Two viewpoints writers debate the merits of Tim Scott's return to Congress
Yes: Ben Turner
Last Tuesday, Tim Scott won four more years of service as South Carolina’s junior United States Senator. His election made headlines across the country, as he is the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction.
But what makes Scott extraordinary is not his race but his attitude and ideas.
Despite the historic nature of his position, Scott often dismisses race-related questions. He has chosen not to join the Congressional Black Caucus, and has taken the high road after being attacked by the NCAAP.
Such issues are common for black Republicans, as they are accused of supporting policies that negatively affect African-Americans. However, rather than be dragged into the muck of race-based politics, Scott has chosen to fight on a different fault line: class.
Scott’s main policy proposal is the Opportunity Agenda, a package of programs aimed at reducing poverty through job training and improving education. While most U.S. Senators are all talk and no action, Scott has proposed concrete ideas that would be good for a large number of South Carolinians suffering under a stagnant economy.
He’s also done a listening tour of the state, bagging groceries, volunteering and riding the bus . He seeks to connect with everyday people and their problems, recognizing that some need specific things to advance their station in life.
This is what our American democracy is all about: we need leaders who will listen to all their constituents’ concerns, not just those who donate to their campaign or have power and influence. Most of the time when politicians do these things, it’s for a photo-op. But Scott seems to genuinely enjoy these outings and has used them to back up the need for his Opportunity Agenda.
For Republicans struggling with an image that they are insensitive to the concerns of minorities and the poor, Scott hits both issues out of the park.
An issue that African-Americans face is economic disparity compared to other races, and this is an issue that can be addressed without politically difficult issues like affirmative action, judicial reform or making race the central issue.
For a person like me who generally supports Democratic candidates, Scott represents the best the Republican Party has to offer.
Rather than representing politics as usual, he seeks to change the status quo while still holding to his personal convictions.
He offers the Republican mantra about personal responsibility as the most important ingredient to success by drawing upon his own "up-by-the-bootstraps" personal story but concedes that the government can have some role in helping people achieve their goals.
No: Ross Abbott
At the ripe age of 49 and serving his first elected Senate term, Scott doesn’t quite fit in with his friends in the Republican “old guard”: Mitch McConnell, John McCain, John Boehner and South Carolina’s other senator Lindsey Graham. What he lacks in wrinkles and grey hair, though, he makes up for in enthusiasm for their antiquated ideas.
According to his website, Scott stands for “traditional conservative values.” He believes that the government should be “protecting our right to religious freedom” by forcing the so called “traditional” Christian definition of life onto everyone and banning abortion and the “traditional” Christian definition of marriage onto everyone by maintaining South Carolina’s gay marriage ban.
I can understand where he’s coming from on these issues — if I can’t use the government to push my religious values onto other people and send them to prison if they disagree, how can I ever exercise my religious freedom?
And while Scott says that “[s]ince Roe v. Wade, more than 50 million Americans have never had the opportunity to touch our soil, and that is a tremendous tragedy,” he also voted against the Senate’s immigration reform bill , which simplifies the naturalization process and allows more people already living on American soil to become Americans.
Apparently all people deserve a chance at the American dream, unless by “people” you mean “living, breathing, feeling humans who were born in places other than the US” and not “balls of cells that are not living, breathing, or feeling.”
Speaking of bills he’s voted for, here’s his record on some other key pieces of legislation (and what the bill would do):
Paycheck Fairness Act (increase protections against gender discrimination in wages): Nay
Student Loan Affordability Act (self-explanatory): Nay
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (extends previously set domestic violence protections that are set to expire): Nay
No Budget, No Pay Act (would dock the pay of Congressmen until they do their job and pass a budget): Nay
And of course, while Scott has an entire section of his website devoted to “fighting big government” , he also “doesn’t really know what $5.6 billion gets you in a… fight against ISIS” .
What we really need to combat is out of control government spending, not another “long term” Middle Eastern conflict, the kind that makes $5.6 billion look like a drop in a bucket.
Until Tim Scott and the rest of the establishment Republicans learn that a government cannot be small while following consenting adults into the bedroom, that we cannot rein in spending by cutting back on bread while purchasing thousands of bombs and that women, immigrants and LGBTQ individuals are at least (if not more) as human as fetuses, they will continue to lose the youth vote.
And for good reason.