PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
99
options
 
Monday, September 14, 2009

 

 

What is it about South Carolina, anyway? Why does the state with the sultry climate and the swaying palmettos continue to produce so many noteworthy reactionaries - congressman Joe Wilson (R-You Lie) being merely the latest? How come we can trace this tradition all the way back to John C. Calhoun who, while seeking in 1833 to protect his state's slave economy from Washington "despotism," threatened on the Senate floor to foment civil war and spill the blood of South Carolina's "brave sons"?

But first, some kind words about South Carolina. I have visited there on numerous political trips, and found people to be sweetly hospitable. You can go to a bar at twilight in early March and still catch a balmy breeze, blown your way by ceiling fans. The locals spin yarns with an affable drawl, they love politics almost as much as college football, and especially in the "low country" near the coast, they spend a lot of time talking about where to find the best stone crabs.

Nevertheless, there is, shall we say, a distinctive cultural attitude that inspires many folks to fly the Confederate stars and bars, to refer to the mayhem of Confederate years as "the war for southern independence," and I well remember, during a '90s visit, reading a weekly suburban newspaper that referred to a black political hopeful as a "dark hoss, no pun intended."

Speaking of race, it's fascinating how that theme has appeared to animate so many of South Carolina's vocal notables - so many of whom have been historic figures, though not always for the best.

Senator Calhoun's big argument nearly 170 years ago was that states should be allowed to resist federal laws whenever they wanted, that states could in fact secede or rejoin the union whenever they wanted (faint echoes have been heard lately from Texas Gov. Ricky Perry and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty). Back around 1833, South Carolina had arguably the most lucrative slave-based economy in the South (rice and cotton), and it feared that the feds would mess up a good thing by enacting onerous trade laws. So Calhoun raised hell about this on the Senate floor.

Actually, when Calhoun did that, he was already upholding a proud South Carolina tradition. Way back in 1776, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence had contained a passage condemning Britain for bringing the African slave trade to America, but it was excised in order to quell vociferous protests...the South Carolinians. Then, in 1787, the Constitutional Convention was weighing an immediate permanent ban on the African slave trade, but the plan was scrapped in order to quell secessionist talk from...the South Carolinians. They were cajoled to join the union only after it was agreed that the ban wouldn't happen until 1807.

Anyway, Calhoun darkly warned that if the Democrats in Washington tried to enforce federal trade laws that might undercut the fruits of slave labor, "it will be resisted at every hazard - even that of death itself." If Washington "is resolved to bring this question to extremity," then South Carolina's "gallant sons will stand prepared to perform the last duty - to die nobly." Long story short, President Andrew Jackson won the standoff; one of his top allies, clearly relieved, wrote that the crisis had been averted, and that now, "things are quiet for awhile."

But only for a while. Two decades later, an anti-slavery senator from Massachusetts was nearly beaten to death on the Senate floor by a colleague wielding a cane. The assailant was Preston Brooks, from...surprise...South Carolina. Brooks became the Joe Wilson of his day. South Carolinians were so thrilled with his behavior that they showered him with gifts, especially new canes. And what state was the first to fire on Union soldiers and start the civil war? South Carolina. What state was the first to secede? South Carolina.

Teaching those Washington folks a thing or two about race was clearly becoming a South Carolina tradition. When the northern Democrats began their push for civil rights in 1948, it naturally was South Carolina that supplied the candidate for the segregationist Dixiecrat presidential ticket. As Strom Thurmond put it on the campaign trail, "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches"). And after Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 civil rights act, it was South Carolina's Thurmond who led the southern conservatives' white flight out of the Democratic party and over to the GOP.

Within a decade, the torch had been passed to a Thurmond protege named Lee Atwater. Is it mere coincidence that the dark art of rough-and-tumble racial politics was refined for the modern era by yet another South Carolinian. Atwater, a young intern who rose rapidly to become Thurmond's campaign strategist, later achieved infamy for his contributions to George H. W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign; he's the guy who came up with idea of scaring white folks away from Michael Dukakis by linking the Democratic candidate to a black rapist. But in 1980, fresh from his Thurmond sponsorship, he made his mark in South Carolina by launching a successful whispering campaign against a Democratic congressional candidate, telling voters via anonymous phone calls that the white candidate was actually a member of the NAACP.  

