What Alan Wilson is irresponsibly promising to do.
As y’all know, I supported Alan Wilson fairly enthusiastically in the gubernatorial primary this year. And it wasn’t just because all the other Republicans seeking the office were grossly unacceptable (which they were).
I’ve known Alan for years, and I like him. I think he’s done a pretty good job as attorney general, setting aside the frequent dumb things he’s said and done because Republicans have to say and do such things in the Trump era if they want to continue to hold office.
Of course, the general election is different, since Jermaine Johnson seems like a pretty good guy, even though I worry about his lack of experience (he’s only held public office since 2021, while Wilson has held statewide office — a much bigger deal than a House seat — since 2011).
Because of that dearth of experience, I don’t know 1 percent as much about Johnson as I know about Wilson.
I’ve gone back and forth about this vote. I have no serious objections to Johnson (perhaps because I don’t know much about him, but he seems a decent guy), and quite a few I can point to with regard to Wilson. But I do know two things about Wilson:
- Overall, Wilson has the experience and skills, from all those years, to be an effective governor — despite the fact that I know that, as a Republican in the Trump era, he will do things he shouldn’t now and then.
- Johnson — someone I knew nothing about before this year (and I haven’t learned much this year) — simply has not had the opportunity to show he can get things done on any level, much less the gubernatorial level. He could go into office (if he could get elected) with all the best intentions in the world. But could he translate those intentions into action? I seriously doubt it, particularly with this Legislature.
Note that parenthetical point, “if he could get elected.” Based on everything I know about South Carolina, he can’t.
That offers me the opportunity to do something I have seldom done in my career as a voter: Vote for him as a gesture of protest.
I did that in my first election as a voter. I voted for George McGovern, even though he had convinced me he would be a lousy president. He had run a terrible, hopeless campaign, and if you can’t campaign well, you can’t run the country. And I haven’t forgiven him yet for the way he dumped Tom Eagleton, after pledging to back him “a thousand percent.”
So the obvious thing to do was vote for Nixon. He was able to do the job. But by November 1972, I was convinced that he was involved, somehow, in Watergate — even though all the evidence was far from in.
Fortunately, I knew Nixon would win. So I voted for McGovern, knowing he would lose. It was purely a protest: Yeah, Dick, you’re gonna win, but you won’t have my vote.
I did pretty much the same thing in 1996, with the parties switched, of course. I liked a lot of things about Bob Dole, but his campaign was a disaster (apparently his skills as a senator did not translate well into campaigning for the executive branch), so I was faced with the same problem as with McGovern — how could he be an effective president? But I was getting fed up with Bill Clinton, for a number of reasons — one of the big ones being how he had failed to achieve anything on his signature issue, health care reform.
But overall, Clinton was fairly effective, whereas Dole was incompetent as a candidate. Dole was such a lame candidate that even though I had written a number of columns and editorials supporting him, when it came time to make the final endorsement, I told then-Editorial Page Editor Tom McLean that I couldn’t write that edit. I could not in good conscience tell our readers that he would be a better president. So Tom wrote it himself.
But I voted for him. Why? Because I was sure he would lose. The vote was purely a protest about Clinton. Just one less vote he would get on his way to victory.
So… I could do the same thing here, right? Vote for Johnson, even though I’m convinced Wilson would be more effective in office, as a protest against all the things Wilson has done to keep the Trumpists off his back. And I could do this because I feel sure Johnson will lose.
However, I changed my mind about “protest votes” in 2016. I saw a lot of conventional Republicans, convinced that Trump couldn’t possibly get elected president of the United States of America, vote for him anyway because they despised Hillary Clinton. As a protest. I’m convinced he couldn’t have have won the general election otherwise. (Before you shout out, “but practically ALL Republicans slavishly support Trump now!”… Yes, that’s true. Maybe I’ll write a separate post sometime — this one is long enough — explaining why that has happened. But it was not the case in 2016.)
As it turned out, that was NOT a safe “protest vote,” and what they did has done, quite likely, irreparable harm to our great nation.
Our country has become so split down the middle since 1996 that ANY candidate who wins one of the two major-party nominations goes into the general election with a 50-50 chance of winning, even if he’s the worst possible candidate in the world. We know that that now because that’s exactly what happened in both 2016 and 2024.
So… I decided never again to do what I did in 1972 and 1996. No more protest votes, because either candidate can win now.
So for a time, I was decided that I would vote for the better-qualified candidate this year. And that’s Alan Wilson. As likable as Jermaine Johnson is, I don’t think he’s ready. And while conventional wisdom indicates he won’t win, you can never be sure. There’s been a lot of talk this year about a “blue wave.” Well, I dunno about that. I think Trump’s troubles mean that Republicans are likely to suffer more than usual in this “midterm,” but will it be enough to elect a little-known Democrat over a veteran Republican as governor of South Carolina? I seriously doubt it. But I can’t be sure, can I?
