On paper, he filed to run as a Republican. In practice, his political history tells a far more complicated story.

Ronan first entered politics as a Democrat. In 2016, he ran for the Ohio House of Representatives in Warren County, one of the state’s most reliably Republican areas. He supported single-payer healthcare and government-driven economic reform. He lost. Badly.

Instead of recalibrating quietly in the background, he quickly escalated. In 2017, he ran for chair of the Democratic National Committee. He made the argument that Democrats had abandoned rural communities and working-class voters. He pitched what he called a ‘3,760 county strategy’ and positioned himself as an insurgent willing to challenge the party elites.

He dropped out before the vote, but his affiliation was clear. He was not just a Democrat. He aligned so closely with the Democratic Party that he hoped to lead it.

A year later, he filed to run for Congress against Republican Steve Chabot (OH-1). But he didn’t file as a Democrat. He filed to run in the Republican primary.

That shift alone should warrant scrutiny. During the primary, he was openly embraced by groups like The Young Turks, a progressive news and commentary network.

He lost that primary handily, and shortly thereafter, he had a run-in with the law.

Samuel Ronan, 28, was arrested at about 2:30 a.m. on Saturday outside of his home on Creekside Drive. Ronan is charged with failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer, obstructing official business and obstructing justice and is being held at the Warren County Jail, according to police and jail records.

Ronan streamed live video of his arrest to his personal Facebook page. The video begins with Ronan approaching a police vehicle and speaking to an officer, who orders him to the ground. In the video, Ronan claims the officer has no right to arrest him, while the officer repeats himself several times, ordering Ronan to the ground. Eventually, another officer helps arrest Ronan.

- Brant Schulz, WLWT 2018

He was charged with obstruction of justice and resisting arrest. The video circulated. The episode became part of his public record.

Yet, his pattern did not stop there. He remained involved in online politics, hosting a progressive livestream three times a week, and recently announced a campaign for Congress against Rep. Mike Carey in the 15th District, yet again as a Republican.

At a recent endorsement meeting held by the Madison County GOP, Ronan was asked directly whether he was the same Sam Ronan who ran for DNC chair.

“The short answer is yes.”

He explained that he ran as a Democrat after leaving active duty because he wanted to serve, and the seat was open. He said he lost “egregiously” and concluded that Democratic leadership did not care about candidates or constituents.

He then stated that dissatisfaction with Democrats is “precisely why” he is a Republican today. That explanation sounds like frustration, but his own Facebook comments go further.

Ronan is arguing that party labels are tools, not identities. If Republicans dominate a district, you run as a Republican. If Democrats want influence in red territory, they should compete inside Republican primaries. In his view, that is not opportunism. It is consistent with what he said during his DNC campaign.

But wait, there is more.

At the same meeting, he was confronted about prior statements comparing Donald Trump to Nazi Germany and accusing Republicans of hatred toward Americans.

He criticized immigration enforcement and alleged serious misconduct by federal agencies, and described himself as “more of an Eisenhower Republican.”

He cited high marginal tax rates and President Eisenhower’s federal infrastructure expansion as guiding principles.

That ideological framing stands in tension with the modern Republican platform. His campaign website reflects the same tension. He has advocated for expansive federal job programs, sweeping economic intervention, and strong opposition to increased ICE funding. His own Facebook post calls Democrats “traitorous” for supporting additional ICE funding, a position that places him at odds with many Republican primary voters.

He is anti-Trump, the self-defined ‘President of ANTIFA’, calls members of ICE murderers, and would never vote in line with the Republican caucus. In any state with serious, closed primaries, Ronan wouldn’t even be able to vote in the GOP primary. Yet, he is running in it.

Ronan’s record now includes:

• A Democratic statehouse campaign.

• A run for DNC chair.

• A Republican congressional primary challenge.

• An arrest during that campaign.

• Public rhetoric is sharply critical of Trump and federal immigration policy.

A renewed Republican candidacy portrayed as tactical consistency.

He says he is not a grifter. He says he is fighting for the working class within the district’s dominant party. But he is not a member of the dominant party.

Republican voters are left with a decision that is less about biography and more about trust. Does Ronan have any ideological evolution? Or is he only a candidate who views party affiliation as something to use when it is convenient?

And the real question: will Ohio’s open primary system allow Republican voters actually to select our nominee? Or will crossover Democrats change the results?

His record is public. His social media comments are public. His non-compliance arrest is public. His thoughts on Republican candidates and voters are public.

Voters on May 5th will decide whether his story holds together.

Josh Lickliter is a conservative political consultant, strategist, and commentator. He serves on the Madison County Republican Party Central Committee as Oak Run Township’s Central Committeeman and is the CEO of Excel Political Strategies. You can follow him on X at @GOPJosh20.

In the wake of the racial reckoning in the years following the ‘summer of love’ in 2020 and the death of George Floyd, it seems that race has constantly been at the forefront of any and every conversation in the halls of academia and her departments of humanities. It is unavoidable for the average college student in the year 2025 to avoid the topic. By now, most students have been exposed to these ideas since middle school, and I am certainly no exception. However, it seems as though teachers, professors, and educators alike are far more focused on the ideology of their various claims about racism, settler colonialism, white supremacy, oppression, and the like than they are about any sort of reality that is linked to such ideas. This is certainly not for lack of trying on their part, but the fact remains that no such realities exist, and any attempt to forge one becomes more and more antiquated with each passing year. These ideas may have been fresh and exciting in the 1990s, but with decades of hindsight, it’s become increasingly clear that these ideologies are exactly that, and nothing more. This is not to say that racism and oppression do not or have not ever impacted humanity, but simply that the attempt to tell a tale of a broad ideological grand theory of oppression that permeates American history is fantasy and historical revisionism. This is no more true than it is with the teachings of settler colonialism. In my case, settler colonialism strictly as an ideology, has affected my humanity far more than it has as a practice. This is because in order for it to work, it requires a belief in rigid oppressor/oppressed moral binaries that simply do not reflect my lived experience, and objective truth. These frameworks, as examined through Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang’s paper: Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor (pp. 1-40) and Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden reveal that this ideology relies on this binary, and cannot accept any nuance or individual personal agency. Through this essay, I will examine the ways settler colonialism as an ideology has affected me, and how as a practice it has not at all.

Subscribe now

Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang’s 2012 paper insists on some bizarre notion not only of collective guilt, but of perpetual oppressor and oppressed binaries. The pair dismantle the metaphorical appropriation of decolonization in educational discourses, arguing that it must remain a literal, land-centered process of repatriating indigenous territories and disrupting what they call settler structures.

“Decolonization in the settler colonial context must involve the repatriation of land simultaneous to the recognition of how land and relations to land have always already been differently understood and enacted; that is, all of the land, and not just symbolically.” (Tuck & Yang 8)

Their core claims reveal settler colonialism as an enduring structure, and not a past event, predicated on the “disappearance” of indigenous peoples and the entrenchment of settler supremacy through an entangled triad of settler-native-slave dynamics.

“Everything within a settler colonial society strains to destroy or assimilate the Native in order to disappear them from the land… these desires to erase–to let time do its thing and wait for the older form of living to die out, or to even help speed things along (euthanize)...these are all desires for another kind of resolve to the colonial situation, resolved through the absolute and total destruction or assimilation of original inhabitants.” (Tuck & Yang 9)

Non-indigenous individuals, regardless of race, are positioned as inherent “settlers” bearing collective moral responsibility until land is returned, a binary that flattens individual agency into inescapable complicity.

“Settlers are diverse, not just of white European descent, and include people of color, even from other colonial contexts.” (Tuck & Yang 7)

Finally, the duo strike the core of their critique by placing the blame entirely on the descendants of the colonialists and insisting that they bear and perpetuate the sins of their forefathers. This introduces the idea of perpetual guilt brought about by this position.

“Settler moves to innocence are those strategies or positionings that attempt to relieve the settler of feelings of guilt or responsibility without giving up land or power or privilege, without having to change much at all... These moves ultimately function to re-entrench the settler project.” (Tuck & Yang 10)

Now here’s where I think the two are on the right track– there absolutely is a heavy dose of guilt that progresses this ideology; however, the blame is misinterpreted. The predominantly white “settlers” feel guilty not because they feel the weight of their ancestors’ sins, but instead because they do not want to be perceived as racist by the academia crowd like Tuck and Yang. In his 2006 book: White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed The Promise of The Civil Rights Era, Shelby Steele, a Black scholar and fellow at the Hoover Institution, defines “white guilt” not as individual remorse for personal sins but as a structural loss of moral authority for whites and American institutions stemming from the civil rights era’s reckoning with historical racism.

