Tim Scott’s Zeno’s Paradox: Running a race impossible to win
I hope I'm wrong about Scott's chances of winning the Republican nomination.
In college, elective philosophy classes were a useful indulgence (and needed distraction). I loved David Hume, the writer and the father of Empiricism, felt a tug from Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason,” and fell head over heels for Sartre’s Existentialism. Through reading Aristotle, however, I discovered Zeno’s Paradox, which was popularized by the Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea. In a nutshell, the paradox describes setting out on a journey that can never be completed.
Zeno’s Paradox explained: “You can never actually reach your destination. After all, in order to get there, you have to first travel halfway there. So off you march, reaching the halfway point. Once you arrive at that point, you’re in essence starting a new journey. To complete that journey, you have to first travel half of the new, shorter distance. So you do. Now you arrive at the new halfway point (three-quarters of the way from the initial starting point), and again start a new trip; you now have to travel half of the new distance to your goal. And, once you get there, you still have half of the remaining distance to go. The journey begins again.”
I hadn’t thought of Zeno’s Paradox for decades, until Tim Scott announced his latest run for president.
Tim Scott’s Zeno Paradox problem
I was ecstatic to hear that Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.) had entered the race for U.S. president, not the least because he has a message worth sharing and hearing.
Scott’s background: He entered politics in 1995 after winning a seat on the Charleston County Council in a special election. He stayed on the council for nearly 15 years before becoming a one-term state lawmaker.
His grandfather was an uneducated cotton-picker who grew up under Jim Crow.
He nearly failed out of high school. (He had to repeat two grades.)
In 2012, he became the first black Republican elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from South Carolina in more than 100 years.
He joined the U.S. Senate in 2012, after being appointed by then-South Carolina governor Nikki Haley.
Scott won a 2014 special election to retain the seat and was elected to a full term in 2016.
He was reelected in 2022 last year.
You’ll frequently hear that one of Scott’s big negatives is that he is a relatibve unknown, especially as compared to (heir apparent) Florida Governer Ron DeSantis, but that’s not his biggest problem long-term.
Sadly, I don’t think he has a real chance at getting the nomination because he is not what the Republican party is looking for. They want a fighter who’ll forcefully, angrily beat back wokeism. So Scott’s positivity and message of uplift will likely give him no purchase with the Republican primary electorate. That’s a shame; however, it is not surprising.
The party, to my mind, is looking for a fight club conservative, as Phillip Klein wrote for NRO.com.
“While many people have tried to define this faction of conservatives as MAGA or Trumpist, the reality is that the movement has broadened beyond Trump. It has been described as populist, or as the New Right. But given the emphasis on pugilism, I like to describe them as Fight Club Conservatives.”
To be sure, there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting a fighter, someone who’ll push back against the excesses of the Left. However, this should not come at the expense of good candidates who’ll fight in their own way, including in conversation.
In welcoming Scott to the race National Review editors were complimentary but realistic of his chances for a victory:
“Scott has a great deal to recommend him. He is popular with his colleagues in the Senate. He presents conservatism well, in a manner that is likely to attract converts. He has a friendly, honest, and open affect, which helps him discuss the thorniest issues in America in an unusually constructive way. In a word: He is an optimist. Historically, Republicans have done well when they have run optimists. All things being equal, the party has tended to do better when led by those who embodied the upward mobility from humble beginnings that the party preaches.
“As both a member of the House and as a senator, Scott has exhibited a solid conservatism. He has backed tax cuts, supported American energy independence, made efforts to secure the border, and introduced legislation to tie welfare more closely to work. He is pro-life, supportive of the Second Amendment, and a champion of conscience rights. He is in favor of school choice and critical of national education policies. His record on judges is excellent.”
The longest of long shots
The soon-to-be-crowded field already contains a few serious contenders, including fron trunner former Pres. Trump, Chris Christie, DeSantis, and Nikki Haley. Former veep Mike Pence is expected to announce soon. I suspect we’ll know earlier on if primary voters cotton to Scott’s Reaganesque optimism. I am guessing no for two reasons.
1- Scott’s message serves as a reminder of our past as much as our future.
Ever hear of spontaneous trait transference? It refers to what happens when you describe the qualities or traits of someone else, but people come to see you as having those traits. For example, someone talking bad about another person runs the risk of being seen in a similar fashion as the person they are describing.
When Scott talks about his upbringing, that of going from cotton to Congress, it’s a powerful reminder of the tremendous progress this country has made. But, that message also serves to awaken the naysayers who promote the message of America having not come far enough.
Primary electorate Republicans don't care what those on the Left have to say, think or feel about the country, but, on one hand Scott’s candidacy does serve as a reminder that in many circles he is viewed as the exception and not the rule. On the other hand, I also don’t think his message curries much favor in Conservative circles, where most folks are tired of hearing about America’s past, progress made, and any need for ceremonial redemption.
2 - He’s seen as a nice guy
A homemade bromide I’m fond of repeating goes “If people describe you as a nice guy (or gal), it’s not a compliment.” What I’m really saying is that if you’re described, first and foremost, as a nice person, it sends the message that such is all you are. In Scott’s case, his nice guy persona works against him with voters primed to cheer on a fighter who’ll chant anti-wokeism mantras at the drop of a hat.
As a guest on the daytime talk show The View last week, Scott delivered a made-for-TV message highlighting the significance and timeliness of his style, approach, demeanor. But I could only think of a podcast I listened to recently, where, in drawing a comparison between Scott and the rest of the Republican primary field, a commentator said, He seems like a guy who’ll sit down and have a talk with folks on the other side, not rail against them as enemies.
In this climate, that’s not a compliment.
I’m not alone
In a recent WSJ OpEd, longtime writer Peggy Noonan wrote that “Sen. Tim Scott has the most winning personality in American politics but few policy accomplishments. This was a curious assessment by someone who has been around long enough to know better. Scott was a primary architect of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, having written most of the bill himself.
What’s more, he pushed for and was a champion of Opportunity Zones, which delivered billions of dollars of investment to thousands of low-income, distressed communities throughout the U.S.
While taking my dog for a walk more than a week ago, I listened to the National Review Editors podcast, where they discussed Scott’s entrance into the presidential race. They all gushed about the senator’s record and what a Tim Scott presidency would mean for the country. They all agreed that he’s not a serious contender for the nomination.
“I’d love to see what he could do as president. I’d love to see what he could do as the nominee. I fear that he will not get very far in these primaries, and I fear that the Republican party is not interested in giving Tim Scott a serious hearing. If that is the case, that is a reflection of the flaws of the Republican party primary electorate, not really the flaws of Tim Scott. There is a big chunk of the party that seems to think that the only way you can possibly be a good Republican presidential candidate is to be as obnoxious and in your face and antagonistic and just to spit bile the moment you get up there. You have to be the nastiest SOB possible. Nastiness works, antagonism works. The primary motivation of a presidential candidate should be to ‘own the libs.’”
Against this backdrop, Scott has no chance, but, boy, do I hope I’m wrong.