'Earmark' for port isn't wasteful 'pork'

Some smart, thoughtful and dedicated citizens are running for elective offices locally and statewide. Good for them and good for us. We need all the smart, thoughtful and dedicated political leaders we can find.

But in this hypercharged political season, we should pity every one of them who feels hesitant in telling us what they really think, for fear of violating the word-set agendas laid down by a growing list of demanding lobbies.

Very likely, that would be all candidates.

Neo-power political lobbies are everywhere. They're large, small, grass-roots and national. They have names like "Coffee" and "Tea" and themes like "tax him, don't tax me." They show up, measure responses and make lists of friends and foes. Too many candidates fear they can't get elected unless their words and promises sufficiently comply with the demanding codes of the active extremes.

So whatever happened to political "platforms" that simply reflected what's bottom-line best for all voters, and the debates about good sense and common sense policies that take every neighborhood, every state and America where they need to go?

Maybe our political debate system is tilting a bit too far, demanding candidates say what we think, rather than our judging how well they think and how well they will lead, if elected.

Pardon the digression to wishful thinking about a more reflective and civil political world -- and a discursive salute to the threadbare reality that, yes, our system is messy, but it's ours, and God blesses America.

But it makes for awkward, pandering debates.

Like the Port of Charleston Propeller Club's Republican gubernatorial dialogue program last week.

Moderator Robert New, a clever fellow, asked the four candidates how they felt about federal "earmarks."

"Earmark" is the lipstick term for the congressional "pork barrel." But a pig is a pig and can't be gussied up. Right? "Earmarks" are political garbage and reflect selfish political squander. Like higher taxes, waste and fraud, they are to be rejected, period.

And that's exactly what all four Republicans did, firmly and eloquently.

But Mr. New had set a trap.

Would the candidates, if elected, also promise to seek federal "earmark" funding to assure the viability of Charleston Harbor?

The friendly maritime industry crowd enjoyed the pregnant pause and squirming chuckles.

State Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington, said she would "work with the port." Of course, she would.

Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said he would need to "think about it." Really?

Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster and 3rd District Rep. Gresham Barrett declared there were "other ways to get the money than earmarks." Curious.

These are well-informed candidates. Surely they knew the right answer. Why would they hesitate to share it?

Even suggesting a tolerance of "earmarks" could create a perfectly deadly political storm, especially in the Lowcountry's bastion of Republican conservatism.

The right answer, and political truth, is that not all "earmarks" are waste, and Charleston Harbor funding is the perfect example.

The federal government has direct responsibility for the nation's navigable waterways. Developing and maintaining navigation channels in the national interest is a distinct federal responsibility. For many well-documented reasons, our harbor and our state port system operate in service to the entire nation. The feds are obligated to fund ongoing channel projects and any emergencies related to that commitment.

And oh, by the way, the federal government collects an estimated $600 million in customs revenues at the Port of Charleston. It spends roughly $14 million in Corps of Engineer dredging programs. The state already pays a "share" of deepening project costs.

So the gubernatorial hopefuls might have said Charleston as a port and harbor is a super federal investment. Call it an earmark or a pig's kiss, the feds better be doing their job and the incumbent governor has a duty to see to it.

The Propeller Club forum is a small but compelling case study of how constructive political dialogue quickly becomes guarded word games. We voters are too often confused by simplistic transformations of political realities into turbo-charged political naivete.

We all want good government -- as little as possible. We all want low taxes and well-managed public agencies. But we all want good schools, good roads, safe streets, a competitive port system, a sound economy and less disruptive noise in the political arena. And lots of other "government," too.

It must be tough being a candidate in this environment and the political process doesn't always produce constructive dialogue.

Maybe we should just shut up and listen to the candidates.

We'll learn more about them if they demonstrate the promise of their agenda rather than subordinating their campaigns to simplistic sound-bite reductions of major issues.

Ron Brinson is a former associate editor of this newspaper. He can be reached at rbrin1013@gmail.com.