“I know it to be something very specific: the vacuum of moral authority that comes simply from knowing that one’s race is associated with racism. Whites (and American institutions) must acknowledge historical racism to show themselves redeemed of it, but once they acknowledge it, they lose moral authority over everything having to do with race, equality, social justice, poverty, and so on. They step into a void of vulnerability. The authority they lose transfers to the “victims” of historical racism and becomes their great power in society. This is why white guilt is quite literally the same as black power.” (Steele 24)

This guilt manifests as a pervasive stigma—whites are reflexively branded as racist, prompting dissociation from their own power and heritage to “prove” innocence. Steele argues it fuels patronizing, race-based policies, like affirmative action and diversity mandates, that treat minorities as perpetual victims needing uplift, rather than agents capable of self-reliance. This creates a “racial spoils system” where racism becomes exploitable “currency” for leverage, that erodes personal responsibility. Steele sees it as self-destructive: it emasculates white moral agency, infantilizes minorities, and undermines the civil rights promise of equal responsibility, leading to cultural stagnation and distorted humanity. This is reflected entirely in my personal experience. This invention by figures like Tuck and Yang constructs a totalizing ideological identity—“settler”—that overrides individual agency or moral diversity. When in fact, I had absolutely nothing to do with any of the circumstances I was born in. Furthermore, while I may enjoy certain relative advantages today, this framework denies the basic reality that many “settler” descendants remain mired in modest circumstances, far from the mythic prosperity supposedly harvested from centuries of oppression. All four lines of my family have been here since the 1600s, yet nobody in any one of those lines has amassed any generational wealth or land. Both of my parents are first generation college graduates. One might think with a multi-century head start and a legacy of oppression, my “oppressor” ancestors might have played the game a little better. This is why when I sit, as I have many times this semester, in a college class where professors frame present-day America as an ongoing colonizing project and imply moral responsibility for historical wrongs solely based on ancestry, I simply cannot believe them. Many students may buy into this narrative, feeling pressure to accept a predetermined moral role that does not match their actual experiences or behavior, which is what actually perpetuates the lie. This ideology, as a result, has impacted my humanity far more than any legacy of racism will ever.

I’ve examined how white guilt constructs contemporary racial divides, but the seeds of this ideology reach much farther back. Ironically, English poet Rudyard Kipling displays the same dim view of human agency in his racist poem The White Man’s Burden. Instead of assigning guilt, Kipling takes the opposite approach and assigns paternalism to the colonizer, and infantilizes the colonized.

“Take up the White Man’s burden—

The savage wars of peace—

Fill full the mouth of famine

And bid the sickness cease;

And when your goal is nearest

The end for others sought,

Watch Sloth and heathen Folly

Bring all your hopes to nought.” (Kipling, Stanza 3)

This highlights the colonizer’s heroic toil undone by the “Sloth and heathen Folly” of the colonized. This patronizes the colonized as lazy, heathen obstacles, removing their agency, and forces the colonizer to assume the paternal role of caretaker, simultaneously removing their agency. As such, Kipling argues that civilizational progress depends on external intervention, not internal capability.

“Take up the White Man’s burden—

Send forth the best ye breed—

Go bind your sons to exile

To serve your captives’ need;

To wait in heavy harness

On fluttered folk and wild—

Your new-caught sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child.” (Kipling, Stanza 1)

This is the core infantilization: the colonized are pitched as a hybrid “child” (innocent but wild or devilish), implying their inherent immaturity requiring paternal “binding” and “exile” from the white man’s “best ye breed.” This further denies their agency, framing them as captives needing service. Black economist Thomas Sowell frequently critiques paternalism as a condescending elite impulse, rooted in self-congratulatory “visions” of social engineering, that assumes the inferiority or helplessness of marginalized groups, leading to policies that undermine self-reliance and agency. In his 1995 book: The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, Sowell attributes this paternalistic behavior to those he calls “the anointed”: a self-perceived elite class of intellectuals, academics, journalists, and policymakers who promote social policies driven by a moralistic “vision” rather than empirical evidence or practical outcomes.

“The vision of the anointed is one in which such ills as poverty, irresponsible sex, and crime derive primarily from “society,” rather than from individual choices and behavior. To believe in personal responsibility would be to destroy the whole special role of the anointed, whose vision casts them in the role of rescuers of people treated unfairly by “society.” Since no society has ever treated everyone fairly, there will always be real examples of what the anointed envision. The fatal step is to make those examples universal explanations of social ills-and to remain oblivious to evidence to the contrary.” (Sowell 203)

