As she described it, that element has proven to be a decisive factor.
As I explained to a Senate candidate this spring, often we literally make a list of all the reasons to endorse each candidate and all the reasons not to, and pick the one with the most positives and fewest negatives. Obviously, some items carry more weight than others: Supporting comprehensive tax reform is more important than which particular taxes you want to raise or lower; you'll lose more points for favoring government by referendum than for wanting to keep a particular agency out of the governor's hands. Still, it's the sum of all those pluses and minuses that determines our choice.
In recent years, though, it has become progressively more difficult to maintain this "whole candidate" approach, thanks to a new force in state politics -- New York millionaire Howard Rich, his generous fellow travelers scattered across the country and the secretive organizations they bankroll inside our state.
The problem with these campaign carpetbaggers isn't merely that they're exaggerating the shortcomings of our public schools in order to advance the bankrupt idea of diverting tax money to private schools. It's that this is just the first step in an effort to dismantle government. It's that they try to hide their objectives (and identities), finding or even fabricating other reasons to attack an incumbent, taking care not to mention vouchers. It's that they force us to pick a team -- their team or not their team.
And because the one non-negotiable requirement for being on their team is supporting vouchers and tax credits, they put those of us who oppose their team in the position of looking like we're the ones fixated on vouchers.
Fortunately, my colleagues and I haven't gotten to the point where we liked everything about a candidate except his support for vouchers or tax credits. Usually, the private "choice" supporters have had a lot of other objectionable qualities: Many have signed the no-new-taxes pledge -- not a disqualifier alone, but a big red mark in the negative category; many have memorized the governor's tax talking points -- again, not a disqualifier by itself.
But we've come uncomfortably close to that, and nowhere more than in our endorsement of Sen. Jake Knotts. There's enough objectionable about him -- and enough to like about his challenger in Tuesday's runoff, Katrina Shealy -- that reasonable people have concluded that we've become a one-issue editorial board.
Like everything else related to the Howie Rich cabal, that is a distortion of reality.
Before the out-of-state voucher money started flowing into our state, I didn't have strong feelings about vouchers. I didn't see any way they would do any good systematically, but I didn't consider them terribly dangerous -- if they were rolled out the way Mr. Sanford proposed in his first campaign, as a small experiment, maybe in a couple of districts, and going only to poor kids. But that was never proposed. Once the money spigot was turned on, the agenda changed to match the goals of the patrons: Now the plan was to provide all kids with vouchers or, worse still if you claim to want to help poor kids, tax credits, which won't even help half the state's population because they don't pay enough in state income taxes to benefit.
Just as our opposition to video poker had less to do with gambling than with the attempt by video poker barons to control our state government, our objection to the voucher candidates has less to do with vouchers than with their affiliations.
You see, when you vote for Ms. Shealy or any of the other candidates who wouldn't have a prayer without Mr. Rich's money, you're not just voting for that candidate. You're voting for that team. And even the damage that a full-throttle voucher/tax credit program could do to our state fades to insignificance alongside the damage that would be done if Mr. Rich's dream team is able to buy our Legislature.
Outside money elevates one issue above others, and it's not vouchers
State, The (Columbia, SC) - June 20, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment