When the election results began coming in from around the country on the evening of June 8, 2010, there were a number of surprises. But the biggest upset occurred in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in South Carolina. Political neophyte Alvin M. Greene defeated former state legislator and retired circuit court judge Vic Rawl.
The initial reaction among Democrats was “Alvin who?”, but as more became known about Greene, confusion turned to outrage. It seems that last November, Mr. Greene was arrested for showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student. Although charged, Greene has not yet been indicted, nor has he entered a plea. As the nominee started doing media interviews, it became painfully obvious that Alvin Greene is “not ready for prime time.”
Theories began to emerge about how an unemployed veteran living with his elderly father could defeat a seasoned politican with a distinguished legal background, especially considering that Greene apparently gave no speeches, made no public appearences and generally did nothing to win the nomination.
Some of these theories involved the candidate’s name. “Al”vin “Green”e was said to remind voters of the singer Al Green. The spelling of his last name (Green with a final silent E) was supposedly more typical of blacks than whites, as was the first name of Alvin. The fact that names were listed alphabetically on the ballot was also said to give Greene an advantage over Rawl.
Other explanations were far more nefarious in nature. Conspiracy theories abounded, most of which revolved around Republican dirty tricks. Someone must have fronted the $10,400 filing fee for the hapless Greene. Perhaps he was paid off by the GOP to wreak havoc with the Democratic primary. The name of notorious South Carolina Republican operative Rod Shealy was bantered about as a possible mastermind behind this political cabal.
Myself being a believer in Occam’s Razor (which essentially states that the simplest solution is usually the correct one), I have a much less convoluted explanation of why Alvin Greene, and not Vic Rawl, won the senatorial nomination. I call it the “Putney Swope Effect.”
Putney Swope is the protagonist of the 1969 film of the same name. In the film, Swope is the “token Black” on the board of directors of an advertising agency. When the chairman of the board dies unexpectedly, the board members are forced to elect a successor. Since the agency bylaws prohibit any member from voting for himself, the safest bet seems to be to vote for the one board member least likely win – Putney Swope. Whether out of sympathy or to block any serious candidate from gaining a majority, every one of the board members votes for Putney, and he’s elected chairman by an overwhelming margin.
Could it be that South Carolina primary voters looked upon Alvin Greene as the Putney Swope of 2010? His opponent, Vic Rawl, appeared to be the odds on favorite for the nomination. His legislative and judicial experience was much more impressive than Greene’s, which was nonexistant. But primaries are the time to send a message, to let the party leadership know that fresh new faces shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. There would be plenty of opportunity to vote for Rawl in the general election in November. But what harm would it do to cast a protest vote in an election that really didn’t matter all that much anyway?
Am I reading too much into the thought processes of the primary voters? Wasn’t Greene a stealth candidate, a mystery man about whom absolutely nothing was known? Not as much as some would have you believe. Although Greene did little or nothing to put himself out to the electorate, he wasn’t totally ignored by the media prior to the election.
In at least two pre-election articles comparing the Senate hopefuls appearing in the South Carolina media (May 15 and May 25), Greene came across much as more impressive than he has in post-election coverage. A thirty-two-year- old African-American with military service as an intelligence specialist and a Bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of South Carolina, Greene must have seemed to many a viable alternative to the older (64-year-old) Rawl. Add to this the anti-incumbent (read anti-traditionalist) sentiment among voters, and the Greene victory doesn’t seem that unlikely anymore.
In the movie “Putney Swope,” the board of directors live to regret having elected good old Putney, I’m sure there are more than a few Democrats in South Carolina who are experiencing buyer’s remorse over their vote for Alvin Greene.
The answer to this is simple. He is from an overwelmingly Black distict. While you will never hear, racism, in the MSP it in fact is. Consider a felon like Marion Berry being elected repeatedly in DC. Even Obama can thank the racist voting of blacks for his ability to now control and make a farce out of the oval office. There is no mystery here. Qualifications dont matter ability expeariance none of it matters. He is Black. The majority of voters were black. Racism among Whites is miniscule compared to the racism of Blacks. He got elected purely on word of mouth, or perhaps there was a pic on the ballot who knows. Conspiracies will fly but the only answer is Black racism.
There may be a few Dems who are expeariencing remorse, but not buyer remorse, as they would mostly be all White. As with Jury nulification when blacks are the majority of the jury, of so many heinous crimes commited by blacks, the racist black voters in that district are very happy with their choice, ignorant, but happy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
celtictexan, I can always count on you to cut to the chase.