Sowell argues the paternalism of the anointed masquerades as compassion but serves ego and power, creating dependency while ignoring empirical outcomes. This mirrors Steele’s “white guilt” as a stigma eroding moral authority, driving patronizing “reforms” that infantilize minorities as perpetual victims. Both see it as distorting humanity. Sowell’s analysis provides empirical ballast to Steele’s psychological framing, showing how paternalism perpetuates the very disparities it claims to fix, much like guilt-fueled binaries in settler discourse promote predetermined roles. In other words, Tuck and Yang’s paper and Kipling’s poem are two sides of the same, un-nuanced, ideological coin. This coin erodes my humanity personally, as well as humanity at large. When institutions like universities impose an identity narrative on students, it impacts their humanity by restricting their agency and self-determination. I feel pressure to conform to this narrative since I don’t want to argue or speak out, so I have to sit quietly and take it. This leads to corrosion and is the exact opposite of the supposed mission of education universities promise their students. This isn’t education, this is religion.
Settler colonialism, the ideology, has impacted me deeply. Settler colonialism, the practice, has not. I’ve examined this stark dichotomy through two frameworks: the guilt narrative of the Tuck and Yang paper, and the paternalistic narrative of the Kipling poem. Both seek to advance the same thesis: that humans are broadly and fundamentally guided by animalistic hierarchies and have no agency. Neither have any solution that is politically or logically feasible, mostly because their presuppositions are completely unsupported by reality. It’s far more tempting to pin our struggles on some sweeping sociopolitical narrative than to own our choices or the roll of the dice in life. Instead, I advance a better path forward: one that shrugs off the weight of inherited guilt and the smug hand-holding of paternalism. My lived experiences don’t confirm the narratives pushed by the anointed. If anything, they show the ideological and manipulative nature of these frameworks. Ultimately, what threatens my humanity is not historical injustice, which I acknowledge as real, but an ideological framework that assigns me a predetermined role and denies the legitimacy of my individual experience. The true task of preserving my humanity requires rejecting imposed narratives and thinking freely, not adopting predetermined roles dictated by ideological systems.

Share

Works Cited

Kipling, Rudyard. The White Man’s Burden. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & Company, 1899, www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_burden.htm.

Sowell, Thomas. The Vision of the Anointed : Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy. New York, Basicbooks, 1995.

Shelby Steele. White Guilt : How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. New York, Harper Perennial, 2007.

Tuck, Eve, and Yang, K. Wayne. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1-40.

In 1933, Mary Johnson purchased a parcel of land, named it Orleton Farms, and began producing farm products to sell—eggs, milk, cream, and corn, among others. If you ask most Madison County natives, they can point to the Orleton Farm on a map and can tell you at least a portion of its history.

In 2007, the van Bakel family, who owned the property at the time, proposed building a 5,400-cow dairy farm—an idea that quickly alarmed residents. Environmental advocates from the Darby Creek Association cautioned that “the land drains to Bales Ditch and Chenoweth Ditch, which flow to Spring Fork, which then flows into the Little Darby Creek.”

The dairy farm would’ve had numerous benefits. According to an early 2008 Columbus Dispatch story, the farm would’ve employed 35 people, would’ve helped reduce the ‘milk deficit’, and would’ve paid taxes. That doesn’t underscore the issues and community opposition, but does show that there would have been some benefit to the local community despite concerns.

Nevertheless, the group abandoned the dairy plan, and Midwest Farms, LLC, purchased 6,001 acres of prime Deercreek, Somerford, and Monroe Township farmland for $27.1 million at auction on June 30th, 2009. Midwest Farms, LLC., is a landholding company owned by tech billionaire Bill Gates. The Darby Creek Matters organization said to the Dispatch that they would be happy if Gates were the new owner, because of his interest “in enhancing agriculture and food production in developing countries to combat hunger”. They saw it as a positive sign that he would keep the land as a farm.

Fast-forwarding to September 2022, Madison County zoning permits large ground-mounted solar projects, and over 9,300 acres of land are already being used for, or planned for, mass solar projects. Savion Energy, a subsidiary of Shell Oil, was already constructing a solar project in Madison County. Madison Fields Solar, a roughly 2,000-acre project on leased land near Rosedale, was approved in January 2021 and was under construction.

Savion Energy officially files a new application for a 6,000-acre solar farm named Oak Run Solar Project. The Oak Run Solar Project would be the largest solar farm in the nation and, in partnership with Ohio State University, would introduce crop farming and livestock within the panels. Oak Run is the first project of its kind.

Residents opposed this project, as many feel Madison County is becoming oversaturated with solar. It is well known that the county is a longtime agricultural community. Amid new housing developments, solar projects, and warehouses, many residents worry that they are losing their agrarian heritage.

Despite almost unanimous opposition from county residents and elected officials, now-former County Commissioner Mark Forrest (R-West Jefferson) supported the project, saying to Midstory, “I feel it is my duty to do what’s best for all the residents of Madison County. Allowing Oak Run to be permitted would be advantageous for the taxpayers of our county.” He was the first to testify at the Power Siting evidentiary hearing in 2023.

Two local school superintendents have vocally backed the project, pointing to the promise of new tax revenue for their districts. Notably, Jonathan Alder Schools covers most of the 6,000 acres, and did not make a statement.

