What's In The News

Turn on any television station, or go to any news site, and the biggest political stories will understandably revolve around the taking of the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party.

Indeed, news outlets are pondering many important questions such as who the next Speaker of the House will be, what we can expect to see from the next Congress, and how President Trump will react to the opposition party gaining power in Washington.

With this flurry of stories and information, it is easy for one to overlook a fascinating election which occurred in the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina, one which could provide valuable insight on the current political atmosphere of the United States.

The district, which covers much of the picturesque South Carolina Lowcountry, has been represented by former governor Mark Sanford since 2013. The outcome of the 2016 elections was excellent for the Republican Party in the Lowcountry, with the incumbent Sanford cruising to reelection with nearly 60% of the vote, and President Trump carrying the popular vote in the district by a comfortable margin of 13%.

While it is true that the district trended towards Hillary Clinton in 2016, it remains nonetheless very favorable to Republicans, and the 2018 elections seemed likely to result in a comfortable win for the Republican nominee. However, this particular election ended in a stunning upset for Democrat Joe Cunningham over Republican Katie Arrington, with Cunningham pulling off a narrow win and turning the Lowcountry blue for the first time since 1981.

To understand this sudden change in electoral fortunes, we have to go back several months, to the district’s Republican primary.

Let's Go Back a Bit

Katie Arrington was never supposed to be the district’s GOP nominee. Mark Sanford, who was South Carolina’s former governor and had already been elected to his district twice (winning with over 90% of the vote in 2014 as he lacked an opponent), had a fairly strong reputation in the Lowcountry. Where Sanford (to his chagrin) did not have such a strong reputation was among the ardently pro-Trump Republican base.

Indeed, Sanford did have his fair share of criticisms of the President.

In mid-2016, the libertarian-leaning Sanford, claimed that then-nominee Trump had a serious lack of knowledge in regards to the Constitution and was “long on hyperbole and short on facts.” Sanford had also criticized President Trump on civility grounds, arguing that he had contributed to the atmosphere of intolerance in the country.

When it came to policy, there were also areas where Sanford was critical of Trump. On trade, he called Trump’s plan to tax steel and aluminum imports “an experiment with stupidity,” and had consistently opposed the protectionist measures of the administration. However, one of the most important areas of disagreement between Sanford and Trump (as it relates to the GOP primary) was over offshore drilling.

In early 2018, the Trump administration proposed a dramatic expansion of offshore drilling along the Atlantic coast. The drilling, which was previously not allowed, would begin as soon as 2020 and would likely last more than a decade. Understandably, countless elected officials along the Atlantic coast, and particularly in South Carolina, came out strongly against the proposal.

The reason for this opposition in the Palmetto State is obvious: coastline tourism is a massive economic boon to South Carolina, generating about $20 billion a year for the state. This thriving industry would be seriously threatened by any drilling expansion, and thus, is extremely unpopular among coastal politicians - Sanford being no exception.

Leading a rally outside the South Carolina State House, Sanford criticized Trump directly, asking “If you can’t see an oil rig from the window in Mar-a-Lago, should you see one from the window at Pawleys Island?” Surely, one would think, this position must be a political winner for any politician in the Lowcountry? Well, in the long run it would prove to be, but that will be discussed later.

For Mark Sanford however, this position spelled trouble in the Republican primary.

Mark Sanford, an anti-Trumper?

In looking at Sanford’s anti-Trump positions, freshman South Carolina State House Representative Katie Arrington saw an opportunity. In a Republican Party in which loyalty to Donald Trump was becoming an increasingly central tenet, Arrington felt that Sanford was vulnerable, and launched a campaign challenging Sanford in the GOP primary.

Arrington made loyalty to Trump central to her campaign, and hammered Sanford as a “Never Trumper,” claiming that she wanted to “drain the swamp and send Mark Sanford home from the beltway.” So was what Arrington saying true? Was Mark Sanford truly an ardent anti-Trumper?

Not even slightly.

The simple truth is that, like most other elected Republican officials, most of the opposition of Mark Sanford to Donald Trump was largely theatrical. On trade, Sanford’s position was derived from an ideological free-market conviction, and he would likely have spoken out against tariffs regardless of what president proposed them.

But furthermore, control over trade policy is largely in control of the executive branch, and there was very little Sanford could actually do from his position.

Thus, it can be said that Sanford’s opposition on this issue and many others was merely verbal, and not through action. The same could be said of Sanford’s criticisms of Trump’s civility and knowledge of the Constitution. In reality, Mark Sanford has voted in line with Donald Trump’s positions on legislation 72% of the time, hardly making him an anti-Trump firebrand.

Furthermore, what opposition Sanford did show to Trump was largely based off of both his own beliefs (trade) and the overwhelming views of his constituents (offshore drilling). When it came to offshore drilling, however, Arrington came out in support of the president’s proposal.

One would think that this would harm Arrington in the primary, but in a reflection of the sheer pro-Trump zealotry among the Republican base, it did not.

On the day of the primary election, Arrington received a final assist from President Trump himself, who tweeted out support for her campaign. In the tweet, Trump claimed that Sanford was “nothing but trouble” and was “better off in Argentina” (a reference to Sanford’s infamous disappearance to that country with a mistress in 2009).

Arrington’s strategy of extreme loyalty to Trump worked, and she narrowly defeated Sanford in June 2018.

On to the General

So we come to the general election, which pitted Arrington against Democrat Joe Cunningham. Throughout the primary, Arrington touted her undying support for Trump, and shared the belief of many staunch Trump-supporters that this was a winning electoral strategy.

Well, at least for Arrington, it certainly was not.

Almost immediately into the general election, Arrington recognized the unpopularity of her pro-drilling position, and was forced to flip and come out against the administration’s proposal. Cunningham, a political novice with a background in ocean engineering, opposed President Trump’s proposal early, and criticized Arrington heavily on it.

This stance garnered him the support of many Republican local politicians in the district, who endorsed Cunningham over Arrington. Arrington’s loyalty to Trump hurt her case even more when during a debate with Cunningham, she adopted the administration tactic of obfuscating over the impact of humans on climate change. Rising sea levels, which climate change will cause, are a massive concern among residents of all stripes in the South Carolina Lowcountry.

Despite being the overwhelming favorite to win an election in a fairly red district (Five Thirty Eight gave Arrington a 90% chance of victory), Katie Arrington was defeated on election night by Joe Cunningham in a massive upset.

The Takeaway

So what is the big lesson of this story? The answer to this question is simple: Trumpism has its limits. Loyalty to Donald Trump may be increasingly paramount in Republican primary elections, with even very conservative politicians such as Mark Sanford being viewed as heretics for their perceived lack of Trump support (albeit in Sanford’s case, this “opposition” to Trump was largely overblown).

However, once one leaves the world of Republican politics and moves to the general American populace, they see that loyalty to the President is not everything.

Many citizens are far more likely to support taxes at the local level, where taxation’s benefits can be viewed first-hand. Similarly, when the people of the Lowcountry saw what the effects of one of the Trump administration’s policies would do to their communities, they rejected the candidate who supported that administration.

This whole episode demonstrates the hubris of the most die-hard Trump supporters. This hubris was best emphasized by their belief that there were more Americans which valued loyalty to Donald Trump as much as they did, far more than there actually were.

This view was compounded by the arrogant belief that such loyalty to the President should override the economic and environmental concerns of the Lowcountry, and by extension the United States.

Back in June, Katie Arrington claimed that “Having somebody in Washington with the backbone to stand with our president was something that people in South Carolina wanted." It is true that the people of South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District wanted someone with a backbone - but not to stand for the President’s interests - to stand for theirs.