THE NEXT SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA. On Tuesday, voters in South Carolina will choose a Republican nominee for the Senate to replace Sen. Lindsey Graham, who died of heart problems on July 11. There’s a good chance the race will go to a runoff, which will happen on Aug. 25.
There are several declared candidates, but three with a chance of winning. One is Darline Graham, the late senator’s sister, who surprised the state when, after the governor appointed her to fill out the last few months of Lindsey Graham’s term, she announced that she would also run for the full six-year term to come. The other two contenders are Republican members of the House, Reps. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and Russell Fry (R-SC). Expect the runoff to be some combination of two of the three.
Here’s the bigger point in this election. The next senator from South Carolina, whether it is Darline Graham, Ralph Norman, or Russell Fry, will be radically different from Lindsey Graham. Different in this way: the next senator will not share the fixation on foreign policy, and especially on military conflict, that marked Lindsey Graham’s 24 years in the Senate.
Do not expect a Sen. Norman, or a Sen. Fry, or a new Sen. Graham, to spend much time hanging out in Kyiv or Tel Aviv or Kabul. Don’t expect them to become close buddies with foreign presidents and prime ministers. Don’t expect them to take a leading role advocating for this or that new war. That’s just not their thing, nor will it be the top interest of the voters who send them to Washington. There’s no doubt, looking at their campaigns, that they are not seeking to become foreign policy/national security powerbrokers. And there’s no indication voters would want them to.
That brings up a question. How did Lindsey Graham get elected again and again while spending so much time on issues of war? This is anecdotal, but after talking with South Carolinians, the answer is that Graham’s voters strongly believed he delivered for South Carolina.
“Lindsey helped tons of towns and communities with fire trucks, water and sewer projects, etc. Even got a small town — Pacolet, S.C. — a police car,” notes Kevin Bishop, a longtime Lindsey Graham staffer. “The biggest thing, though, was military installations and the Port of Charleston. The port project doesn’t get done without Lindsey, and I think everyone in the know would tell you that. The port is so important to South Carolina, and at the start the deepening effort was on life support until he got some money to get it going. Then he pushed it harder than anyone. It will truly be one of his legacies.”
The “deepening” Bishop referred to was the decadelong project to dredge the Port of Charleston so it would be deep enough to accommodate massive so-called “Post-Panamax” cargo ships. There is no doubt the expansion has been a huge economic benefit for South Carolina, not just in the Charleston area but across the entire state.
That’s what people mean when they say Lindsey Graham delivered for South Carolina. The same goes for an enormous number of smaller spending projects throughout the state. It also goes for Graham’s impressive constituent service that could deliver things as small — but much appreciated — as a tour of the Capitol for South Carolinians visiting Washington.
So when voters cite Graham’s work for the state, they’re not talking about his close relationship with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They’re not talking about his advocacy for the Iran war. They’re not talking about his advocacy for a larger U.S. role in the Ukraine war. They’re not talking about the advocate about whom President Donald Trump said, at Graham’s funeral, no less, “I will tell you, he never saw a war that he didn’t like.”
It’s probably fair to say that many South Carolina voters never knew just how deeply involved Graham was in those matters. They just appreciated that he delivered for South Carolina.
Now Graham is gone and voters must decide who will replace him. And no one, not even his sister, is campaigning to replace the warrior side of Lindsey Graham. On the very day that she announced her candidacy to succeed her brother, Darline Graham told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that if she is elected, she will have different priorities. “I used to see him on the talk shows,” Darline Graham said. “And I’d be like, ‘Lindsey, are you just talking about national security all the time?’ And I understand that’s important. Protecting our borders, national security, absolutely. I said, ‘But talk about also what matters to the average person. The price of groceries, the price of gas, health care, insurance, those kind of things.’ That’s what I’m worried about.”
In her first commercial, Darline Graham described herself simply: “I’m a conservative Republican, and I believe this,” she said. “Every life is precious. Men don’t belong in women’s sports. And only American citizens should vote in our elections.”
As for the other contenders, in his closing statement at the candidates’ Aug. 3 debate, Rep. Fry stressed his support of Trump and said: “My mission is clear in the United States Senate. We need to keep men out of women’s sports. Pass the Save America Act. Increase energy production. Protect the rights of the unborn. Protect your Second Amendment rights. And put more money back in your pocket.”
At that same debate, Rep. Norman also stressed his support for Trump and closed by arguing that he is best prepared to stand up to “radical Democrats.” “I’ve got a solid 40-year business career, I’ve got a conservative record that is second to none by any rating agency,” Norman said. “I will go to the Senate and I will wake them up. I will stand up, and I will speak up because it can’t keep going like it’s going. And I will tell you, milquetoast moderates will not make it to get this country back to what we need. I’m tired of moderates… look at my record. You’ve seen me fight.”
This is not to say that the candidates — and South Carolina’s voters — do not support Trump’s military actions. They do, in keeping with a long tradition of support for the military. Polling for the race is all over the place, and recent experience in other states suggests caution is in order. But a poll taken in late July by Emerson asked voters eligible to take part in the primary whether they supported or opposed U.S. military action in Iran. 73% said they strongly or somewhat supported it, while 20% said they strongly or somewhat opposed it.
So candidates who stress the cost of living, or immigration, or men in women’s sports, or other issues are not signaling opposition to the Iran war or other Trump military actions. But they are signaling that they will not take a Lindsey Graham-like role in leading the U.S. into war. They know why South Carolina voters elected and re-elected Graham, and it wasn’t his role in promoting war. So if elected, they will follow Graham’s example in “delivering” for their state while staying away from Graham’s role as the senator who “never saw a war that he didn’t like.”