Former State Senator Stephanie Kunze came out in support, even though she never faced an election in Madison County during her time in the statehouse—and was rejected by local voters in her 2021 run for Congress.

Madison County residents spoke out often against the proposed projects at community events, town halls, and online through social media and the official Power Siting Board public comment forum. Despite this, Commissioner Forrest maintained his support of the project throughout the 2024 primary election. On March 19th, Madison County voters finally had a chance to make their voices heard at the ballot box.

During the 2024 Commissioner primary election, Forrest was running for his fifth term. He was challenged by former local school board member and village councilman Cory Coburn (R-London), who ran a campaign on standard conservative issues (though he later gravitated toward an anti-solar message), and State Board of Education member Brendan Shea (R-West Jefferson), who ran a campaign entirely rooted in solar opposition and worries of degrading the county’s agricultural heritage.

To say Madison County voters spoke would be an understatement. Despite numerous mailings showing conservative credentials, Forrest lost the election, receiving only 21% of the vote. Coburn received 18%. Voters resonated so strongly with the anti-solar messaging that Shea won 57.5% of Madison County voters, defeated the pro-solar incumbent, and restored unanimous local elected opposition to Oak Run Solar. Candidates who were openly anti-solar received three-fourths of the votes in the Republican primary, and no other candidate mounted opposition to the nominee, Shea, in the general election.

Commissioner Chris Wallace (R-Plain City) served as Madison County’s ad hoc board member during the March 21st hearing of the Power Siting Board, and he stated, “if this board is to approve this project, they would be doing so in the face of strong local opposition, I think spitting in the face of Madison County voters”.

Township Trustee Jim Moran (NP-Somerford) served as the ad hoc member for the three townships and noted the unanimous opposition of Madison County township trustees, both directly and indirectly affected by the project.

Despite the landslide election statement and dissenting votes from both of Madison County’s representatives, the Power Siting Board voted to approve the project, citing support from a State Senator and a Commissioner, though they did not name them. The vote was almost unanimous—the county elected officials were the only two ‘no’ votes.

Madison County Commissioners unanimously voted to apply for a rehearing on March 26th, and on April 19th, 2024, attorney Jack Van Kley entered the application. The Power Siting Board denied that application on August 22nd, 2024, in a 7-1 vote (with ad hoc member Wallace casting the only ‘no’ vote).

In late October 2024, Madison County and local townships filed an appeal of the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court held oral arguments on October 28th, 2025. You can watch the hearing and make up your own mind here, but it would be an understatement to say state attorney Ambrosia Wilson came unprepared and did not make an excellent argument for their side.

Van Kley, attorney for Madison County et al., stated that the official record lacks multiple types of documentation required before approval. The missing documentation includes water-sampling surveys, firefighting plans, and substation simulations. Wilson implied that water surveys were not needed because there was no aquifer. Despite Wilson’s claim, the land drains to Little Darby Creek, as highlighted earlier.

Freshman Justice Dan Hawkins (R-Columbus) questioned Ms. Wilson and echoed the sentiment of many county residents.

The Supreme Court has never overturned the Power Siting Board’s decision on a solar certificate.

As of 2025, all Madison County elected officials who have spoken on the issue are opposed to this project. Commissioners Wallace and Dr. Tony Xenikis (R-London) voted in March of 2023 to reject the project. The Madison County Township Association is unanimously against the project. State Representative Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) and State Senator Michele Reynolds (R-Canal Winchester) are Madison County’s Statehouse representatives and have both filed comments of opposition. No elected officials currently serving have shown support for the project, which would meet the criteria for unanimous local opposition.

Now, concerned residents and clean energy advocates are both awaiting a decision from the state’s highest court. There is no set timeline for when that decision will be released.

The Supreme Court’s decision will echo far beyond Madison County. A ruling to uphold the Power Siting Board will set a precedent that state agencies can bypass community consent and required procedures whenever it’s convenient. But a reversal would reaffirm that Ohio’s Constitution still protects local interests and that rural citizens still have a say in their destiny.

This isn’t an issue of private property rights; that claim is null and void when out-of-state ultra-billionaires spend tens of millions of dollars—money the current landowners cannot refuse—to buy or lease prime farmland and take it out of production. This is an issue of the degradation of our nation’s food supply so that major corporations can get tax credits for ‘green energy’.

The stakes could not be higher for Madison County and for every Ohioan who believes their land and their voice still mean something. What’s happening here isn’t just a local dispute, it’s a test of whether we still value the principles that built this country: self-reliance, stewardship, and respect for the working land that feeds our people. When vast tracts of productive farmland are transformed into industrial solar zones, not because communities chose it, but because powerful investors decided it from afar, it strikes at the very heart of what it means to be American.

