More on the Christ-o-crats

By way of followup to my quick mention earlier of this article in USA Today, I want to point out this excellent post from Dennis at The Moderate Republican, and expand a little bit on the issue myself. The piece focuses largely on the upcoming race for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Ohio, which will pit current secretary of state Ken Blackwell, a Christian conservative, against state auditor Betty Montgomery and state attorney general Jim Petro. Both Montgomery and Petro are more moderate-to-mainstream in their political orientation.

Blackwell's supporters from the religious right include Pastor Russell Johnson of the Ohio Restoration Project - a minister who, USA Today notes, "decries the 'secular jihadists' who have 'hijacked' America, accuses the public schools of neglecting to teach that Hitler was 'an avid evolutionist' and links abortion to children who murder their parents. Johnson said in a recent sermon "'It's time for the church to get a spinal column' and push the 'seculars and the jihadists ... into the dust bin of history.'" The report notes that interviews with those in the congregation "find only enthusiasm for Johnson's message."

Another Blackwell backer is Pastor Rod Parsley, who said "I like to say I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I'm a Christ-o-crat." What exactly that means, he failed to elaborate on. But I'm fairly sure it's not of the "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" variety.

As both the original piece and Dennis note, examples like this pose a significant problem for the Republican party, or at least for those of us within the party who do not subscribe to the views of Johnson, Blackwell, the "Justice Sunday" gang and their one-hundred-percentist allies. The party leadership must come to realize, and soon, that Russell Johnson does not speak even for the majority of Republicans, and certainly not for the (vast) majority of the American people.

In Ohio, Blackwell is being challenged for the gubernatorial nomination by Montgomery and Petro, both of whom recognize the difficulties a Blackwell victory would pose for eventual success over (any) Democratic nominee. Unfortunately if both of them stay in the race, it virtually guarantees that Blackwell will get the nomination, since they'd likely split the mainstream vote. Montgomery, a supporter of abortion rights, said she's been incredibly frustrated at the 100% litmus test required by the far right. She asked "If you get somebody who is with you 100% of the time and can't win an election, isn't it better to have somebody who is with you 80% of the time and can win?"

Yes, I would say. Yes it is. Not that I'd just like to back winners (my track record on endorsements is only slightly better than 0%), but looking pragmatically, if given the choice between a Ken Blackwell and a moderate to mainstream Democrat, I would vote for the Democrat. I think many other centrist Republicans, as well as independents, would probably make the same choice - the Republican Party cannot continue to win elections indefinitely by only making right turns. That's only spinning us around in circles.

I've said it many times, but I'll say it again - there are those of us in the Republican Party who do not subscribe to the beliefs of the "Justice Sunday" crowd, who put pragmatism ahead of litmus tests and country ahead of party. We've been ignored for too long, because we've been quiet for too long. That silence must end, and 2006 will be the year to end it. 2008 will be too late.