South Carolina is a peculiar state. It's managed to produce both Lindsey Graham and Mark Sanford, two politicians who come from the same place, but are literally like oil and water.
Graham is the model of the kind of Republican who infiltrated the party after the Reagan era. He's religiously conservative, completely irresponsible on budgetary issues, and has a record on civil liberties that can only be described as embarrassing. Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater wouldn't have recognized him as a Republican at all. He's like an old-style southern Democrat but with less integrity.
Mark Sanford is almost his exact opposite. He's fiscally conservative and a strong supporter of civil and individual liberty. He's in the Goldwater tradition and willing to stick by his principles, whatever the cost.
Being from the same state it's inevitable that two such opposite politicians would clash. When Sanford held firm and opposed federal bailout money for the state, Graham tried to end-run him in the Congress and play havoc with states rights by giving legislatures federal authority to override governors to accept federal money. It's not surprising that there were some fireworks at the South Carolina Republican Convention last weekend.
On the floor Graham made a speech arguing for compromising Republican principles and moving to the center and was heckled by members of the audience who were Ron Paul supporters. In response he made a strong statement against libertarianism, saying
"I am not a libertarian. If you are, you're welcome to vote for me and help this party, but we're not going to build a party around libertarian ideas. I am a Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Lindsey Graham, Carrol Campbell Republican."
It was certainly not news to anyone that Graham isn't a libertarian, and his self-identification with former Democrats, segregationists, and pork barrel spendocrats tells the whole story about why so many in South Carolina aren't happy with their senior Senator.
More interesting than Graham's remarks was Governor Sanford's reaction a few minutes later when someone stopped him in the hallway and asked him what he thought about Graham's comments on libertarianism. Sanford went on at length:
"It's funny it was almost a pejorative comment a moment ago. Senator Graham spoke and said 'I'm not a libertarian', and whatever, whatever, as if that's an evil word. Liberty is the hallmark of the American expriment. That is the distinguishing characteristic of our republic and frankly, what's made it great. In my comments last night I said that is the genius of America, of affording liberty so that in your pursuit of happiness versus my pursuit of happiness and the dreams that went with that you uunleash individual initiative that can't be there with central planning. People say, you know, 'Mark, you're kind of libertarian' and they'll say it as if it's an evil word like 'You're a communist' or something. I'm like 'Throw me in that brier patch. I'm guilty. I love liberty' and I think that ought to be a good thing and I don't think that it should be something that people back away from. I've been accused of being a libertarian and I wear it as a badge of honor, because I believe in, love and support liberty."
Sanford expressed a vision of the Republican Party, which strongly contrasted with Graham's concept of a party of appeasement and opportunism. Sanford offered a positive vision of a party that embraces rights and individual liberty and enterprise and initiative, a party like the GOP which freed the slaves and fought the monopolies and championed civil rights and won the cold war. Sanford seems to understand that the arguments between conservatives and moderates in the party is meaningless and that the party needs to move on a course perpendicular to the old ideas of right and left, in the direction of liberty.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - KSH
RON PAUL is my leader. Lindsay is a douche
2 - Horace Mungin
Although I live in South Carolina and can't see "a dime's worth of difference" between Graham and Sanford, I'd like to take issue with the author on one point - please expand on the Republican Party's support of civil rights. I'm 67 years old - did I miss that?
3 - roger nowosielski
Well, good luck Mr. Mungin.
But perhaps you were away at the time. On vacation or something?
4 - Horace Mungin
Thank you for your good wishes Roger - indeed, I must have been on vacation. You will fill me in fully. Thanks buddy.
5 - Dave Nalle
Horace, back in the 1960s when you may have been busy, the Civil Rights Act and other civil rights legislation was passed primarily on the strength of Republican majorities in the House and Senate over the opposition of Democrats. At the time there were just about no Republicans in South Carolina if that's where you were.
Dave
6 - Baronius
Dave, don't blame us religious conservatives for Lindsey Graham. You might as well blame us for McCain.
7 - roger nowosielski
It still skirt the point.
Mr. Mungin must have been on an extended leave, or a sabbatical, for such an important period of American history, to have just skip him by.
So I sure hope we can all bring him around and tell him how it was.
