Civil, issue-oriented discourse needed on important issues

There’s a battle of sorts going on in Columbia between those trying to rein in spending, impose greater accountability, and pull back the curtains of government so that decisions are made in full public view… and those who don’t think these changes are needed.

Those who know me generally put me in the former category -- a fiscal conservative committed to the cause of better government, increased transparency, and more careful spending. But while remaining true to my conservative principles, I consciously try to show respect for those whose views and opinions are different from mine.

Unfortunately, in this environment what should be civil debate on important issues all too often descends into “attack politics” -- vilifying those with opposing views in order to win. Name-calling has become accepted practice for many.

One example on the national stage is the automobile bailout, where some in Congress are sniping and finger-pointing just because many others -- due to their deep-seated concerns about writing blank checks to Detroit -- opposed plans to bail out the Big 3 automakers. When everyone in Washington should be devoting their energy to moving the country past the current economic crisis, leaders of one party instead have been churning press releases blasting the other party, and a prominent leader in the majority party attempted to paint all those who voted against the bail out plan as “un-American.”

There’s no shortage of such behavior here in the Palmetto State, where for several years Governor Sanford and those aligned with him have tried to change the business-as-usual culture in Columbia. In the interest of openness, let me state that I wholeheartedly support the vast majority of Gov. Sanford’s proposed reforms. Like him, I strongly believe that changing the way we do things in Columbia is a key to truly moving our state forward. But Gov. Sanford and other reformers represent changes that many in Columbia neither seek nor wish to accept, and the debate hasn’t always been constructive.

The legislature will convene in January with South Carolina facing one of the biggest challenges of a generation – the current economic crisis. With state leaders grappling with new and more difficult problems, we’d do well to lay aside the “heroes-versus-villains” mentality, the attitude that it’s OK to tear down another for holding an opposing political philosophy.

At the local level, the men and women who engage in civic debate -- whether over a municipal tax increase, a zoning matter, or a school bond issue -- should be respected, even when they express views counter to our own. At a time when most folks go about their daily lives and simply read about developments in the newspaper, we should applaud any who take the time to become involved in the community to guide its future.

In South Carolina, an honest conversation about where we’re headed as a state, and how we get there, is a good thing. We should be able to have such a conversation without ever resorting to attacks. Those of us in positions of public trust have a particular obligation to set the right example by conducting our debates in a manner befitting those we serve. Let’s commit to finding success on high roads, not low ones, and let’s win hearts and minds with the power of our ideas, not the volume of our voices.