(Note: If you want to read political articles from throughout the state (everyday), you should visit SCHotline.com where I found the article that led to this post tonight)
Maybe I’m just too naive to “get it” but I still can’t figure out why articles like this always come around when incumbents lose.
Is the counter-argument to this position that SC Citizens should “keep electing the same folks” so that those veterans can “yield power” (supposedly gained because of years in office)? Do those citizens think that this “power” will somehow help their individual position in life? Help move our state forward?
Remember while only those 30,000 citizens in our districts can vote for us, we are supposed to be representatives of the ENTIRE STATE of South Carolina and should be putting the interests of the whole ahead of the parts.
One could argue that often sending the same folks backs can lead to the status-quo mentality that seems to be holding our state back.
Yes, everyone in Columbia has noted that alot of “power” seems to be in Charleston and, yes, the coast does seem to get a share of your tax dollars more often than not; but I just don’t see the logic in saying certain areas “lost” because of who they elected.
What if an area gained a Republican to replace a Democrat as their representative? Would that mean they “gained power” because there are more Republicans in the General Assembly?
What about next year when we Republicans will have a new majority leader (and currently no one from Charleston is a candidate)? How about our new Assitant Majority Leader next year ( Greenville Representative Bruce Bannister is one of two members running)?
Many would argue some of the folks “in power” could be doing more harm to the state than good…just as easily as some would argue “their guy brings home the bacon” (if that’s what’s important to them).
This is not meant to be a knock on the writer (heck, I spent 15 years in the Greenville area) but I just see things are more of “half full” in terms of new-blood in office. Yes, I’ll miss some of those folks who I consider friends during my four short years in office; but most of us will welcome the new members and we realize they were elected for a reason. For many of these new officials, it could be the same reason some of us were elected.
Could there be truth to the old saying “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” or did that article in The Greenville News have it right?
UPDATE: Seems others share my opinion as I just learned The Other Brooks Brother (and their Sister Too) posted about this today too.