8 - Horace Mungin
Southern Democrats, opposed justice while Northern Republicans helped to bring a measure of justice to black Americans citizens - you know how the Southern electric turned Republican - you're a smart guy. Tell me a the name of one Republican champion of civil rights - hey have you ever hear Teo by Miles and Coltrane?
9 - roger nowosielski
This is a straight question, Horace.
Your view of LBJ?
10 - Horace Mungin
Dave...why are you doing this. I can complete the mission.Dave tell me about a Republican who was in favor of civil rights. Davvvve why are youuuu doing this, I can complet...th...missio...Dave turn me back on. LBJ? The guy who was a great president for the rights of all Americans and allowed those who didn't really, like yourself, want to threat other Americans inhumanally and got the Congress of the nation to enact laws to protrect my rights - I kind'a dig the guy - dave what are you doiiiing. Dave.
11 - Dave Nalle
Dave, don't blame us religious conservatives for Lindsey Graham. You might as well blame us for McCain.
I do. It's the exclusionary tactics of the religious right which have forced these guys to compromise whatever principles they once had.
In pandering those pandered to are as guilty as the panderers.
Dave
12 - Baronius
What were Graham's principles? As near as I can tell, he's holds the same positions as Sanford on abortion, gay marraige, and drug legalization. Those are some pretty important issues to social conservatives. Who's to say if either of them is pandering?
The fact is, Graham is in the non-Libertarian, non-Religious Right section of the party. He's a moderate. He's also hugely unpopular on the natioal stage for things like the Gang of 14. He's an easy target for you. You wanted to depict social conservatives as a problem, so you saddled us with Graham. But that's not fair. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean that the Religious Right does.
13 - Dave Nalle
Baronius, he's a social conservative. You can't undo his record. He's got top ratings from Right to Life, from Eagle Forum, from ACU. Name one issue where he took even a moderate position?
As for Sanford, he keeps saying he's for individual liberty. Maybe we can get him to put some thought behind that stance.
Dave
14 - Doug Hunter
The problem with libertarianism is that the vast majority of the population supports authoritarian use of the government. Right and left seek to use the government to force their values on the population and that's not going to change anytime soon. The whole idea of freedom and liberty is hard to defend as it always gets confronted with the possibility of government forcing by law people to do the 'right' things.
Most people prefer that. They want the government to be their daddy (or nanny), to tell them what and when to do things so they aren't forced to make decisions on their own. They prefer the security of knowing daddy government will take care of them in any event.
I prefer not to live like a child, although I realize I'm in the minority. Freedom to do only the 'right' things isn't really freedom at all.
15 - Baronius
Dave, you got me thinking about this. I'm sure you're being honest about your opinion of Graham. On the other hand, I've never heard a kind word about the guy in social conservative circles. So if he's not a libertarian, a social conservative, or a moderate, who's voting for him?
So I Wikipedia'd the Gang of 14. There's Snowe and Collins, the two most liberal Republicans in the Senate. Chafee was an R; now he's an Independent. Lieberman was thrown out of his own party. Some of the other Dems are from states like Nebraska and Louisiana. And there's Lindsey Graham.
So here's my theory. Maybe Graham's record was socially conservative, but he fell in with a bad crowd. No one trusts these guys after their big moderate power play. (Anyway, for most of them it wasn't their first betrayal.) None of them is popular with the ideological camps in their parties.
16 - SC Delegate
I was a delegate at the SC GOP convention. Your post is inaccurate in many ways.
You said:
He's religiously conservative, completely irresponsible on budgetary issues, and has a record on civil liberties that can only be described as embarrassing. He's like an old-style southern Democrat but with less integrity.
Reality:
Sen. Graham is a social and fiscal conservative. He's been a leader against Obama's spending, spoke out against the Republican Congress' prolific spending habits, kept us from surrendering the Iraq war, authored the Unborn Victims Against Violence Act, and has a lifetime conservative rating of 90 like Sen. Thurmond did (his predecessor).
You said:
When Sanford held firm and opposed federal bailout money for the state, Graham tried to end-run him in the Congress and play havoc with states rights by giving legislatures federal authority to override governors to accept federal money.
