SUNDAY, JUNE 13, 2010 KATHLEEN PARKER
Voting out old Dixie S
charleston, s.c.
tranger than South Carolina’s politics is the nearly nativist pride many take in its nastiness.
Not the good folks of the Palmetto State
but, rather, the politicos who work dili- gently to manipulate the sort of voters who, for example, would elect Alvin M. Greene to the U.S. Senate. Who? Good question. The Democratic mystery man who was
nominated to run against Republican Sen. Jim DeMint seemingly materialized out of nowhere, without any evidence of having had a campaign. Greene, an unemployed veteran discharged from two branches of the armed services — and under investiga- tion for allegedly showing lewd images to a University of South Carolina student (a charge he denies) — reportedly paid the $10,400 filing fee out of his own pocket. So strange is the emergence of Greene, whose numerous post-election interviews have gone viral on the Internet, that fellow South Carolinian and House Majority Whip James Clyburn has requested an in- vestigation into his political rise. “Something was going on in South Carolina that was untoward. . . . I couldn’t quite put my finger on it,” said Clyburn.
DAVID S. BRODER
n impromptu transcontinen- tal race has begun, with noth- ing less at stake than the fu- ture of the American political and governmental system. It began a few months ago when the Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 deci- sion, lifted many of the historically entrenched restrictions on corpo- rate and labor union financing of election ads. Now, the Democratic Congress is attempting to mitigate the ruling’s effects by legislating tough disclosure requirements on that money — and it is running into predictable opposition from inter- est groups. Meantime, California voters ap- proved a ballot measure last week that would end the system of party primaries for all offices next year and substitute a “top two” nominat- ing system in which all candidates would appear on the same ballot. The two most favored, regardless of party, would go on to November. The new system, tried only in
Washington state, faces possible court challenges. Opponents — in- cluding the leaders of the state GOP and Democratic parties — claim it could fatally weaken their role in election campaigns. In effect, what we are about to witness is a monumentally conse- quential new round in the old struggle to balance the cohesive and fractionating forces in this di- verse, continental republic. Early on, the Founders worried about the splintering capacity of “factions,” by which they meant pri- vate interests of all kinds. In the In- dustrial Age, that danger focused on corporations and, later, on labor unions. The result was a series of enactments, culminating most re- cently in the McCain-Feingold cam- paign finance bill, restricting the flow of private funds to federal campaigns. Then, this year, the Supreme
Court narrowly found that some of those restraints violated the free speech rights of corporations and struck them down. It is not clear how eager those groups are to buy more leverage in elections, but Democrats are not eager to find out — and are trying to move legisla-
Election deck shuffle A
Truer words.
South Carolina Republicans, mean- while, called for the resignation of state Sen. Jake Knotts for calling gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley a “raghead” a few days before the primary. The race was ei- ther the nadir or the zenith of high-jinks politics, depending on one’s point of view. Let’s just say that the question “How low can you go?” isn’t strictly rhetorical around here. Knotts, who says he “could care less”
what his fellow Republicans think (and won’t resign), insists that the slur was a joke. More likely, it was a strategic move to broach the religion issue and implant the idea in voters’ minds that Haley might be Muslim. It was a calculated risk that in an- other political cycle might have served him well. Not this time. Racial and ethnic slurs to-
day are political suicide in South Carolina. Haley shot to the top of the ticket, de-
spite two men’s claims that they each had a romantic interlude with the candidate, a married mother of two. While the rest of the nation reeled in in-
dignation — or guffawed at the Comedy Central punch line that South Carolina has become — natives shrugged. Thus it
KLMNO
R
A15 DAVID IGNATIUS
has always been. But why is that, exactly? When does it stop? More to the point, does anyone really want it to? Many invoke the famously dirty-dealing
Lee Atwater, who apologized to some of his targets as he was dying of brain cancer. But Katon Dawson, the former state Re- publican chairman who was defeated by Michael Steele for national party head, theorizes that the state’s dirty politics can be traced to the American Revolution: “General Francis Marion, a.k.a. the ‘Swamp Fox,’ started it with untraditional warfare against the British by attacking, inflicting massive damage to the enemy, and then retreating into the swamps and backwoods of South Carolina. This is a part of our heritage that still goes on in modern political campaigns. . . . We all have a little of the Fox in us — and proud of it.”
