Political Contrasts: Jim Clyburn and Jim DeMint
Posted: Wednesday, March 31, 2010
by Walter Rhett
Charleston Perlo
From Tarzan to Shakespeare to John F. Kennedy, contrasts, comparing opposites, have been an effective means of expressing ideas, motivating mass behavior and characterizing people and their positions.
"Let me compare thee to a summer's day," the British bard wrote in his famous sonnet 18, speaking of his shy, mysterious love as more lovely and temperate. Tarzan was more direct, and quick to the point: "Me Tarzan, you Jane." Kennedy was grand, sweeping, in defining the responsibilities of citizenship in his well remembered contrast: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Whether love, economics' "guns and butter," Caesar's famous exchange ("the Ides of March have come," "but not yet past"), or Lincoln's widely noted rejection of the status of slave or master, contrasts have been used by writers, speakers, and politicians to clarify points, influence behavior, and to affect and direct the vox populi (the opinions of the people).
American politicians have long and often favored the rhetoric of opposites to set out differences of motives and define and interpret the actions and ideas of those they oppose. Echoing today's Tea Party credo, SC senator Robert Y. Hayne, who stood in the well in 1832 with MA's Daniel Webster in the US Senate's most famous debate, once divided the country into his brand of contending camps: " In every age and every country, there have existed two distinct orders of men-the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power."
Of course Hayne, a defender of Southern slavery, considered himself to have both feet in the camp of the "lovers of freedom"-as long as freedom squarely included the right to "own" men, women, and children as property without even basic rights. Strange fruit was often bore from the early Southern point of view.
Haynes' freedom embraced the customs of absolute tyranny with the fervor of the moral high ground.
Today, rather then the long javelin throw of rhetorical brilliance that hits the distant bull's eye, inhibiting and breaking the spirit of fellow competitors, the political rhetoric of opposites has lost its dramatic flair. Today's words are short, hard, elliptical, one sided, and often hollow of substance; they spoke the brute force of a commando's thrust rather than skillful jaunt of a rapier's sally: the public seems to have become freak geeks for this ultimate verbal bloodletting and ballyhooing.
Shouts and screams, distortions, name calling, ugly labels, epithets, even spitting, are increasing. Jests, word puns, gross inaccuracies, excuses, and anger roil the public air waves. At public assemblies, signs depict the President in a coffin; a website for California Republicans called for "waterboarding" President Obama. From the House floor, a defender of the right to life is called a "baby killer." (An apology later revised and extended the remark.)
These centrally-covered incidents are said to caused by a fringe. As "things fall apart," these displays multiply, but words that hint at or suggest violence are explained as inadvertent lapses in judgment, or a favorite old saw: emotional outbursts. Yet these images of non-ideas receive more time than the mainstream message. What was once minor is now major. The shock effect of images and words lead the culture of debate. Real ideas are imploded by the concession of their shock wave.
In contrast, a few national politicians still remember and preserve the old school.
Jim Clyburn and Jim DeMint:
From Opposite Ends, the New South Takes the National Political Stage
In our modern media culture obsessed with winning and losing rather progress and service, South Carolina seems to have a foot in both camps. The old school traditions of ideas, civil discourse, artful contrasts, and offering a contrast of points based on a depth of ideas are celebrated by Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina's 6 th District. The third ranking member of the US House of Representatives, the House's Majority Whip-the member of Congress responsible for securing the votes of majority party members to pass or defeat legislation before the House-Rep. Clyburn clings mightily to the rhetoric force of understatement. Think hard: recall one instance of harsh tone, empty chatter, nasty labels, excessive hyperbole, ad homenium attacks, or war whups by the Majority Whip. It is simply not in his character and not apart of his style-he has no arsenal of harsh words.
James Enos Clyburn, b. 1940
Instead, his quiver is full of ideas (many in the country think his ideas are wrong but they are supported by the voters of his 15 county district covering vast rural areas, the state's two largest cities (Charleston and Columbia), abounding I-95 from NC nearly to Savannah. The district includes the former estates of SC rice planters who crafted and signed the US Constitution-and counted by northern compromise three-fifths of their enslaved communities in the political census. Freedom has strange bed fellows. (So does power.)
