Tim Scott 2024 Would be a Terrible Idea

The Reality Doesn't Measure Up to the Hype

Tim Scott has been in the news an awful lot lately. Relatively young and (more importantly in todays political climate!) black, Scott at first seems to tick many of the boxes the GOP needs to fill to prevail in the next presidential election: He's obviously well spoken, delivering a blistering criticism of Bidens first speech to congress. This speech reminded me of Obamas keynote speech long ago which foreshadowed his entry into the 2008 election, and honestly, at the very least, it would not surprise me if Scott makes a run (especially if Trump sits out the election.) He isn't tainted by any apparent major scandals- quite an accomplishment in an era when everything and anything ever done or said by a person can come back to haunt them if their opponents are motivated enough to dig deeply.

However a cursory glance at the mans' apparent views shows a politician who, while intelligent and rhetorically talented, would be in my opinion a poor choice to field in 2024. Let us examine a few of Tim Scott's views and ask if this conforms to the current political paradigm and whether he could capitalize on the momentum generated since 2016 by Donald Trump and thereafter by various compatriots and allies of his.

Unlike most Republicans, Scott maintains a fairly open religious bent in his politics. This is fine for the party loyal- but not so for independent voters. It's fine for South Carolina, where he serves, but extrapolating the platforms which work in the states, to a national level, works poorly (for an example, note that the Democrats widely despise Joe Manchin, while he continues to be re-elected over and over in West Virginia.) Scott opposes gay marriage and even attempted to preempt the federal definition of marriage with state power. But that is a lost and now dead social issue which the Republican Party has wisely distanced itself from. That would certainly be fodder for the Democrats were he nominated. It's a struggle Trump never really had to deal with since he was made it clear long ago that he considered the issue settled.

Scott also apparently supports continuing a US presence in Afghanistan, oddly putting him alongside Hillary Clinton of all people in the foreign policy department. Trump was no peacenik, but the Democrats could never nail him on being pro war, either. Any support Scott could potentially muster among millennials would like as not dissipate instantly in the presidential debates- specifically the second, which normally involves foreign policy- if this were to become an issue. True, if the US does withdraw (belatedly) from Afghanistan, and things fall apart, Scott could say "I told you so", but the presence we're maintaining in Afghanistan is so unpopular after two decades that such a "victory" would be unlikely to manifest itself as additional support.

Scott supports strengthening the border. He supports protecting the second amendment. He supports maintaining the Trump tax cuts and then some. He wants to reduce regulations on the energy sector. These are all commendable platforms... which happen to be shared by virtually all serious potential Republican candidates in the next presidential election. Fielding Tim Scott would be a thinly veiled attempt to out-Democrat the Democrats at their own game, taking the race card off the table. But it is difficult to win a game when one plays against its own designer, and the maneuver would be a virtual 180 from the anti-apologist strategem of the Trump era zeitgeist.