Taking the Blinders Off: An Interview about State and Local Politics with Political Scientist Ben Bailey

With a focus on women and the LGBTQ+ community in South Carolina

Today Hot Feminism hosts our second interview, with political scientist Ben Bailey. Ben is my colleague at Presbyterian College, and his research and teaching focus on state and local politics, public policy, environmental politics and policy, and public health policy, among others. It is truly a joy to work with Ben, and I highly recommend our Political Science department (and our Public Health Policy program that Ben directs) to any prospective college students. Many thanks to Ben for these thoughts, just in time for midterm elections (don’t forget to register to vote by October 9th in SC!).

Emily: Local and state politics often don't get the same media coverage as more national issues. How do you make the case that Americans should be invested in local and state political processes? 

Ben: No, they don’t and that’s a travesty! But it’s more than a travesty, really; it’s a sign that the mass media isn’t doing its democratic duty. I don’t blame them (local media outlets), though, given the real fiscal and technological challenges they face.

That being said, when I talk with my students about this “state/local–federal politics attention deficit disorder,” I often ask them to think about the number of direct and truly decision-limiting interactions they have with state and local officials, compared with federal officials in their daily lives. Their responses are revealing: outside of tax season very few people under 65 have regular interactions with federal officials. In fact, most of their experiences are with public sector officials–law enforcement, education, social services, etc.—at the state and local levels. Admittedly, this is a rather simplistic take, but it is illustrative of the fact that we seem to have blinders on for what goes on at state houses, in governors’ mansions, and state agencies. 

Emily: We're approaching mid-term elections... does this year feel different in light of the ongoing Trump scandals and the fall of Roe? 

Ben: I really think it does “feel” different from previous midterm election trends that go against the incumbent President’s party. The strategy that Chief Justice Roberts most often used to guide the court–one defined by deciding cases in non-precedent-threatening ways–was turned on its head this past term. This dramatic change in the way the Supreme Court approaches its jurisprudence seems to have activated and motivated voters. The fact that the outcome of the recent ballot measure election in Kansas, a red and sometimes purple state, reaffirmed state constitutional support for abortion access speaks volumes; it wasn’t even all that close! Kansans clearly wanted to send a signal to state leaders that voters want to protect reproductive rights. Nationally, generic Republican-Democratic preference measures have begun to lean in favor of the Democratic Party; if this trend holds, we may see something we haven’t seen since 2004–the incumbent President's party winning seats and/or maintaining control of Congress. This midterm election will be one for the history books, I suspect.

Emily: How have the debates about state abortion bans impacted South Carolina politics? I'm surprised to see a handful of SC senators like Tom Davis take more moderate stances on abortion restrictions. 

Ben: State level politics in South Carolina are an interesting affair. As most parties do that control state legislatures, the SC Republican Party has constructed a massive electoral advantage for themselves in drawing the State House and State Senate district lines (see: gerrymandering). So regardless of any national trends that may emerge favoring the Democratic Party, I expect the GOP to maintain their almost supermajority lock on the state general assembly. However, this recent legislative push to further restrict abortion access in South Carolina has revealed a not insignificant rift within the state GOP. The extreme stance on abortion restrictions that some of the GOP House and Senate members hold, does not seem to be as widely popular in their own ranks as expected. This is especially true in the State Senate; like you mention, Sens. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort), Katrina Shealy (R-Lexington), Sandy Senn (R-Charleston), and Penry Gustafson (R-Camden) all opposed the extreme restrictions on abortion put forward by members of their own caucus during the recent special session. In many ways, this reflects the long standing differences between the Upstate GOP and Midlands/Lowcountry GOP. This cleavage goes back to the turn of the 20th century at least. 

In my own view, I think Sen. Shealy represents one potential future for the SC Republican Party, one in which the party seeks to build a larger voting coalition than the one they currently maintain. Sen. Cash (R-Anderson) represents a more restrictive, Christian nationalist version of the party’s future. Which one actually comes to be is anyone’s guess!   

What of the SC Democratic Party? Even in a post-Dobbs political environment that may be more favorable to Democratic Party positions on abortion, it’s going to be difficult to get past both the gerrymandered map to make gains in the general assembly, and the broad 55(R)–45(D) split in voter support that exits (and has for at least a decade) in the state. But if some strategic choices are made among the party’s leadership, they may be able to eke out a few legislative wins by building an ad-hoc coalition with the moderate members of the GOP in the State House and Senate. If these legislators build trust and reciprocity among themselves, they may prove to be an influential voice in the general assembly in the future on similar issues.    

Emily: Many states have been rolling back LGBTQ rights. Can you give us an update on where things stand for these communities in the state? 

Ben: Speaking as a member of the South Carolina LGBTQ+ family, I’d have to say that I am deeply concerned about current and proposed policies targeting my community. I use the term targeting intentionally here because, as I tell my students, politics is ideally a process for solving genuine public problems. The state’s lack of investment in infrastructure, education, social services, public health, etc. is a real problem in South Carolina. These are the public problems we should be tackling, not pseudo-public problems like Drag Queen Story Hour or trans-athlete bans. Without significant pushback, it’s only a matter of time until bills like SC H4047 or SC H3581 are passed and signed into law. I expect a new round of similar anti-LGBTQ+ bills to be filed in the coming regular session in January 2023.

The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is a great resource for anyone interested in knowing how state policy impacts the LGBTQ+ community (for South Carolina, see here). Based on this organization’s research and the items I discuss above, I’d have to say that the environment facing LGBTQ+ people in South Carolina is currently suboptimal…to say the least. I fear that the vitriolic nature of some of the anti-trans and anti-LGBTQ+ public debates will not only impact policy but also give some individuals in our state the impression that open homophobia, transphobia, and bigotry is acceptable. 

But it’s not all doom-and-gloom! There are a number of organizations doing really good work in the state to improve the policy outlook, and to increase awareness of/support for the community (e.g., Upstate Pride SC, SC Equality, the Harriet Hancock Center). They need all the help they can get, so I say support them with your voice and your dollars.