Your explanation is compelling in its simplicity, but your conjecture about a picture on the ballot has an even simpler explanation. If you check out the two links in my original post, you’ll see that Greene’s picture (and therefore his race) appeared at least twice in two different newspapers in South Carolina in the weeks prior to the election.
Clearly, information about each candidate’s race (Republican as well as Democrat) was out there in the media. Even if it wasn’t widely reported, word of mouth within the Black community, based initially on this information, is a plausible explanation for the large turnout in Greene’s favor.
That being said, I do take issue with you on one point: Greene’s overwhelmingly Black district. This is moot, since as a candidate for United States Senate, he would have been on the ballot statewide. However, the large African-American population throughout South Carolina (and especially among registered Democrats in that state) would have played a key factor nonetheless.
As far as the Putney Swope Effect goes, I think it explains whatever support Greene may have enjoyed among White voters. As was the case with the original Putney Swope, White Guilt may have been a motivating factor too. Add to this the fact that a vote for Greene was probably seen as a sympathy vote, since Rawl was the clear favorite, and you can see how Whites could have voted for Greene, thinking no one else would.
I almost hate to admit this, but I once fell victim myself to what might be described as the Putney Swope Effect. Several years ago, I actually voted for the Democratic nominee for Texas state senator (who happened to be an African-American woman) against her Republican opponent (a White male who, parenthetically, happened to be Jewish).
But this is where any resemblence to the Greene-Rawl race ends. I personally knew the Democrat, who was a brilliant (albeit politically misguided) academician with a PhD, fully capable of serving as a state senator. Had she won (an extremely long shot in the conservative Texas Panhandle), I wouldn’t have felt nearly as embarrassed about having voted for her as I would have had the nominee been of the calibre of Alvin Greene.
As it turned out, the Republican won by a margin of something like 70 to 30 percent. In the process, I 1) assuaged whatever residual White Guilt I might have still harbored; and 2) was able to show liberals how broad minded I am, having voted for a Democrat for the first time since Jimmy Carter – not that either of those things matter very much.
(One last postscript: Being by no means an anti-semetic, the religious persuasion of the Republican played absolutely no role in my decision on who to vote for. I merely threw that fact in as a somewhat interesting aside.)
And as if Alvin Greene weren’t enough, along comes Kesha Rogers.
It’s 134 days till the md-term elections (and counting). It’s gonna be a wild and crazy Tuesday night!
There is a neck and neck race going on in this country right now. I know your not going to agree, but what I’m about to say is still the truth. The race to dominate this country, its laws, its culture, and its future direction, is a race between Whites and non-Whites. Its a race between Western Civilization, and what is essentially, in Africa and Mexico non-civilization. Civilization being defined as:
civ·i·li·za·tion /ˌsɪvələˈzeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[siv-uh-luh-zey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2. those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3. any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4. the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome’s civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5. cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation:
This race was begun by Ted Kennedy and his ilk in 1965 with major immigration reform that gave preference to those from non-civilized countries.
From the ludicrous election of Rogers and Greene, to Obama himself, and appointments such as Harold Hurtt, to oversee certain immigration policies. Hurrts policies of making Houston a haven city for illegals has led to the death of no telling how many American citizens.
Obama and the progressives that back him care nothing about the cost, future or safety of U.S. Citizens. The move of the control of the census to the White House is purely a way of inflating non-White numbers and gerry mandering more areas to increase non-White candidates whose only concern will be wealth redistribution. And the sad fact is I’m pretty well convinced we have already lost the race.
There are two directions left for the U.S. in my opinion. Civil War, or a slide to the chaos that is Africa and Mexico. The proof is everywhere, just free yourself to look for it.
I actually agree with you, celtictexan, that there’s a “race to dominate this country, its laws, its culture, and its future direction,” but I don’t frame it in strictly white/non-white terms.
If it were purely a racial divide, how do you explain Republican candidates like Allen West, Star Parker, Tim Scott, et al. – more than 30 in all – who side with us in the fight? Viewing everything through the prism of race is as flawed as viewing everything through the prism of gender and class, IMHO.
30 v. thousands on the other side, with millions of supporters, all reproducing at staggering rates, all screaming for more freebies, while White births, and therefore Western Civilization are in decline? That future is easy to frame. Don’t be afraid to be labeled the R word. Reality is what it is. It’s not racist, its not phobic, its not hate, its just reality.
I always thought the term viewing through a prism, used as you did odd. Does a prism not show light as it truly is, not as it appears? So should race, politics, or whatever when viewed through a proverbial prism be any different? Don’t all thinking people want to see things as they are, the truth, not how it should be? And wouldnt seeing what comes out the other side of a prism, like it or not, be the truth?