Look out, South Carolina! A new candidate for governor will change the face of our state. This person is a maverick, never afraid to stand up to the establishment in Columbia and is in touch with the working class, despite being a very white and affluent native. If you vote for this suit-clad individual, they will reduce the size of government, along with your taxes, and promise to kowtow to the Trump administration you most likely voted for in 2016!
Of course, this description can apply to any Republican candidate in the South Carolina primary election. June 12's Republican primary ended in a runoff between incumbent Henry McMaster and outsider John Warren. The governor’s primary is considered significant because in a red state like South Carolina, the Republican candidate will most certainly win the overall election in November.
In short, whoever wins the primary on June 26 wins the governor’s seat.
Keep in mind that the primary was between five candidates on the Republican side. In addition to McMaster and Warren, there was the "Conservative Buzzsaw" Catherine Templeton, who generated controversy by airing a campaign commercial featuring the candidate gunning down an endangered rattlesnake with a .38 revolver. As one could guess from her unique nickname, Templeton campaigned on the promise of cutting corruption, taxes and bureaucracy from Columbia in a similar fashion to John Warren.
In fact, Templeton only lost to Warren by about six percentage points. The other two candidates, Kevin Bryant and Yancey McGill, took home a combined 8.5 percent of the votes, making their campaigns negligible compared to the big three.
So, what is the real difference in policy goals and ideology in this Neapolitan ice cream group of candidates?
John Warren, according to his website, is out to stop the corruption in Columbia, protect the Second Amendment and stop abortion in the state. Curiously, Warren advocates for less government spending while also claiming to support funding for education, two principles that seem to be squarely contradictory to each other.
Warren is also keen to mention his military service at every corner to emphasize his leadership skills. His campaign sign-up form also has the words “Enlist now” in block text as the send button, almost insinuating that supporting him is more akin to a military service than a political statement.
Catherine Templeton was the female choice this year, and although she did not make it to the runoff, she still was one of the three main choices. Like Warren, Templeton made a big deal about corruption in Columbia and education in the state. It is clear that she could tell where the wind was blowing by some of her other positions, namely her call to protect the Conservative Revolution that is being undermined by people who disrespect the flag and women who get abortions.
Templeton also makes an interesting juxtaposition when she claims to be for cutting government, while championing using the firing squad on death row inmates to speed their demise and presumably save taxpayer money. For some reason, when I think of firing squads, I think of nation states in the neighborhood of, say, Maoist China during the Cultural Revolution, or Nazi Germany summarily executing French partisans. Not exactly shining examples of limited government, in my opinion.
McMaster, the most vanilla of the three, was the obvious choice for governor. He's the incumbent after ascending to the seat when former Gov. Nikki Haley left to be U.N. Ambassador. His policies were similar to that of his opponents, which amounted to a tired retread of conservative talking points.
While I have you here, I’d like to share a small issue I have with our state’s dearly-held conservative principles. Each of the major candidates promised to reduce government in some form, which brings us to my criticism of this concept. “Reduce government” has been a conservative catchphrase since the Reagan years and remains a potent campaign slogan. My problem with this is that the statement is too broad and lacks any nuance. Government, to me, is not just one big mafia-style organization; it has factions that sometimes work against each other.
Let’s say a candidate wants to end corruption in the state. Well, if corruption is uncovered, those responsible would be indicted, and maybe an oversight committee would be created to prevent further corruption, thus making government bigger.
Conservatives that are so desperate to keep semi-automatic rifles to fight a future tyrannical government also pledge undying support for the rights of police officers, who would theoretically be the fighting arm of that tyrannical government.
Lowering taxes seems like a good idea, but when the federal deficit increased over one trillion dollars because of Trump’s policies, maybe it’s time to reconsider the nature of fiscal conservatism in 2018.
The only instances in which the whole “reduce government” idea works is for regulation and ending social services, which I think is just a way for the wealthy to convince the working class to vote against their self-interest.
This year’s primary was not necessarily a battle of slightly-dissimilar positions; rather, it was a footrace to see who could be the most Trumpian. Both Warren and Templeton portrayed themselves to be “outsiders” to the Columbia political sphere and both included policies in favor of securing the border, a curious choice considering South Carolina does not straddle the border with Mexico and, therefore, would be less able to secure the border than states that do.
McMaster was no stranger to showing off Trump’s support of his campaign, citing the President’s speech at the top of his “Meet Henry” page on his website. I wouldn’t put it past any of the candidates to get a bad spray tan and blonde wig if it meant victory.
Clearly McMaster’s credentials are helping his campaign, as he was only 8 percent shy of a victory. The runoff between himself and Warren is scheduled for June 26, and I predict a McMaster victory. This election represents a major issue with democracy, namely that it generates the illusion of choice. No matter who wins the runoff, the next governor will have the same ideology and pass the same legislation as all the rest. It doesn’t matter if you voted for chocolate, strawberry or vanilla, everyone still gets ice cream.