This is being called a ‘holy war’?

By Bryan English

On Jan. 12, Iowa voters packed the Capitol to voice their frustration and plead with lawmakers to “Let Us Vote” on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. The crowd represented a geographically, racially and politically diverse cross-section of Iowans. In many ways, they represented the new paradigm that has emerged as a result of last April's unconstitutional Supreme Court opinion.

They came to remind Gov. Chet Culver that his unwillingness to address the issues of marriage and the constitutional separation of powers have not gone unnoticed. It was a message that the governor could not ignore, as he waded through the masses chanting “Let Us Vote.”

Following the governor's speech, marriage supporters made their way to the Capitol steps for a rally. Iowa Family Policy Center Action Board Chair Danny Carroll announced that the Iowa Family PAC would be endorsing Bob Vander Plaats for governor.

The endorsement itself didn't raise too many eyebrows. What did cause jaws to drop, was the way in which Carroll made it clear the PAC would not support Terry Branstad should he become the 2010 GOP nominee.

Issue advocacy groups have long been considered action arms by the two major political parties. When a group like the Iowa Family PAC made it clear they would hold to their principles rather than march in lock-step with a political party, people on both sides of the aisle took notice.

Reactions ranged from a column in this publication speculating that the Iowa Family PAC helped Gov. Culver by diverting attention from his “ho-hum” performance, to the wild-eyed rantings of elitist hacks who now demand blind partisan loyalty.

The commentary quickly digressed to the point where the Iowa Family PAC was referred to as a “jihadist sleeper cell.” Some speculated the endorsement amounted to the declaration of a “holy war.” The consequence, however, has been the exposure of political insiders and their perception of voters and advocacy organizations.

Activists on both sides of any issue engage in the process to advance the principles they are most passionate about. For far too long, both parties have worked to co-opt those groups in order to win elections. For far too long, those activists have been willing to compromise their principles to play party politics. The track record, on both sides of the isle, can be summed up in one word: impotence.

While many are happy to see Gov. Culver's inability to deliver for the special interest groups that worked so hard to get him elected, we can all relate to their frustration over electing a governor who is either incapable or unwilling to act on their issues. Likewise, Christian and conservative voters have been perpetually disappointed by many so-called conservatives who ran on pro-family and pro-business platforms only to empower cheerleaders for infanticide and sodomy, or to raise taxes and grow government once in office.

Political elites like Culver and Branstad are out of touch with real Iowans, and have become too comfortable saying one thing during a campaign and doing another once elected.

The bloom is now off the rose. There is no amount of fanatical partisan name-calling that will cause principled people to return to the old paradigm of blind party loyalty. The GOP has a choice to make. They can work with the people they count on to win, or they can promote out-of-touch candidates who govern contrary to their own stated principles and lose.

If blind partisan loyalty is their answer, Gov. Culver may indeed be one Lucky Lug.

Bryan M. English is director of Public Relations and Outreach, Iowa Family Policy Center and Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION, Pleasant Hill. Contact him at (515) 263-3495.