So I’ve been planning to vote for Wilson. No protest. That was settled in my mind until I started noticing this ad over and over in recent weeks:
The main message is, “I will eliminate the state income tax. Not cut it, ELIMINATE it.”
Well, it’s pretty inexcusable for a guy who seems a shoo-in to win to be touting such a stupid, pandering gesture as that so late in the campaign.
Various Republicans have been trying for about 30 years to ditch the income tax, and fortunately have failed. In case you don’t know already, here are two things you should consider about this apparent promise:
- As with all campaign promises of the “I will magically make this happen; count on it” variety, he cannot guarantee such a thing. The governor of South Carolina has no more constitutional power to make such a thing happen than you or I do. That’s up to the Legislature — which has up to now rejected the idea, thank goodness. He can lobby the Legislature to do it — and lobby more effectively than you or I can — but he can’t DO it on his own.
- Even if he COULD do it, it’s a very bad idea. As weak a leg as our low state income tax is, we still do have a conventional three-legged tax stool in South Carolina. Eliminating it would destabilize our tax base to a dangerous degree — state government would be almost entirely dependent upon the volatile sales tax. No one who believes in responsible government would consider doing such a thing. Of course, most voters — who don’t understand the ins and outs of how government works — think it sounds great. But it is the responsibility of an experienced officeholder to know better. That is an essential principle underlying representative democracy.
Touting something like that so late in a campaign that he already seems sure to win is completely unacceptable.
So I don’t know how I’m going to vote now.
Alan enthusiastically joined the Ken Paxton led stupid lawsuit trying to invalidate the votes of millions of Americans. Alan went on a local radio station in Columbia and defended his position that millions of American votes should be thrown out, discarded because of his allegiance to Donald Trump.
Even some of our esteemed “Conservative” legal minds (including a few around here) tried to twist themselves into knots trying to Trump-splain the suit as legit and a common sense move.
Alan should have been embarrassed and humiliated by that decision, especially when it was laughed out of court, which was always going to be the outcome.
I still remember Alan ignoring someone pointing how the hypocrisy of such a move and how would have Alan reacted if California had sued to invalidate the votes of South Carolina citizens in a federal election.
I’d slap myself so hard I’d end up in the hospital if I ever had to vote for someone like that.
When I refer to “the frequent dumb things he’s said and done because Republicans have to say and do such things in the Trump era if they want to continue to hold office,” I’m thinking specifically of his joining in with lawsuits like that.
Of course, this trend started before Trump. For the last decade or two, it’s become shockingly habitual for Republican state AGs to join together in suing the federal government — when we have a Democratic president. The suits are all about party politics, not the law.
But now, with Trumpism, we have extreme things such as this case. It’s one thing to sue to stop, say, the Affordable Care Act. I suppose it’s not nuts to question the law’s legal basis. It’s wrong, but not nuts.
But this kind of denial of human rights goes to lengths that are distinctly Trumpian…
Voting for Wilson may not lead to the immediate elimination of the state income tax, but it makes it more likely that it will eventually happen. Because there are lots of Irresponsible Party members in the State House who favor that very thing. Some of them even call themselves political moderates – though that label clearly changed meaning as that party gained an ever-larger majority. Others still think a flat tax is the way to go, because, as one of them says, it makes everybody “have skin in the game,” i.e. pay some tax. I can’t help but wonder if he doesn’t think state gas taxes and sales taxes (or FICA taxes) are, y’know, taxes, too. Tax cuts have become practically the sole remaining pole in the Republican Party tent. They hustle tax cuts like dealers of chocolate-covered meth.
The disturbing thing — well, one of the disturbing things — is that he doesn’t even TRY to explain how he will continue to fund state government at the pitiful levels it is now funded. No mention of doubling or tripling sales taxes.
Fortunately for him, he doesn’t need to. The kinds of voters to whom such a promise appeals don’t give a damn about funding government. They just don’t want to pay taxes. Their thoughts don’t go to how. Of course, they’re not terribly thoughtful people…
To take that to another level… our system doesn’t require them to think deeply. That’s one of the great weaknesses of our system — or any system that allows universal suffrage.
Representative democracy works well — and did work pretty well until 2016, although it was fraying in those last couple of decades — when we have what our country had when I was young. We had people in government who generally agreed that we needed government to some extent, and were serious about it. The different factions just disagreed as to HOW to structure and run and fund a responsible, effective government. People like that could and did find ways to work together toward solutions that might not completely satisfy any one of them, but was a decent consensus approach that kept the government operating.
But once they stopped caring whether the government worked or not, and once voters stopped noticing that about them — something that has happened in the current communications environment — our system was doomed. That’s the situation in which we find ourselves today…
“They hustle tax cuts like dealers of chocolate-covered meth.”