Our founders built this nation on the belief that freedom and ownership come with responsibility to one another, to the land, and to future generations. To let corporate greed and government incentives override the will of rural communities is not progress; it’s a betrayal of those founding ideals. It’s un-American to strip citizens of control over their local landscape, to silence their opposition, and to prioritize profit over people, power over principle, and short-term gain over the long-term future of America’s heartland. And it’s un-Ohioan to undermine the independence and integrity of local citizens who only ask to be heard.

What’s unfolding across Madison County isn’t progress; it’s a slow erasure of Ohio’s identity, its values, and the spirit that has always defined who we are. ■

Josh Lickliter is a conservative political consultant, strategist, and commentator. He serves on the Madison County Republican Party Central Committee as Oak Run Township’s Central Committeeman and is the CEO of Excel Political Strategies. You can follow him on X at @GOPJosh20.

When political discourse deteriorates, it’s always for one reason: the interlocutors are too blinded by their own principles to reach a compromise. The rigidity of the neoliberal establishment has twisted discourse such that every issue becomes one of complete moral absolutism to the point of absurdity. I assume the reader unequivocally rejects moral relativism and accepts that moral truths exist which are knowable, and are both objective and absolute. Moral absolutists argue that objective moral standards not only exist and are knowable, but are also applicable to every situation— regardless of context, circumstance, or consequence. Moral objectivism, like absolutism, holds that unchanging moral truths exist and are knowable, but the key difference is that recognizes that they are entirely contextual. It pairs well with particularism, which observes that there is no unified moral code that can be indiscriminately applied to every situation. When it comes to politics, I am a moral objectivist and a moral particularist. My aim in this essay is to defend moral objectivism and particularism as separate and distinct from absolutism and moral generalism as it applies specifically to politics and the state. In matters of the church and of the health of the spirit, I am a moral absolutist as is the only defensible position. The goal of this article is to equip the reader to defend against arguments that claim to advance political goals but instead grandstand on ineffective principles that, even if true, are immune to compromise and allergic to action. To that end, I advance the “doctrine of necessary choice” which keeps objectivism from collapsing into relativism. This doctrine has four distinct branches:

1. Necessity — A lesser evil may be tolerated only if no non-evil alternative exists.

2. Proportionality — The good achieved (or evil prevented) must outweigh the evil tolerated.

3. Intentionality — The evil must not be directly intended, only foreseen as a side effect.

4. Accountability — The agent must acknowledge the evil, take responsibility, and pursue repair.

This allows us to say that the bombing of Berlin or Hiroshima was evil, yet necessary in its context. It allows us to say that Hamas is morally indefensible, even if Israel is far from virtuous. It allows us to argue that taxation may be unjust in principle, yet tolerable if the alternative is collapse of essential civic goods. And it allows us to say that political compromise is not moral cowardice, but pragmatic realism in pursuit of the common good. Politics is not the church. In matters of faith, absolutism is necessary as truth cannot be compromised without risking the soul. In politics, however, human beings operate in a fallible world where tragic choices are unavoidable. Moral objectivism — absolute in principle, particular in practice — is the only framework that preserves truth while making action possible. It guards against the naïveté of absolutism and the nihilism of relativism, offering instead a path of necessary responsibility. As theologian and ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:“The sad duty of politics is to establish justice in a sinful world.”

The idea of moral absolutism is built on Immanuel Kant’s First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which states:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”

This is the driving force behind all modern political discourse. It is the principle by which the leftist denounces Israel and the conservative champions tax cuts. (e.g., all death is bad, this is a universal law, Israel is killing innocents, therefore Israel is bad; all taxation is theft, theft is a universal evil, the state taxes innocents, and is therefore morally bankrupt.) These are all true things, but moral absolutism in response to immoral action can only spawn inaction. Or, as Edmund Burke put it:

“All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.”