A former chair of the Black Congressional Caucus, Clyburn's House seat was once held by the fabled John C. Calhoun, a leader of nullification and Southern secession, a spokesman for state's rights who claimed slavery to be a "positive good." Many thought Calhoun to be " the most elegant speaker that sits in the House... His gestures are easy and graceful, his manner forcible, and language elegant; but above all, he confines himself closely to the subject, which he always understands, and enlightens everyone within hearing . . ."
John C. Calhoun
Calhoun, the old, wiry Irish planter and Yale graduate, and Clyburn, of African-American heritage, a former executive director of the SC Commission for Farm Workers, NAACP chapter youth president, civil rights activist and Charleston history teacher, share common values: both were strong organizers and determined defenders of causes in which they believed. Both engaged in well reasoned, close tracking arguments for their legislative convicts, supported by facts, citing benefits and the promise of broader progress.
In contrast to Rep. Clyburn, stands SC's junior US Senator, Jim DeMint, who in a recent posting on his Senate website announced he is traveling to South Carolina to discuss jobs. His state has 15 counties (some also represented by Clyburn) that have multi-generational poverty at or above 30% of their population. I'm sure his discussion in the state after Michigan with the nation's highest unemployment rate is widely anticipated.
Senator Jim DeMint (SC) speaking at CPAC 2010 (fair use)
But Senator DeMint's big news is his commitment his introduced bill to repeal the healthcare reform bill. While others in his party call for "repeal and replace," Senator DeMint is concentrating solely on repeal. In his blog, the Senator says, "This trillion dollar bill is paid for [actually only 9 billion, ed. note] with a government takeover of the student loan industry. The government will shut down private lenders, sell expensive loans to 19 million college students and use the profits to finance "ObamaCare."
But based on the idea of smaller, less intrusive government, why were tax payers shelling out and subsidizing banks to the tune of 9 billion to lend students tax payer money--reimbursed by the government if students defaulted? Exactly how is the end this line item earmark, a "shut down" of private lenders? Banks can still loan students their own money, at competitive rates; the new law doesn't prohibit their entry. They simply not longer collect a collective 9 billion for passing through paper work. What Sen. DeMint describes as a "takeover" sounds more the breakup of a sweetheart deal.
And since students defer their loan payments, which involve low interest rates, it is doubtful there will be "profits" (or even modest rates of return on capital) which will make even a tiny dent in the ratcheting costs of healthcare. Greedy banks are failing on their own, but Senator DeMint, in a legerdemain of words, shifts their failure to a "government shutdown." He deems low interest loans "expensive." He declares the government will "sell" "expensive" loans, but what is the Senator selling? Fear? Fudge? A political dodge? And how will he cover the 700,000 uninsured in SC?
While the senator is retreating from his failure to create Obama's Waterloo by preventing the passage of healthcare reform, its passage may actually give the Senator a victory from his utter defeat. The bill's passage may stir an outrage even greater than its defeat or repeal. The Senator might do well to leave the status quo alone, since his own bill is "sound and fury, signifying nothing," is given no chance at passage, and would be immediately vetoed by the President. But Sen. DeMint's strategy is a three headed single-note mantra: distort, block, repeal.
Quietly unnoticed in the final weeks of the healthcare reform fight, introduced without the fanfare of Sen. DeMint's repeal effort, Rep. Clyburn put forth a bipartisan, bicameral (House and Senate) rural energy-efficiency savings bill that has the potential to reduce energy dependence and create 40,000 jobs. See the release below:
Creating Jobs, Saving Money, Reducing Pollution
On Wednesday March 10, 2010, a bipartisan coalition of Senate and House Members were joined by rural electric cooperatives and energy industry leaders to introduce legislation establishing a Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP) to create jobs, save American families and businesses money on their electric bills, and reduce air pollution. The legislation (H.R. 4785 in the House) is estimated to create 20,000 to 40,000 jobs a year.