Brilliant description!
And as for this:
“Our country has become so split down the middle”
here’s what scholars of polarization have to say about that:
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/1001900
Riffing a bit more on this line: “Touting something like that so late in a campaign that he already seems sure to win is completely unacceptable.”…
This is reminding me a bit of Nixon. The Watergate caper, breaking into Democratic HQ, was of course both legally and morally wrong.
‘
It was also nuts. An unnecessary risk. Why do something this extreme, this crazy, when it’s obvious to everyone in the country that you’re going to win the election anyway?
No, Alan Wilson isn’t doing anything illegal. He’s just pushing a horrible idea that would be harmful to South Carolina. Pushing it hard. It seems like I see this ad whenever I turn the TV on, whether on an old-school broadcast station (which I don’t do often) or trying to read or watch something online.
Maybe he believes the stuff Democrats keep saying about a “blue wave.” But still, legality and morality and responsibility aside, it seems as unnecessary as the break-in was in 1972.
I agree with Barry that joining the amicus brief of Ken Paxton (T-TX) was an example of sheer dumbassedness. Wilson has continued to exhibit dumbassedness with amicus briefs with other Trumpian attorneys general.
I classify Alan Wilson as a Trump sycophant. For twelve years, he’s been preening himself for a Trump endorsement. Joining other Trumpian attorneys general with amicus briefs opposing anything Biden did and supporting everything Trump did. How did that go? Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette. Trump, perhaps sensing a possible loss and wanting to be seen as a king,maker, issued a co-endorsement for Wilson. The Tennessee Ernie Ford song, Sixteen Tons, seems appropriate for Wilson’s toil and labor. “… Another day older and deeper in debt. … I owe my soul to the company store.”
I averaged the winning percentage of the past three gubernatorial races and the winning percent average was 56%. I’ve been saying that Trump is not President of the United States of America; he is President of the Divided States of America. I wonder if Wilson will serve all citizens of South Carolina, or just those that voted for him.
As for Alan’s daddy, I haven’t voted for Joe Wilson (T-SC2) ever since he embarrassed South Carolina. He ran unopposed one year. I voted using write-in.
I voted for the loser of the Nixon – McGovern race. I just won’t reveal who I voted for. I was on the air at WUSC-AM, the student run radio station of USC, when Spiro Agnew resigned.
Comparing Trump to Nixon, Nixon is a saint.
Trumpers and Trumpies are fond of tossing out TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome. I’ve recently noticed a new syndrome, Trump Fatigue Syndrome.
Which of these states would you say are worse off than SC in terms of economy, quality of life, infrastructure?
Nine U.S. states have no traditional state personal income tax:
• Alaska
• Florida
• Nevada
• New Hampshire (does not tax earned wages, and has phased out investment/interest taxes)
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Washington (does not tax regular wage income, though it levies a tax on certain high-earner capital gains)
There’s no magic 3 leg tax stool that results in better outcomes. If we can’t eliminate the income tax, we should switch to single rate first tax that kicks in at 100k with no deductions, exemptions, or any other loopholes one number in, one number out. File on one postcard.. everything else is nonsense.
We could raise some tax revenue by eliminating the exemption newspapers have had from sales taxes in SC. How that ever made it into the tax law is baffling. It’s a product. Not a necessity.
The total print-specific revenue (combining circulation/subscriptions and hardcopy print advertising) for all local newspapers across South Carolina is estimated to be roughly $50 million to $70 million annually.
So we could generate at least $3 million with the stroke of a pen to eliminate the exemption. We could also raise the cap on auto and boat sales from $500 to $1000 and add $200 million in revenue. That alone could eliminate the state income tax for 100,000 average SC taxpayers.
You think you’re gonna get ANY substantial amount of money out of NEWSPAPERS? Wow. Were you planning on using a time machine, and going back about 50 years?
I”m glad you’re not in charge of raising revenue from South Carolina. Say what you will about bank robber Willie Sutton. At least he knew where the money was….
See, when you don’t think increasing tax revenue by 3 million dollars with a single, simple change then maybe you might not be the right person to discuss taxes. A million here, a million there… no big deal.
I could balance SC’s budget in a week. But then all the pigs at the trough would squeal.
So could I. So could anyone. Hell, I could balance the federal budget if you gave me a whole WEEK.
All you need is absolute power. Give that to ONE person, and you get immediate decisions based on what THAT person thinks is best.
But as I’ve said to you so very, very many times, we don’t have that kind of system. We have a system that means all sorts of people have to be satisfied. And few representatives will vote for a budget that ditches that they consider to be essential. And for everyone you meet, those “don’t touch” things tend to be something different.
And if they were asked, most American would refuse to change from this to a system of oh-so-efficient enlightened despotism.
Their loss. I think I’d do a pretty good job in that role. And I know you believe you would…