Time for candidates to behave like South Carolina men

R. Brian McCarty

 

           Wow. What a year in South Carolina politics.  The year that the living legend Strom Thurmond bows out of the political game, the game gets nasty.  It seems even nastier than accounts of the famous “Campaign of the Century” in 1950 that pitted then Governor Thurmond against sitting United States Senator Olin D. Johnston.  The two men went back and forth at one another, but did so face to face and even nearly come to blows, but they duked out their political campaigns as South Carolina men. 

           They did not hide behind some third party.  They challenged one another toe to toe.  They did so without talking about one another's mothers or showing a burning American flag in a political ad or using their opponents wife in an ad.   They also did not have hangers on who would attack anyone personally for daring to question anything about their political operations.  All said, historians may call the Thurmond-Johnston battle of 1950 rough, but at least the candidates acting in it acted as men. 

           The first low ad of this political year was the infamous farmer ad. Anyone following politics knows that it aired during the Republican primary as Lt. Governor Bob Peeler faced off against Mark Sanford.  The ad in question depicted a farmer criticizing Mr. Sanford for his mother taking a farm subsidy on the plantation/farm that she owns.    It was clever to some degree in that it was meant to damage both men.  It would help make Peeler look like Mr. Nasty and Sanford look like a hypocrite.  At the time it seemed to many observers that it was just another symptom of the Peeler campaign going over the top to be negative.  However, it just seemed to hit both Peeler and Sanford just a little too much for that.  In the past couple of weeks, news reports have come out that contend that there were links to that ad to Hodges political operatives.  Perhaps someone was hiding behind a third party skirt after all.

           Not that the Hodges campaign has needed that skirt.  Their first official low ad came in the form of an ad challenging Mark Sanford on his vote on a bill about domestic violence.  The vote was fair game.  Domestic violence is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.  There is nothing dirty or low about the Governor bringing up Mr. Sanford’s record on that, or other subjects.   However, the brief clip of Sanford and his wife in the ad went beyond decency.  The brief clip showed Mr. Sanford looking like one of those celebrities holding a press conference to announce he was going into counseling for domestic abuse as the hurt and dutiful wife stood by. 

           When I reflected upon that clip, it outraged me.  It was meant to be a subliminal message.  It also is the first time in South Carolina politics that any political candidate has used another candidates wife in an attack ad.  Mark and Jenny Sanford do not deserve that.  I gained a healthy amount of respect for Mr. Sanford in that he controlled himself so well.  I do not know if I could have been as calm as Mr. Sanford had my wife been used in a political ad in such a way.  It was an affront not only to the Sanfords, but to the standards of civility and decency South Carolinians have.   The likes of Strom Thurmond and Olin Johnston would have never even fathomed stooping to such levels.  But, as I said before, they were men in their race.

           Those men also would not have attacked one another mothers.  The farmer ad launched the first salvo in what I call “the mother war,” but Governor Hodges launched the second salvo directly in a recent debate.  Perhaps it should be noted that this time around the Governor fired the shot about the farm subsidies directly.  At least he was not hiding behind some third party skirt.   However, it is still the first time, to my knowledge, and I am a lifelong student of South Carolina political history, that a candidate’s mother has been attacked by his opponent.  It is definitely the first time in this state’s history that both a candidate’s wife and mother have been attacked by his opponent.  It is dishonorable.  South Carolina men do not do such things.

 Indeed, one has to go back to 1828 to find South Carolina men involved in anything close to such an attack.  In that year, South Carolina native and then Tennessean, Andrew Jackson, the President-elect of the United States, found his wife subjected to rumors and innuendo because she was divorced from another man.  The attacks sprung from the rumors spun by the wife of South Carolinian John C. Calhoun, then the Vice President-elect of the United States.  In the long history of this state, that is the only example that is even close to having a candidates wife or mother used so in political attacks. 

           That said, Mr. Sanford has ran a couple of ads that were a little over the top.  In one ad, he runs down South Carolina a bit too much, and I still think he has failed to grasp that our income levels are currently higher than our standard of living and that our schools have improved.  Sanford’s tax plan is peculiar at best.   I also think that neither he nor the Governor realizes the real problems with public schools and that neither of their programs offers a real solution.    At least Mr. Sanford’s points are political in nature, even if exaggerated.  He’s not attacking the Governor’s mother, or putting the Governor’s wife in an attack ad.  As such, this Bob Peeler supporter has determined that Mark Sanford is a decent man and is running a decent campaign. ( I imagine that there a couple of you reaching either for an aspirin, or as the late and great Governor Jimmy Byrnes would, a strong drink, after learning that I feel that way about Mr. Sanford.)

           It is too bad the same can not be said about Congressman Lindsey Graham.  Most of the polls show the Congressman up by twenty or more points over Democrat Alex Sanders.  As such, evened hardened political professionals would argue that the Congressman should stay positive.  However, that is not the case.

           Hiding behind the skirt of the South Carolina Republican party, ads are being run against Alex Sanders to aid Graham that mark another low in South Carolina politics.   Running currently is an ad by the South Carolina Republican Party showing a United States flag burning in order to make what appears to be ,in various media reports, a distorted statement about how Alex Sanders feels about the burning of the American flag.  It just seems despicable that a party would waste its resources to show an American flag burning in an ad to just make a political point against a man who appears to be already defeated.  Where is the decency?  Where is the sense of respect to our men and women who fight under that flag?  Where is the sense of honor in fairly conducting a campaign on real issues, not one based on an issue that frankly, has no real place in our current debate, other than to insult people by showing them a burning American flag?

           (Sanders is not be given a free pass, for he issued an attack ad about social security and Mr. Graham upon the eve of September 11^th.  Regular readers may remember I criticized him and the Republican Party for their exchanges that week.)

           Indeed, in this current War on Terrorism that the United States is engaged in, the top candidates in South Carolina had an opportunity to show the best in South Carolina political discourse.  They could have conducted themselves as South Carolina men.   It seems that at least two of them have failed to do so to this point.  That is disappointing.   Governor Hodges has a proven record on education that he should be proud of.  Congressman Graham has a proven record in Congress that he should be proud of.  However, it seems that their political handlers have encouraged them to attack in unprecedented ways, or to have others make unprecedented attacks on their behalf.

           For over 52 years, political historians in South Carolina have pointed to the 1950 Democratic Primary election between Olin D. Johnston and Strom Thurmond as one of the fiercest and perhaps dirtiest elections in state history.  It appears they will have to now reference 2002 instead.  Some may ask why?  The answer is simple.  First, neither Olin D. Johnston nor Strom Thurmond would engage in the type of consultant driven, over the top negative politics today.  They would not engage in such because both Olin D. Johnston and Strom Thurmond were South Carolina men, and Strom Thurmond continues to be one till this day.   South Carolina men do not conduct campaigns that use burning American flags, mothers, and wives in attack ads, no matter what the high priced consultants tell them.  Hopefully, the next few weeks find all candidates living up the standards of South Carolina, not the standards of consultants who seem to want to “get one” on an opponent instead of campaigning to serve the public.   

 

Copyright 2002, The McCarty Company, Inc.  First time publication rights granted to www.schotline.com.  Permission to distribute this publication, or the link to it, via email is granted.  All other rights reserved.  You can contact Brian McCarty at rbmccarty@bellsouth.net.    Brian welcomes your comments, questions, compliments and criticisms.