Be that as it may, something shifted in South Carolina this time that has gone largely unnoticed. The big story, says Daw- son, isn’t the alleged affairs, the ethnic slur or the mystery candidate. It is that voters rejected dirty politics-as-usual and the old boys’ club. Haley defeated a list of veteran politi- cians, including Attorney General Henry
McMaster (who deserves an award for gentlemanly behavior). And down here in the Lowcountry, where the Civil War began, Tim Scott, an African American Republican, outper- formed two of the most powerful names in the state’s political history for the 1st con- gressional district seat — Carroll Camp- bell III, son of the late Gov. Carroll Camp- bell Jr., and Paul Thurmond, son of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott and Thurmond will square off in a June 22 runoff. Though Haley fell slightly short of the
majority vote needed to win the nomina- tion and faces Rep. Gresham Barrett in a runoff, she trounced her competitors in part because voters rejected the nastiness that motivated the attacks against her. For her own part, Haley told me that her
biggest concern was that her attackers made her state look bad. “I want the country to know we’re not a bunch of ignorant rednecks down here. And the vast majority of South Carolin- ians do not think that way.” If this kind of thinking prevails, Jon
Stewart may not have South Carolina to kick around for much longer.
kathleenparker@washpost.com
often ask a pained question: Where’s the outrage in the Muslim world? Why don’t Islamic religious author- ities speak out more forcefully against the terrorists and their wealthy financiers? It remains a potent issue: Terror- ism has damaged the Islamic world far more than the West, and too many Muslims have been cowed and silent. But a powerful and so far largely unreported denunciation of terrorism emerged last month from Saudi Arabia’s top religious leader- ship, known as the Council of Senior Ulema. The Saudi fatwa is a tough con-
A Saudi fatwa for moderation W
tion that would, in effect, raise the price for such groups by forcing them to publicize any role they play.
While the battle to expand or contain interest group influence unfolds in Washington, California — that national trendsetter — has become Armageddon for the politi- cal parties. Reformers, led by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, frustrated by the polarization that hobbles the Legis- lature as much as it does Congress, turned to the “top two” system in hopes that it will lead to more victo- ries for moderates, whatever their party label. The theory is that if all voters get to screen all candidates at primary time, rather than partisans select- ing from fellow partisans, then those on the ideological extremes may be weeded out. But the theory is largely un- tested, and the costs could be high. Minor parties and independents and mavericks would probably have a harder time finding a path to the November ballot. Moreover, leaders of the two ma-
jor parties fear that without an en- forceable party role in the nomina- tion of candidates, the struggle to counter the divisive forces repre- sented by wealthy interest groups and self-financed, ambitious or fa- mous individuals will not just in- fect politics but dominate it. They argue that, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision, elections could become auctions. I think our history suggests that the cohesive power of parties is the only real offset to the narrower agendas of interest groups — as we witnessed in the recent health-care fight. It takes a strong party to over- come the lobbies. The latest chapter in this historic
struggle has just begun, and it is possible that those who are trying to limit the influence of lobbies and strengthen the political parties will find ways to recoup. But for those of us who think that “faction” is the danger and that political parties are at least part of the solution, this is a scary moment.
davidbroder@washpost.com
POST PARTISAN
Excerpts from The Post’s opinion blog, updated daily at
washingtonpost.com/postpartisan
RUTH MARCUS
Alvin Greene raises red flags
The good news out of South Carolina, I guess, is that Alvin Greene has zero chance of becom- ing the next senator. Greene is the Democratic nominee from no- where, with nothing to say. If I were a South Carolinian, which is about as improbable as Greene’s primary victory on Tuesday, I would feel compelled to vote in the fall for Jim DeMint, the Republican incum- bent, the most conservative senator around.