In the world of the moral absolutist, compromise means moral failure. To the absolutist, every evil must be denounced, and every deviation from principle must be rejected. The result is paralysis: when every available course of action is tainted with evil, the absolutist refuses to choose at all. In war, this would mean condemning both sides yet never proposing a peace that might save lives. In politics, it would mean denouncing taxation as theft, yet never supporting even the spending that preserves basic order. Absolutism confuses purity with justice. It treats the tragic dilemmas of life as if they were clean moral syllogisms, when in fact governing requires choosing between lesser evils. In this way, absolutism becomes indistinguishable from inaction, and inaction itself allows injustice to triumph. Instead, the absolutist must construct a framework wherein every man can simultaneously recognize and accept moral truth and there won’t be a need for compromise (see: anarchism.) There is perhaps no better example of this in the public eye than Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie, who has built a reputation as a principled contrarian who prioritizes ideological purity over pragmatic governance. He is respected by many, myself included, for his ability to cut against the grain and have a backbone, even at the cost of millions of dollars from donors and lobbyists, but he is by any measure, a completely ineffective politician. In 13 years, Massie has sponsored numerous bills and resolutions, yet none have become law. This isn’t for lack of effort; Massie has pushed niche libertarian priorities like auditing the Federal Reserve, repealing gun-free school zones, and reforming civil asset forfeiture. But his proposals routinely stall in committee or garner insufficient support, often due to their narrow appeal and his reluctance to compromise. Massie’s cosponsorship rate is also abysmal; he backed just 85 bills in 2024, in the 4th percentile among Republicans—limiting his role even as a team player. His district, which includes rural areas reliant on federal agriculture and infrastructure funding, sees little return: no major investments in Kentucky-specific projects like flood control or expansion of broadband internet. Voters elected him to make laws, not just filibuster them. Massie’s hallmark is casting lone or near-lone “no” votes, often against his own party on high-stakes issues. This grandstanding signals virtue to purists but erodes his clout in a body where deals require alliances. Massie is more moderate than firebrands but too fringe for mainstream deals. Thomas Massie is a gadfly, not a statesman. Effectiveness demands more than viral X posts or podcast appearances; it requires passing laws that advance and reflect, in his case, actual conservatism. Thomas Massie embodies the ineffective purist, standing on principle in a body that requires action and compromise. Gadflies are necessary in congress to keep their peers accountable, but a congress full of purists would progress nothing. This is unfortunately the legacy of the moral absolutist. On a personal level, Thomas Massie is a good man and one of the few politicians to look to for a simple, virtuous and principled life. However, I look to men like Massie to be pastors and neighbors, not political leaders. The core of this article is to distinguish between the pastor and the statesman.

How then, can someone propose a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict that recognizes the moral evils of both sides but also advances a solution? All solutions and compromises inherently require moral tradeoffs. This is the necessity and proportionality in the model I proposed previously. Any solution to the conflict in Gaza will inherently include something immoral. The question is if that immoral action is both necessary and proportionally more permissible than the immoral consequences of letting the conflict continue. The solution isn’t generalism and absolute ethics, but virtue ethics. Moral objectivism is rooted in Aristotelian virtue ethics as Aristotle’s writings support objectivism. He writes that moral truths exist independently of human beliefs, but his understanding of how to apply these truths in specific situations leads toward a type of situationalism. Aristotle agrees with the objective existence of a hierarchy of “goods” that is, some goods are inherently better and preferable to other goods. But he also recognizes a “highest good” that is knowable and attainable through intuition and human action rather than contemplation of a transcendent Form. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle sets up the objective “telos” or “end” of human action:

“Every art and every inquiry, and similarly, every action and pursuit is thought to aim at some good, and for this reason, the good has been declared to be that at which all things aim.”

On situationism and particularism’s shared emphasis on context being necessary for moral judgment, Aristotle argues:

“It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits.”

This, in essence, rejects exactness or indiscriminate judgment as contrary to nature and not necessary for satisfactory policy in the context of political action. When describing moral virtue as a “mean” between extremes, Aristotle notes that the mean is “relative to us.” This is not a moral relativism, but an acknowledgment that the right action is contextual:

“For instance, if ten pounds are too much for a man to eat and two too little, it does not follow that the trainer will order six pounds; for this may be too much for the man who is to take it, or too little — too little for Milo, too much for the beginner.”

This is the essence of the objectivist worldview and my rejection of absolutism, which drives much political discourse on both the right and the left. Absolutism is largely responsible for the widening chasm of the last decade, as Americans entrench themselves in what should be rightly called “absolute ignorance.” Even the father of liberalism, John Locke writes in his Second Treatise:

“For, since it can never be supposed to be the will of society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which everyone designs to secure, the preservation of himself, liberty, and property, it cannot be absolute.”

In the world of the moral absolutist, compromise means moral failure; but as Locke saw, even political authority itself must be compromised, or else it destroys the very ends it was created to serve. Refusing all compromise in the name of purity allows destruction to proceed unchecked, just as unchecked authority leads to tyranny. True political responsibility lies not in absolutism, but in the art of compromise that secures the common good. Your mandate is thus: ground yourself in the pursuit of virtue and the recognition of moral truth. Those who cling to absolutes and deal in sweeping judgments mistake rigidity for wisdom, yet it blinds them to justice. In politics, there is no purity; the only righteous path runs through compromise.

