Tom Turnipseed is mentioned in promo.  Point of contention - It's only because many outside the region don't know Southern history that they place Atwater above Dent.   Atwater was the 1st "master practicioner" of the modern Southern Strategy - Dent was the "architect."kg

The link is to a blog item about a film that debuted Sunday night at the L.A. Film Festival, entitled, "Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story."

It's about the South Carolinian who, in the assertion of the writer, "did more than any political strategist of his generation to help the GOP gain a decades-long stranglehold on the South."

In case you wonder where the blogger is coming from on this, the headline on the post is, "The real Darth Vader of American politics."

I only met Atwater once. Lee Bandy and I dropped by his office to chat when he was chairman of the RNC. When we got back to the now-defunct Knight Ridder Washington bureau, Lee's colleagues were all over him wanting to know what Atwater thought about this or that (something in the news that day). Nobody else in Washington had the access to Atwater that Bandy had, right up to the end.

I don't remember much about meeting Atwater except that he was pretty much as I expected, and he kept a guitar in the corner of his office. I want to say it was a Stratocaster.

What’s a ‘Good Old Boy’ to you?

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
MORE THAN THREE decades ago, I saw a “B” movie that was a sort of poor cousin to “In the Heat of the Night.” It was about a newly elected black sheriff in a racially divided Southern town, and the white former sheriff, played by George Kennedy, who reluctantly helps him.
    At a climactic moment when the two men seem to stand alone, a group of white toughs who had earlier given the sheriff a hard time show up to help. Their leader gruffly says that they’re doing it for the sake of the old white sheriff, explaining that, “You always was a good old boy.”
    Or something like that. Anyway, I recall it as the first time I heard the term “good old boy.”
    It got a good workout later, with the election of Billy Carter’s brother to the White House. But the first time I recall hearing it used prominently as a pejorative by a Southerner was when Carroll Campbell ran against the “good old boy system” in the 1980s.
    The usage was odd, a fusion of the amiable “good old boy” in the George Kennedy/Billy Carter sense on the one hand, and “Old Boy Network” on the other. The former suggests an uncultured, blue-collar, white Southerner, and the latter describes moneyed elites from Britain or the Northeast, alumni of such posh schools as Cambridge or Harvard. Despite that vagueness, or perhaps because of it, the term remains popular in S.C. politics.
    Which brings us to Jake Knotts, who represents District 23 in the S.C. Senate.
    Jake — pronounced “Jakie” by familiars — could have been the prototype for that George Kennedy character, had Hollywood been ready for something with a harder edge. He is a former Columbia city cop who by his own account sometimes got “rough.” He offers no details, but a glance at his hamlike hands provides sufficient grist for the imagination. According to a story said to be apocryphal, he once beat up Dick Harpootlian for mouthing off to him. (The mouthing-off part gives the tale credibility, and longevity.)
    After Jake was elected to public office, he further burnished his “rough” reputation with a legislating style seen as bullying by detractors, and tenacious by allies.
    This newspaper’s editorial board has always been a detractor. You see, we are high-minded adherents of the finest good-government ideals. Jake’s a populist, and populism is common, to use a Southern expression from way back. In our movie, we’re Atticus Finch to his Willie Stark. (See To Kill A Mockingbird and All the King’s Men.)
    We were against video poker; Jake was for it. We were against the state lottery; Jake was for it. We were for taking the Confederate flag off the State House dome; Jake was against it.
    We were for giving the governor more power over the executive branch; Jake was against it.
    In 2002, we endorsed a candidate for governor who agreed with us on restructuring, and didn’t seem like anybody’s notion of a good old boy. He styles himself as the antithesis of back-slapping, go-along-to-get-along pols, to the extent that he doesn’t go along or get along with anybody.
    That’s fine by the governor, because his style is to set forth an ideological principle, see it utterly rejected by his own party, and then run for re-election as the guy who took on the good old boys.
    Jake’s notion of the proper role of a lawmaker isn’t even legislative; it’s helping — he might say “hepping” — constituents on a personal level. This can range from the unsavory, such as helping out a voter charged with a crime, to the noble, such as paying out of his pocket for an annual skating party for kids who’ve gotten good grades.
    Jake’s slogan is “for the people,” as simple an evocation of populism as you will find. To him, the proper role of the elected representative is to make sure government “heps” regular folks rather than working against them.
    That means he will take a bull-headed stand against the concerted effort to undermine the one aspect of government that does the most to help regular folks — public schools.
    This brings us to what caused us to do something we thought we’d never do — endorse Jake Knotts, the sentinel of the common man who doesn’t give two figs for what we think the proper structure of government should be.
    We’re endorsing him because he stands against the Old Boy Network (see how different these terms are?) of wealthy out-of-state dilettantes who don’t believe in government hepping folks at all, and want to make our state a lab rabbit for their abstract ideology.
    We are not comfortable with this. We’ve had some terrific arguments about it on our editorial board. It was not one of your quick decisions, shall we say.
    Occasionally, when we have a really tough endorsement in front of us, I quietly call a knowledgeable source or two outside the board, people whose judgment I trust, to hear their arguments.
    On this one, I talked to three very different sources (one Democrat, two Republicans) who shared values that had in the past caused us to oppose Jake. All three said he had won their respect over time. All said he was a man you were glad to have on your side, and sorry to go up against. All three said that between Jake and his opponent who is backed by the governor and the Club for Growth and the rest of that crowd, they’d go with Jake.
    Not that they were proud of it. All three spoke off the record — one got me to say “off the record” three times. I complained about this with the last one, saying it was all very well for him to urge us off-the-record to endorse somebody on-the-record, and he said all right, he’d go public.
    It was Bob McAlister, Carroll Campbell’s chief of staff back in the late governor’s glory days of fighting “good old boys.”
    “I don’t agree with Jake on a lot of issues,” Mr. McAlister said, but “at least you don’t have to wonder where he stands on anything, because he’ll tell you.” In the end, “There’s a place in politics for his kind of independent thought.... I think Jake Knotts has served his constituents well.”
    In his own staid, doctrinaire-Republican kind of way, I think Bob was saying he thinks Jake is a good old boy.