If this sounds extreme — and I
grant you, even considering an imaginary vote for DeMint is a pret- ty extreme step — read Manuel Roig-Franzia’s disturbing interview with this cipher or watch Greene’s interview with Keith Olbermann. As Miss Clavel says in “Madeline”: “Something is not right.” In the in- terviews, Greene seems slow and off. As Jonathan Capehart noted on this blog, Greene is facing a felony obscenity charge for allegedly showing pornography to a college student (“I’m on the not-guilty side of things,” Greene says). He was dis- charged from the military under
circumstances that he describes as “involuntary.” He did no campaign- ing; he has no staff. How does a man who qualifies for a public defender to represent him on the obscenity charge come up with the $10,400 needed to reg- ister his candidacy? (The check had Alvin M. Greene for Senate hand- written across the top.) Who paid for the “satin green” fliers that Greene was so proud of in his inter- view with Roig-Franzia? Where are his campaign spending reports? None appear to be on file with the Federal Election Commission. You don’t have to be paranoid to
suspect dirty tricks at work here. House Whip James Clyburn (D- S.C.), demanding an investigation, recalled the 1990 case of GOP oper- ative Rod Shealy, who recruited an unemployed African American fisherman facing felony charges to run in the Republican primary, in order to boost white turnout in a different election. “Someone’s plant,” Clyburn said of Greene. A DeMint spokesman called that as- sertion “ridiculous.” Given the sor- did history of politics in the state and the serious questions about Greene, “troubling” might be a bet- ter word. A serious investigation is war-
ranted. DeMint, my candidate, ought to be leading the calls for it.
RICH PEDRONCELLI/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger discusses Proposition 14 in Sacramento on Wednesday. GEORGE F. WILL
California’s proposition for political blandness
U
nder the current imperfect adminis- tration of the Universe, most new ideas are false, so most ideas for im-
provements make matters worse. Given California’s parlous condition, making mat- ters worse there requires ingenuity, but vot- ers managed to do so last Tuesday. Actually, 8.9 percent of eligible voters did. By a margin of 54.2 percent to 45.8 percent, they passed Proposition 14, the Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act. Proponents outspent opponents 20 to 1. Of the approxi- mately $4.6 million spent promoting the measure, $2 million came from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political committee. He seems to consider this reform his defining achievement, which, in a sense, it is. The percentage of Californians who today ap- prove of Schwarzenegger is a number begin- ning with 2. But now California has adopted a candidate selection process that is in- tended to nominate candidates like him. Proposition 14 is an attempt to change
government policies by changing the politi- cal process. Henceforth, in primary elec- tions that select candidates for most state and federal offices — including almost one- eighth of the U.S. House of Representatives —all voters, regardless of party registration, or those who have “decline to state” status (no party identification — 20.2 percent of Californians), will receive the same ballot. All candidates for a particular office will be listed, regardless of party affiliation, if any, which they may choose to state, or not. The two receiving the most votes will be on No- vember ballots, regardless of the desires of the political parties the nominees may claim to represent. Proposition 14’s purpose is to weaken and marginalize parties, traditionally the princi- pal vehicles for voter education and mobili- zation. It would strip them of their core function of selecting candidates who repre- sent the preferences of their members. It in- fringes the First Amendment protection of freedom of association, which includes the right of parties not to associate with candi- dates they do not select. Supporters of “top two” primaries think
parties are too representative — too respon- sive to their “ideological” members. These are usually the parties’ most interested, in- formed and active members. But such peo- ple are, say Proposition 14 supporters, tire- some because they are not congenial cen- trists. Being “partisan,” they do not practice the bipartisanship that enables government to “get things done.” Among California “cen- trists,” getting things done usually means
raising taxes to pay for other things govern- ment has done. In areas where Democrats or Republicans
dominate — there are more and more of them as the nation increasingly sorts itself out into clusters of the like-minded — the November ballots will offer voters a choice of two Democrats or two Republicans. Vot- ers with sensitive political palates can savor faintly variant flavors of liberalism or con- servatism. Voters who prefer their political menu seasoned with the spices provided by minor parties are pretty much out of luck. Under Proposition 14, such parties — Green, Liber- tarian, etc. — which previously could place candidates on November ballots, will almost always be excluded from those by failing to run first or second in primaries. But, then, blandness is the point of this re-
form. It seeks to generate a homogenized po- litical class, one not lumpy with liberals and conservatives who, being conviction politi- cians, do not always play well with others. Does America need a cure for “partisan-
ship,” the supposed disease of leaders such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jef- ferson at the birth of America’s party sys- tem? Does America need a nominating proc- ess that narrows choices by stacking the deck against minor parties? Does it need a process that produces “pragmatic” candi- dates who, because they have no ballast of “ideology,” a.k.a ideas, and are not rendered “rigid” by convictions, can “reach across the aisle” to achieve compromises congenial to the entire political class? Does America need a nominating process that, suppressing can- did partisanship, will tempt stealthy parti- sans to game the system by voting a weak candidate into the top two? Putting Proposition 14 on the ballot was the price paid for the vote of Abel Maldona- do. He was a Republican state senator last year when three Republican votes were needed to enable Democrats to pass another tax increase that supposedly would solve the budget crisis that preceded the current one. Maldonado also was rewarded by Schwar- zenegger, who made him lieutenant gover- nor. Maldonado plays nicely with others. He is not rigidly ideological: He worked across the aisle to reach a compromise that gave the political class access to more of other peo- ple’s money. He, like his patron, the gover- nor, is, presumably, pretty much the sort of pragmatist Proposition 14 is designed to favor.
