|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Crossroads 2026: Alan Wilson, Pamela Evette Rumble on the Coast
Contentious debate, unruly audience…
previous post
Contentious debate, unruly audience…
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
4 comments
Wilson could have, and should have, simply answered questions without even mentioning Evette. The silly ‘he said then she said’ allowed by the debate rules allowed the whole thing to devolve to a playground spat.
Which one will suck Trump’s dick the hardest?
Like watching kindergarteners
The debate’s fixation on DEI didn’t clarify much about policy, but it did highlight a familiar pattern in South Carolina politics: symbolic crusades against safe targets, paired with conspicuous silence when the same logic would inconvenience the state’s economic anchors.
It’s worth noting that DEI wasn’t even a hot?button issue in South Carolina — or nationally — until the Trump era. Before then, it was a bureaucratic HR term, not a cultural battlefield. The current outrage cycle is a relatively recent invention, and its selective application makes that obvious.
Evette’s DEI?related consulting work became an easy talking point. But the more revealing dynamic is Attorney General Alan Wilson and his quixotic habit of dispensing justice on a national stage — loudly, theatrically, and always at the expense of low?hanging fruit.
His chosen villains are Starbucks, Costco, and other companies that pose no economic risk to South Carolina. These are safe targets for national?profile press releases.
But the performance stops the moment the conversation turns to BMW or Boeing — companies whose presence actually matters.
BMW, headquartered in Germany, follows EU equality directives because it must. Those policies are regulatory requirements, not ideological choices. South Carolina learned that reality in 1994 when landing BMW Spartanburg put the state on the global investment map. That moment reshaped the Upstate and taught Columbia’s political class a simple rule:
You don’t antagonize the companies that can take thousands of jobs with them.
Boeing, while domestic, operates in a global regulatory environment. Its DEI frameworks are tied to international aviation markets, global supply?chain agreements, and federal contracting rules. Again: compliance, not branding. And again: not a target Wilson is willing to touch.
So the debate’s DEI discourse wasn’t really about DEI. It was about who gets singled out for symbolic enforcement and who gets quietly exempted because the state’s economic narrative depends on them. The inconsistency isn’t subtle. It’s structural.