Fast forward to the present. Among all the nation's Republican governors, guess which one led the charge against President Obama on the economic stimulus plan, by rejecting $700 million in new federal bucks until the state's highest court made him take it. Yep, it was the South Carolinian, Mark Sanford. That act of defiance by the love guv seems downright benign when compared to the race-card maneuvers of people like Thurmond and Atwater...until one realizes that Sanford was trying to spurn money that was heavily earmarked for the public schools of predominantly black kids.

And guess which Republican senator uttered out loud what most of his party brethren prefer to keep private, the idea that defeating President Obama on health care will seriously damage him politically and boost GOP prospects in the next election. Yep, again it was a South Carolinian - this time, Jim DeMint - who told conservatives in a conference call that a health care defeat would be Obama's "Waterloo."

Dare we suggest, however delicately, that Joe Wilson's intemperate outburst stemmed in part from the notion that Obama does not look quite like the kind of president that conservative South Carolinians, especially given their history, clearly prefer? Dare we note that Wilson, a former Thurmond aide, has been a member of the pro-secessionist Sons of Confederate Veterans, and that, back when he was a state legislator, he voted to keep the Dixie rebel flag flying on the state capital grounds?

Such is the rich South Carolina history that intrudes upon the present, putting the Wilson incident in context. As Shakespeare once wrote in The Tempest:

"What's past is prologue."

-------

On the eighth anniversary of 9/11, we remembered the day when terrorists killed 3000 Americans. But just imagine how this country would react if terrorists were killing 18,000 Americans every single year. Correct, we would be going berserk.

And yet, according to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, that many Americans die prematurely every year - simply because they don't have health insurance. Does anything about that strike you as unjust? Perhaps that's one reason why the average U.S. life span is roughly on a par with the average life span in Slovenia.

Just read this column, and see what happened to Nikki White after the health insurance industry turned its back on her. Clearly, all the demagoguery about government "death panels" is off the mark; truth is, the private sector already has them.