The bill provides $4.9 billion in loan authority through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to electric cooperatives to offer low-interest micro-loans to residential and small business customers for energy-saving retrofit and structural improvements. The program will be a boon for the domestic manufacturing and construction industries, as energy-efficiency products are almost exclusively manufactured in the United States and installation jobs cannot be exported. [ed. emphasis] The program builds on the existing co-op infrastructure that has strong community ties and a demonstrated 75-year history of on-bill financing for consumer loans.
Rep.Clyburn's brief remarks about his bill contained no hint of hyperbole. And he never mentioned his bipartisan, bicameral legislative effort in several national media appearances in the following weeks. His posted remarks about the bill were brief and succinct: "This bill provides for energy conservation, job creation and cost-effective upgrades that will improve consumers' quality of life. There is such broad support for this initiative because it is a win-win-win proposition."
Lindsey Graham, SC's other Senator, a conservative Republican , co-sponsored the bill in the Senate. Sen. Graham also opposes the healthcare reform act, passed in the house, in large part, through Rep. Clyburn's efforts to corral and count votes as the Whip. In his public remarks about the rural energy bill, Sen. Graham had this to say: " I am proud to work with Congressman Clyburn [ed. emphasis] and others on what I believe will be a worthwhile idea. This plan will help consumers in rural areas become more energy efficient and lower their electricity costs. It is smart policy to take a small, limited amount of federal dollars and empower people to help themselves. By turning this idea into law, our nation will be more energy independent and less dependent on foreign sources of energy. I am proud to be part of this effort . . ."
Rep. Jim Clyburn (second from right) at the
Civil Rights History Project bill signing in May, 2009
A google search turned up no instances of co-sponsorship between Rep. Clyburn and Sen. DeMint for any legislative efforts to secure SC or the nation's security, social welfare, or economic growth. Rep. Clyburn has referred to the Senator's repeal bill as "stalling." Focused on overturning Presidential initiatives, Sen. DeMint has no comment I could find on his state's leading and powerful member of the House. One bill he sponsored (with 21 Senate co-sponsors) was a 2008 resolution to honor the life of Charlton Heston.
Both Clyburn and DeMint have offered characterizations of the healthcare reform bill: Rep. Clyburn called the bill "the Civil Rights Act of the 21st Century;" Sen. DeMint labeled it "an insult to our democracy," with the added claim it "threatens our nation's prosperity and freedom."
Sen. DeMint, who formerly owned a marketing firm, served in the US House with Rep. Clyburn from 1999 to 2004. In reviewing his public service, Sen. DeMint would surely find agreement with John C. Calhoun adage, "In looking back, I see nothing to regret and little to correct."
In a recent article, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida's 20 th House district, one of Clyburn's six senior deputy whips, says Clyburn is a good listener who "corral votes through cajoling and gentle persuasion." [Former Republican whip]"Tom DeLay got votes through coercion," Wasserman said. "Jim Clyburn gets votes by consensus." Sen. Graham has described Rep. Clyburn as "talented, smart, and easy to get along with." Yet, those who know him say he has a "feisty, street-fighter's stubbornness when pursuing important goals."
Sen. DeMint has demonstrated an equal stubbornness.
Both men sit on opposite sides of a political chasm. They hold vastly different views and values, they support different political means and ends.
But how do they use words? Does one inform while the other incites? Is there a symbiotic cause and effect hidden within the differences of their positions and words? Should we as a nation recall Sen. Daniel Webster's adage; "keep cool, anger is not argument."
Will Sen. DeMint's skills as a marketer and his hyperbole and uncanny sense of the disenchantment of the people result in a brilliant finish for the man who is a key leader of the "Stop Obama" forces?
Will Rep. Clyburn's sense of community and his carefully executed steps and measured speech continue his journey in the top ranks of House leadership, as he keeps his eye on a vast array of legislative prizes?
Perhaps Calhoun, a Webster colleague, brillant and blind in his logic and contradictions, can offer an insight that best explains the times, the differences in tone, and the cause of the opposite roles both men play on the national stage:
The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism.
In the days ahead, after we have been incited and informed, what brillance and contradictions of healthcare reform will remain?
Sen. DeMint endorsing Michael Williams for Texas US Senator (fair use).
Thanks for reading! /wr
This Article has been viewed 749 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.