Reality:
Wrong. It was widely documented in numerous media outlets in SC that Sen. Graham was against the Clyburn amendment that allowed the SC General Assembly to go around Gov. Sanford to get the federal stimulus money. Graham has said he's against the end-run because he's a strong believer in the rule of law and separation of powers.
You said:
On the floor Graham made a speech arguing for compromising Republican principles and moving to the center and was heckled by members of the audience who were Ron Paul supporters.
Reality:
You are correct that Sen. Graham was rudely heckled by Ron Paul supporters. However, he never suggested our party become moderate or run to the middle. What he said, and received a rousing standing-ovation for, was that we are the Republican Party -- not the Libertarian Party -- and that Ron Paul is not the leader of the GOP (hardly a stretch given that Paul got 5% of the SC Presidential Primary vote). Graham talked about needing GOP candidates in other states who could win -- because conservative candidates who win in South Carolina probably can't win in CA, PA or New England. That's not suggesting the GOP moderate itself. It's suggesting we recognize the need for different candidates in different parts of the country.
His best line of the day: "I don't want to be a member of a club. I want to be a member of the Republican Party -- not the Republican Club."
17 - zingzing
dave: "Horace, back in the 1960s when you may have been busy, the Civil Rights Act and other civil rights legislation was passed primarily on the strength of Republican majorities in the House and Senate over the opposition of Democrats. "
or, horace, you could go look at the numbers and discover the truth of the matter. it's a north-south divide, with the north pushing civil rights onto the south. both the dems and the republicans from the south voted against the act in large majorities, but the republicans did so 100%.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
you'll note that while there were very few southern republicans, they were all racist (or beholden to their racist white voters). also, northern republicans were more apt to vote against it than northern dems were.
so... it looks like it was NOT republicans pushing this bill over democratic racism. in fact, the republicans had a larger racist element in their northern faction. and the real divide was n-s, not d-r.
18 - roger nowosielski
Anyways, zing, the same old argument resurfaces again. But never mind that. Didn't you like's Horace's voice - so darn direct it evokes images in the mind?
19 - roger nowosielski
Zing, I'm referring to his "Phantom" piece. It's like a page from Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man.
20 - roger nowosielski
"the real divide was n-s, not d-r."
Only stands to reason. A replay of the pre-Civil War mentality.
21 - zingzing
"Anyways, zing, the same old argument resurfaces again."
it always does with dave. he's old and set in his ways. like a 20-year-old dog who sleeps and pees in the same spot on the carpet.
22 - roger nowosielski
I happen to think it's more a case of Dave considering himself a spokesperson for a group, a group ideology, more precisely. And that it's for that reason he feels he's not free to speak in his own voice.
I'd never find myself in such a position. It's like putting a straitjacket on yourself.
23 - Dave Nalle
It's more a case of Zing [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] deliberately making no effort to understand anything I say.
Sure, the divide was on north-south grounds back in the 60s, but it manifested as a republican-democrat divide as well.
Today a lot of those northern Republicans have moved south a HUGE number, in fact. They've gathered in cities like Austin and Dallas and Atlanta and they still hold to those old Republican values. Plus a lot of time has passed and southern Republicans have changed their view.
The racism certainly no longer breaks down on a north-south basis. As Obama pointed out certain elements of the northern, working class, democrat population are far more reactionary than many Republicans are.
It's a new era -- wake up. The legacy of the Republican party has always been one of liberty and now it's spreading nationwide. And yes, you can take that as a statement for the group I represent, as well as my personal belief.
As for what Lindsey Graham does or does not believe, our commenter from the SC convention makes very clear that Graham is as extreme in his social conservatism as I said. I wasn't at the convention. I can only comment on the video I viewed and on his established voting record.
Clearly people have views of Graham which are not consistent with his record. Some don't seem to be able to see his social conservatism while to others it is obvious. Some choose to ignore his fiscal irresponsibility. I feel more comfortable dealing with the facts of his record, and you can confirm them at votesmart.org.
Dave
24 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
This statement "the legacy of the Republican party has always been one of liberty" is somewhat questionable, I'd think, if only because the privilege of liberty was accorded only to some. So you would need to qualify it, I think.
Roger
25 - Baronius
Roger, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "the legacy of the Democratic Party has always been one of racial exploitation".