God, guns, and gays

On Tuesday, The Plain Dealer reported on a press conference in which a group of ministers (who use an organizational name but claim they are speaking as individuals) voiced their endorsement of Ken Blackwell for governor. Interested in seeing the original article? Try this link. I sent the following letter to the editor, but so far The Plain Dealer hasn’t shown any indication that they will print it. I figure I’ll publish it here.

Predictions that Kenneth Blackwell’s campaign would focus on “God, guns, and gays” received further confirmation Tuesday in Ted Wendling’s article “Ministers Back Blackwell, Challenge IRS.”

The article quotes Donald Tobin, an OSU expert on tax-exempt organizations, as saying that the ministers spoke as individuals; yet it also identifies them as a a group calling themselves “Clergy for Blackwell.” No one disputes people’s right to form groups: like freedom of religion, freedom of association is protected in the American Constitution. But when they act in concert, specifically attempting to influence their congregations by implying that the Blackwell candidacy is blessed, no one should interpret their speech as individual.

This curious non-group “coalition” of people “speaking as individuals” would remind us all that the candidates’ positions on “abortion, same-sex marriage and placement of the Ten Commandments in public buildings” differ. These are serious issues; but does any thinking Ohioan believe that they have anything to do with Ohio’s present decline and imperiled future?

Mr. Blackwell is quoted as saying that “the flip side of a theocracy is not the secular state. The flip side of a theocracy is religous liberty.” What he conveniently forgets is that centuries of successful experience at home and bitter observation abroad have demonstrated that a secular state is the best protector of religious liberties.

In Matthew’s gospel (22:21), Jesus tells us to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” If we were electing a pastor-in-chief, the clergy’s statements–and The Plain Dealer‘s decision to give them prominent display–might make sense. As it is, we are electing a governor; and the governor’s mansion belongs to Caesar.

Electing a believer to live there is a good idea; electing someone who manipulates believers is not.

A Good Night for All of Us

(Note: Voting on Friday, May 5, Ohio Education Association Representative Assembly delegates elected Jim Timlin as OEA’s Secretary-Treasurer and re-elected Marsh Buckley as a National Education Association Director from Ohio. Both men are members of northeastern Ohio locals and the North Eastern Ohio Education Association.)

Voting results for the recent elections hadn’t even been officially announced last week when a friend from outside NEOEA congratulated me on the election results. “It’s a good night for you and your colleagues,” he told me.

I knew what he meant, of course. Candidates don’t win offices in the state’s largest public employee union without effective planning and leadership. Both candidates had good campaign plans, and NEOEA leaders did an effective job of making sure that NEOEA delegates voted. My friend was congratulating me on an outcome that my elected leaders had worked toward, and which I had supported (off hours, of couse) as a retired volunteer. My friend meant the compliment well, and I accepted it as graciously as I could; but he had it wrong.

The election of Jim and re-election of Marsh were a triumph for NEOEA only if they were the right choices for OEA. If somehow they prove to be the wrong choices for OEA over the next three years, northeastern Ohio members will suffer just as much as our colleagues throughout the rest of the state. Not that I expect that to happen: I’m sure they’ll serve well and make all of us proud. But my point is simple: NEOEA doesn’t win unless OEA wins.

There are those throughout OEA who fear NEOEA because our wealth and size create power. (More on that in another column some other time.) NEOEA’s delegation is the largest among OEA’s district associations, but it’s a highly diverse, independent-minded group. Since the ballot is secret, just holding onto the base is a challenge for most NEOEA candidates. And since we don’t have anywhere near a majority of the delegate votes, a candidate from NEOEA has to both energize his or her base and earn votes from other parts of the state. Both Jim and Marsh did that.

The point? Our candidates didn’t win because of NEOEA’s size and wealth. They won because they were strong candidates who ran good campaigns. The May 5 election wasn’t a victory of NEOEA over the rest of the state; it was a victory for all of us and for public education in Ohio.

Reform Ohio

Originally posted November 6, 2005:

In a little less than 36 hours, polls will open in Ohio, and voters will begin to give their decision about a set of proposals called collectively “Reform Ohio Now” (RON). There are other important issues, of course: Cleveland voters will choose a mayor, and in the community where I live, voters will fill most of the seats on the board of education. And yet Issues 2 through 5 represent the most far-reaching decision to be made in this state this year.
What set the stage for RON is six years of unchecked one-party rule. Ohio is a fairly evenly-balanced state, but Republicans achieved total control of state government several years ago. They used that control to solidify their political advantages. They reapportioned legislative districts to guarantee Republican majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. They “reformed” campaign finance by quadrupling the individual contribution limit and limiting the political involvement of union members. And Ohio elections are supervised by a Republican Secretary of State who is an announced candidate for governor in the 2006 election.

The four issues address these problems.

  • Issue 2 makes absentee voting easier.
  • Issue 3 rolls back individual contribution limits.
  • Issue 4 puts reapportionment in the hands of a bipartisan panel.
  • Issue 5 puts elections in the hands of a bipartisan elections authority.

I am not convinced that these proposals are perfect, and I am not convinced that they are the only solution to these problems. I am convinced that they are the best solution available to us at this time.

Republican one-party rule has been so abused—a convicted governor, a state investment scandal, allegations of influence peddling, the continuing embarrassment of an unconstitutional system of school funding—that Democrats, despite their habitual campaign incompetence, may capture several top state offices in 2006. Without passage of Issues 2 through 5, Democrats in 2010 may be in a position to gerrymander the state their way. One or two legislative elections could give this evenly-balanced state a one-party rule in which the same kinds of abuses are practiced by a different party. RON would impact Republican rule now, but it would limit Democratic governments in the future.

So it’s easy to see why RON has been opposed by most Republicans and ignored by many Democrats. Support for RON comes not from parties but from unions, including the Ohio Education Association, and a wide variety of nonpartisan organizations.

That in turn explains why we’re not seeing many ads in favor of the issues: the Reform Ohio Now campaign is poorly funded. In contrast, the opposition is well-funded, and includes the most strident Republican allies: right-wing religious groups, business groups, and gun-rights supporters. They’ve been able to put together a slick, misleading media campaign that may sink all four issues.

As it’s sometimes pointed out, “what goes around comes around.” Even without RON, Ohio’s political life is likely to change. Whether that change will be managed for the common good or whether it will take the form of cyclical partisan power shifts will largely be determined by whether RON passes or fails.

I believe that these four issues represent a once-in-a-lifetime chance to change a system that promotes abuse and corruption. I’m voting for Issues 2-5, and I hope you will too. It’s an uphill battle, but it’s worth the climb.