Criticism of The SCCOR Debate
Jul 10th, 2009 by thatsElbert
Recently Judson Bennett’s Coastal Network published some emails related to a recent 19th Senatorial District campaign debate. The debate held by the Sussex County Community Organized Regiment, or better known as SCCOR. As in most debates, questions were asked and answers were given by the candidates. Someone sending an email to Mr. Bennett had an issue with the questions, writing:
I believe the problem with most organizations and political groups is that they are too focused. They zero in on one side of an issue, and refuse to discuss or debate with an open mind, preventing them from altering or changing their viewpoint even a little.
and further:
I had heard much about SCCOR and decided to go to the debate Tuesday to see what this group was all about and at the same time learn about the candidates running for Sen. Adams seat. To be honest, based on what I had already heard from some of their people, I was hoping I was wrong about them. I wasn’t. What I found out is that they have a narrow point of view in their world of politics. There does not appear to be any room for a difference of opinion, a different point of view, or a slight variation of any kind and I was very disappointed.
and finally:
They are another, “my way or the highway” group and while I do agree with them on some issues, if they refuse to discuss everything on the table, they will be ineffective. The law of life and nature is when you stop learning and growing, you die, so will SCCOR if they don’t open their minds up.
Organizations such as SCCOR exist because they have a set of values and beliefs which they seek to promote. There should be no surprise that their point of view would be the only one considered. They don’t pretend to be a group that is impartial.
If they were, say, a news organization which would seem to just report the news without an agenda, then all sides should be considered, and the lack thereof should be criticized. SCCOR is not that type of organization.
Should there be criticism of a one-sided group such as Planned Parenthood, who hold to the idea that killing unborn children is OK? They are also another “my way or the highway” group which would refuse to discuss anything against their idea. No one would argue that they have been ineffective in their mission and ideas. They are very closed-minded, refusing to open their minds to the idea that promoting abortion is the promotion of killing children. I am sure you can find other organizations like Planned Parenthood who do the same thing.
SCCOR promoting their point of view should not be a surprise. It should be expected.
(crossposted on That’s Elbert)
I couldn’t agree more. The group will become inneffective when it ceases to have a unifying purpose. That does not mean that it will not change or “grow”. It does mean that it has fundamental principles which animate its existence. We need more of that not less of it in politics.
Some of the most ‘rigged’ debates I have ever seen were run by the allegedly non-partisan (but reliably left of center) League of Women Voters.
How many debates are free and open and allow true public input?
How many elected officials shy from debates?
Any organization that considers their principles sacrosanct to the point where they are closed-minded to other views, even in a debate, is in trouble because they will basically attract only those who a priori accept these principles. In this sense, SCCOR is much like a religion, in this case a Christian religion. They are therefore absolutists.
Steve Newton has run up the red flag on what he calls “Christianists”. These people seek power so they can dispense same in a trickle down manner to whomever they so choose. They want the church to be the state.
For an interesting comment, check out Steve’s piece here:
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/07/ok-this-is-domination-and-congressional.html
There is good reason why SCCOR likes the idea of calling themselves a ‘regiment’, folks: Onward Christian Soldiers! They should keep their religion to themselves!!
There were a couple of debates, or forums leading up to the 08 Primaries and Presidential election that were agenda driven. There was a values voter one on the right and there was an AFL-CIO debate on the right, not to mention both had Spanish language debates which had an obvious foucus. The tradition of special interests hosting debates and focusing on issues important to them was established before SCOR did it.
My neighborhood watch hosted a city council debate and even that was focused on two issues parking and the proposed Dover library. We definitely had an agenda at our meeting too, and at times it made both candidates squirm a little. I can’t say that bothered me too much.
For the sake of the post, I will add in the remainder of the correspondence:
The person’s response:
Of course a group of like minds has an agenda. They should nevertheless have open minds, because they just might need to adjust or adapt their agenda in oder to pursue it. Nobody is 100% right all the time and to think that one idea is the only one with merit is insulting to say the least. In order to promote you must be able to defend and if you can’t justify your agenda, if you don’t explore the other side, if you don’t allow open discussion, you will fail. I have heard two definitions of “Politics”; a. Politics is the art of compromise, b. Politics is the art of the possible. Both apply in this case and SCCOR needs to stop and think about this, because Ladies & Gentleman of SCCOR, this is the Political arena you are entering. Every issue will stand or fall on it’s own merits and there are always two sides. Listen, discuss and learn and then see what success you have.
And my reply:
A candidate’s debate is no place for hashing out what an organization’s core values are. If those that lead SCCOR need to discuss their core values, then they will have that at a meeting outside of events such as that. It’s SCCOR’s prerogative to stand where they do on various issues. If someone disagrees with their beliefs, then that person should join them and persuade them otherwise. That someone could also form another organization that supports their views.
To close this matter, an organization cannot stand for two opposing views. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
To be clear, I am not a member of or involved with SCCOR, nor do I speak for their fine organization.
Perry,
Your rant about “Christianists” has really nothing to do with this discussion. That should be taken up on another post. The real issue is that someone wanted to gripe about SCCOR having positions and sticking by them. If that makes SCCOR absolutists then so be it. They fall into the same category with every radical left wing group you can find.
As an example, I seriously doubt you’ll find real “open minded” people in Planned Parenthood or any of their ilk. There will be no discussion with them on their platform or what they believe. They are “open” to being closed for discussion, absolutists indeed.
If SCCOR is wrong for standing for what they believe, then there are a lot of other organizations that are wrong too.