WEEK BEFORE LAST, a legislative leader asked me what we would have to say about Gov. Mark Sanford’s idea of letting some public colleges go private if they so choose.

In his eye there was a sort of eager, insinuating gleam that seemed to say, “How are you going to deal with the fact that your boy Sanford has gone right smack over the edge?”

I answered noncommittally, because I still wasn’t sure. But anyone who read this page last Thursday now knows that we said letting Clemson University or other top schools go private was “a non-starter.”

Of course, the tricky thing about this issue was that it wasn’t really about privatization. The governor didn’t particularly care to see Clemson or The Citadel or anyone else take him up on his dare. The point was the dare itself. I liked that about it, which is why I was slow to join the editorial board’s consensus. But eventually I did. I agreed that the dare wasn’t worth the risk. What if Clemson did take all those assets the state has paid for and became a private institution? Without operating funds from the state (insufficient as that funding is), it would have to raise tuition far out of the reach of most South Carolinians.

So we rejected the idea, as did Clemson.

But that doesn’t seem to bother Mark Sanford. As he put it last week, when it comes to setting out ideas in the public sphere, there are two schools of thought. “One is very measured,” he said.

Under that approach, you pick out maybe two ideas, and before you come out with them, you make sure they will meet with broad approval. Then, when it comes out: “Debate is controlled. It’s not really a debate,” in fact.

“That’s not really my approach,” he said. “I say, let’s throw out twenty ideas,” just because he thinks they’re good ideas, not because they have any particular chance of being accepted.

“Let’s say five of them will be total flameouts.” Ten of the 20, however, will generate worthwhile discussion. Maybe he doesn’t get exactly what he wants, but the needle moves, and there’s progress.

Finally, “five will be absolute keepers.” Or maybe four. The way he looks at it, you don’t sweat the other 15 or 16, because you’re still ahead of the guy who took the measured approach. How? Because “instead of picking up two wins you’ll pick up four wins.”

“That’s frankly my approach,” he said. “It’s not something everybody feels comfortable with, but that’s part of who I am.”

“I love ideas, period,” he said. But he loves some of them more than others. In this case, he cares more about getting a board of regents or something like it to run public higher education in the state than how we get there.

You have to separate strategy from tactics, he said. The strategic goal, in this case, is to eliminate the duplication and lack of coordination in higher education.

To the governor, throwing out the privatization idea was just a way of making a point. The point was this: The institutions have been resisting vigorously the idea of a more coordinated governance system. Their attitude has essentially been, why should the state have more control when it’s giving us less money?

“We’re not saying privatize,” said Mr. Sanford. “What we’re saying is ... if this is just too coordinated for you, you have this safety valve.” In other words, if you don’t want to play by our rules, here’s the ball; go play someplace else. Interesting tactical maneuver. But the idea doesn’t seem to have caught on, with us or anyone else. My worry now is that this could set back the strategic goal, which is unquestionably a good one.

The governor shrugs that off. “There’s no way you’re getting a board of regents system in the present political environment,” he said. “There’s no movement afoot. What do you have to lose if you’ve already lost?”

Once again, interesting. But worrisome. The governor has several “keeper” ideas, and one of them is the board of regents. Another is restructuring the rest of state government. I worry he will endanger these by wasting political capital on his “flameouts.”

I understand his frustration.

There are times when the status quo is so unacceptable that it is necessary to do something extreme to shake it up, in the hope of creating a dynamic in which positive change can take place. Not often, but there are times.

I believe our nation’s mission in Iraq is one of those times. It’s risky, and much of the world thinks it’s crazy. But the status quo in the Mideast is intolerable — a breeding ground for terrorists determined to destroy us and all we stand for. That dynamic has to change. A viably democratic Iraq could be the positive shock to the system that the region needs.

After 138 years of our state lagging behind the rest of the nation, partly because our political system is so resistant to change, I see the need for shaking up the status quo and throwing out a few good ideas just as clearly as Mark Sanford does. I also see the need for some of those ideas to be translated into reality, which means I don’t think we can afford for our governor to go down swinging many more times.

Mr. Sanford is working on his budget proposal, which he now says won’t be ready until after Christmas. Rumor has it that this plan also contains a few bold ideas, although the governor himself is downplaying expectations, saying it is “overanticipated.”

I hope he’s wrong about that. I hope it will be worth the wait. More than that, I hope it won’t be another flameout. With our state’s financial situation, we need something more viable than that.

Write to Mr. Warthen at bwarthen@thestate.com.