georgewill@washpost.com
demnation of terror and of the underground network that finances it. It has impressed senior U.S. mili- tary commanders and intelligence of- ficers, who were surprised when it came out. One sent me a translation of the fatwa, and Saudi officials pro- vided some helpful background. “There is no gray area here,” said a senior Saudi official. “Once it has come out like this, from the most sen- ior religious body in the kingdom, it’s hard for a lesser religious authority to justify violence.” The fatwa already seems to have had some impact: “Negative reaction from extremists online shows that they see this as a threat that needs to be responded to,” says one senior U.S. official. The fatwa begins with a clear defi- nition of terrorism, which it calls “a crime aiming at destabilizing securi- ty” by attacking people or property, public or private. The document goes on to list examples of this criminal activity: “blowing up of dwellings, schools, hospitals, factories, bridges, airplanes (including hijacking), oil and pipelines.” It doesn’t mention any geographical area where such ac- tions might be permissible. What’s striking is that the fatwa
specifically attacks financing of ter- rorism. The Muslim religious council said that it “regards the financing of such terrorist acts as a form of com- plicity to those acts . . . to bring a con- duit for sustaining and spreading of such evil acts.” The fatwa goes on: “The Council rules that the financing of terrorism, the inception, help or attempt to commit a terrorist act of whatever kind or dimension, is forbidden by Is- lamic Sharia and constitutes a pun- ishable crime thereby; this includes gathering or providing of finance for that end.” The fatwa exempts “legiti- mate charity to help the poor” from this ban. “The financier of terrorism is more
often than not more dangerous than the actual terrorist, since without funds, schemes fail and things do not take place,” Fahd al-Majid, the secre- tary general of the Senior Ulema Council, said in a May 23 interview with Asharq al-Awsat, a London- based Arabic daily. Given the role that wealthy Saudis
have played in financing radical Is- lamic groups, the fatwa has a signifi- cant potential impact. For Muslims in the kingdom, it has the force of law and it will provide a strong religious and legal backing for Saudi and other Arab security services as they track terrorist networks. It will be harder, too, for renegade clerics to issue rival fatwas that con- tradict the Saudi Ulema. The signato- ries are guardians of the conservative Wahhabi school of Islam, which to observers has sometimes seemed to sympathize with the Muslim extrem- ists. The fatwa, dated April 12 but is- sued publicly in May, was approved unanimously by the 19 members of the council. To implement the fatwa, the Saudi Shura Council is drafting a counterterrorism finance law. Saudi sources say that King Ab- dullah initiated the process that led to the fatwa, by asking for a ruling on terrorist financing. His push on the issue contrasts with the royal family’s traditional wariness of challenging or offending the clerical establish- ment, on which its legitimacy rests. This growing activism partly re-
flects a recognition that senior mem- bers of the House of Saud are them- selves prime targets of al-Qaeda. A recent example was the assassination attempt in August against Prince Mo- hammed bin Nayef, the Saudi coun- terterrorism chief. Events in Saudi Arabia are difficult for outsiders to understand, to put it mildly. Prince Turki al-Faisal, the for- mer chief of Saudi intelligence, joked in a recent speech that the kingdom’s ministry of information used to be described as the “ministry of denial” because “whenever news about Saudi Arabia was reported, the ministry would deny it the following day.” What matters in Saudi Arabia and most other Muslim countries is what its political and religious leaders say to their own people in Arabic. By that measure, there’s a new voice for mod- eration coming from the Muslim clerical establishment.
davidignatius@washpost.com
hen terrorists in the Middle East attack innocent civil- ians, observers in the West
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158