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 9:16 AM  Permalink | 99 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:53 AM, 09/14/2009
    The classic comment about South Carolina is that it is too small to be a nation and too large to be an insane asylum. I do not know who said it first.
    mxlplk
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:03 AM, 09/14/2009
    18,000 Americans do not die each year because they don't have health insurance, more over the top nonsense from the lib'dem side of the aisle to try to put lipstick on this pig of a healthcare overhaul:) *** The most notable difference between the Institute of Medicine's data — which were drawn from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey as well as the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey — is that Kronick adjusted it for a number of demographic and health factors, such as status as a smoker and body mass index. When he did that, "the risk of subsequent mortality is no different for uninsured respondents than for those covered by employer-sponsored group insurance." In other words, once you compare death rates in an apples-to-apples fashion — comparing insured smokers to uninsured smokers, for instance — the likelihood of dying evens out. This, in turn, would mean that IOM's estimate of 18,000 deaths would drop essentially to zero.*** http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/20/bill-pascrell/pascrell-says-22000-americans-die-yearly-because-t/
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:12 AM, 09/14/2009
    Of course an outbust during the President's speech is equivelant to the slave trade. You don't need an Ivy league degree to see that. Wait..you probably do.
    jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:15 AM, 09/14/2009
    NE--Since health insurance obviously has no effect on your health or mortality, I assume you are going to drop yours.
    liberal
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:20 AM, 09/14/2009
    Liberal...that is not what NEPhilly was saying and you are smart enough to know it. He was, as was politifact, debunking what was written. Polman and the NYT both have an agenda, so of course they will only give half of the issue.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:20 AM, 09/14/2009
    Polman again is being disingenous. In the NYT column, it states that many Republicans want to do nothing to reform health care. That is not true. Why not just pass legislation doing away with pre-existing conditions? Why not just allow those who cannot get health insurance due to pre-existing conditions to be eligible for medicare? Why didn't Nikki go out on disability, which would have kept her health insurance intact? Why couldn't Nikki have applied for Medicaid since she was not working and probably was below the poverty level(may uninsured are eligible for medicaid and SCHIP but do not enroll)? And how can either Polman or the NYT equate the killing of 3,000 Americans by Al Qaeda with our not having universal health insurance? Does that make anybody against this "public option" and against the current health reform proposals the equivalent of an Al Qaeda terrorist?
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:25 AM, 09/14/2009
    Roger Cohen's column in the NYT this morning was pretty interesting, I think. It's about the health care debate as well. Here's the link, if you're interested. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14iht-edcohen.html?_r=1
    NigeltheMastiff
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:25 AM, 09/14/2009
    Nikki had other options. First, she could have kept her work insurance using COBRA. Expensive, yes. But coverage would have continued. Second, she could have gotten an administrative order of disability from Social Security, which would have extended her COBRA for an additional 11 months past its normal period, which I believe is 18 months. Third, after 2 years of disability (as defined by Social Security Administration, I believe Nikki would have been eligible for Medicare, which would have provided her coverage. Many of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP and other health insurance options yet do not enroll. Perhaps Nikki could have taken other steps instead of just trying to get private coverage. My point is there were other options available to her, so this cannot be blamed just on her inability to get private insurance coverage.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:39 AM, 09/14/2009
    Obama the Honest? From today's WSJ.."To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it." Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years." Second example.."The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size." The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application." Gee, maybe Wilson just mistimed his shout.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:39 AM, 09/14/2009
    lib, its the same as repubs saying there are 'death panels' etc. & I think you are smart enough to know that:) As for dropping my insurance, I'm just wating for my company to dump me into the 'public option', if it ever becomes law:) Over the top rhetoric from the either side does nothing to help find a compromise! Put a bill together, 1)"the provision that would make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage because of an applicant's pre-existing health status, and 2) the provision that would bar companies from dropping the haves who get sick" in exchange for 1)real tort reform and 2) competition across state lines! Put those 4 things in a bill and it would pass by the end of September, IMHO!
    NEPhilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:42 AM, 09/14/2009
    tom: I'll skip the issues of verifiability and the IRS that you were incorrect on on the last blog, but since you brought up prop 187 on miltiple postings, this is from the last one --- tom: and your prop 187 argument is yet another failed attempt at a straw man. Yes, prop 187, which would have barred illegals from receiving state benefits was declared unconstitutional. It was not the barring of services, however, that was the unconstitutional part. The federal court rules that the federal government has exclusive authority over immigration. The court ruled that Sections 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Proposition 187 "are declared to be in violation of the Supremacy Clause, preempted by federal law, and of no force or effect." This ruling has no effect whatsoever on what the federal government may do, only states, so throwing it out there to show how a federal law would still allow illegals to get coverage despite language prohibiting it is a complete red herring. Now I'm sure you'll come back with some other "Kevin Bacon game" way of showing that illegals will still get tax credits, but can you at least acknowledge that the unconstitutionality of Prop 187 has NOTHING to do with HR3200?
    still_independent
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:46 AM, 09/14/2009
    Third Obama misrepresentation in his speech, again from WSJ.."Later in his speech, the president used Alabama to buttress his call for a government insurer to enhance competition in health insurance. He asserted that 90% of the Alabama health-insurance market is controlled by one insurer, and that high market concentration "makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly—by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates." In fact, the Birmingham News reported immediately following the speech that the state's largest health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, has about a 75% market share. A representative of the company indicated that its "profit" averaged only 0.6% of premiums the past decade, and that its administrative expense ratio is 7% of premiums, the fourth lowest among 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide. Similarly, a Dec. 31, 2007, report by the Alabama Department of Insurance indicates that the insurer's ratio of medical-claim costs to premiums for the year was 92%, with an administrative expense ratio (including claims settlement expenses) of 7.5%. Its net income, including investment income, was equivalent to 2% of premiums in that year. In addition to these consumer friendly numbers, a survey in Consumer Reports this month reported that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama ranked second nationally in customer satisfaction among 41 preferred provider organization health plans. The insurer's apparent efficiency may explain its dominance, as opposed to a lack of competition—especially since there are no obvious barriers to entry or expansion in Alabama faced by large national health insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna." Yeah, definitely mistimed shout.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:57 AM, 09/14/2009
    NEPhilly : not sure if this posted or not. Anyway, you (and others) have cited studies showing that Obama is incorrect, and that general preventative medicine, while saving lives, does not lower costs. I agree that the data bears this out. Why then, when large studies have shown that tort reform, while lowering malpractice rates, does not lower health care spending, do you insist upon it. Do you only believe those studies that fit your preconceived notions? You seem to rational for this.
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:00 AM, 09/14/2009
    Rauol...You pass a bill barring pre-existing conditions (states already mandate certain types of coverage so this should not be a problem at the federal level), but I do not believe the government can mandate people purchasing coverage. Government should not be able to mandate a person's behavior. Whether a person chooses to live life with or without health insurance should be their choice. It is different with auto insurance. First, most states only mandate purchase of auto insurance if you own a car, not if you have a drivers license. After all, you insure the car, not the driver. That is why my policy will cover other drivers who may use my auto. Second, with auto insurance, you mainly insure the other driver if you hit another car.
    tom - wilmington, de


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.