As property values soar and taxes rise in tandem, many citizens find that hard work and prudent ownership are no longer shields against financial strain. Homeownership, which has long been a symbol of freedom and stability, is becoming a liability, and ordinary Ohioans are discovering that theory and reality do not always align. Enter Citizens for Property Tax Reform, a Cleveland-based grassroots lobbying group that aims for radical financial reforms in the state of Ohio. Namely, the group wants to abolish all property taxes in Ohio, and reorganize school districts and local services to debloat local government waste and decrease the exorbitant burden on Ohio residents. This group, as well as the aptly named AxOHTax, are founded and represented by Mr. Brian Massie, a Lake County citizen with whom I recently had the privilege of speaking to discuss the issues at hand. A full recording of the interview can be found at the bottom of the article. For Massie, what started him down the path that led him to this place was very simple.

MASSIE: “I've been investigating and exploring property taxes for ten years, and it started very simply when I looked at my own personal property tax statement. I had been in my house for ten years, and I saw that my property taxes had gone up 40%. I realized that if we stay on this path of increasing property taxes, we are going to price me out of my home. I also realized I didn't know much about property taxes; I just paid them like every other citizen.”

For reference, Ohio undergoes property reassessment every 6 years, meaning many citizens are just now seeing the effects of the post pandemic market. Ohio ranks eighth in the nation for property tax burden—ahead of even New York and California—yet it sits 40th in median household income. What’s worse? Matt Nolan, Warren County Auditor and President of the County Auditors’ Association of Ohio, warns that property taxes across all Ohio counties could increase by as much as 25% over the next few years. For homeowners like Massie, the frightening prospect of being priced out of the home you ‘own’ could soon be a shocking reality.

MASSIE: “I went to many Lake County commissioner meetings and recorded them. One commissioner asked me to record him on his last day, saying he needed to get something off his chest. He said the two top priorities of government are to protect itself and to grow, and the two top priorities of any elected official are to protect themselves and get reelected. He made no mention of what is in the best interest of their constituents or the taxpayers. Because of my accounting background, I asked the county finance director for a public records request to see the fund balances. I saw an account called ‘surplus over’ that had $5.3 million in it. The treasurer's office told me this money was from overpaid property taxes that had been held for 30 years. They said they didn't have the staff to figure out who the money belonged to, so the commissioners eventually used it for the general fund. I felt that that was drastically wrong, so I went to the state capital. I spoke before the House Ways and Means Committee and reiterated that ever-increasing property taxes would price seniors and those on fixed incomes out of their homes. They were all nodding their heads, but nobody did anything.”

Subscribe now

Massie reiterated the constant, bipartisan desire to hold our elected officials accountable. His organization is tackling a big issue here, and it’s a debate that should be held in the open and discussed, not censored, pushed under the rug, or forgotten about. Admittedly, tax law is incredibly complex, and I can be sympathetic to those who would rather not open Pandora’s box. However, the data demonstrates that the box may have been open for quite a while. Below, I’ve compiled various data points and explanations to build the narrative that Massie relayed to me.

The median property tax in Ohio is approximately $1,836 per year, based on a home valued at the state median of $134,600, equating to an average tax rate of 1.36% of assessed fair market value. Ohio ranks 22nd nationally for median property tax and 20th for property taxes as a percentage of median income (3.16%). Without legislative reform, property taxes across Ohio’s 88 counties could increase by 13–25% by 2026–2027, driven by ongoing reappraisals and market-driven value spikes. Ohio law mandates a sexennial reappraisal every six years and a triennial update every three years. The triennial update relies on home sale data, often from the most recent year, while the sexennial reappraisal is more comprehensive, involving physical inspections or aerial photography.

An important function of how property taxes are calculated is through a process called millage. In Ohio, millage and the 20-mill floor are key components of the property tax system, influencing how property taxes are calculated and how tax revenues are distributed, particularly for school districts. Millage refers to the tax rate applied to the assessed value of a property, expressed in mills. One mill equals $1 of tax per $1,000 of assessed property value. For example, a 10-mill levy on a property assessed at $100,000 generates $1,000 in annual taxes (10 × $100,000 ÷ 1,000). In Ohio, property taxes are based on 35% of the appraised market value (known as the taxable value). So, a home appraised at $200,000 has an assessed value of $70,000 ($200,000 × 0.35). There are two types of Millage:

• Inside Millage: Up to 10 mills authorized by the Ohio Constitution, not subject to voter approval, and used for general government operations e.g., county or municipal services like roads and bridges. Inside millage is fully affected by changes in property values, so a 30% increase in assessed value directly increases inside millage revenue by 30%.

• Outside Millage: These are additional levies approved by voters for specific purposes (e.g., schools, libraries, fire services). These levies, which make up about 90% of property tax bills, are subject to tax reduction factors under Ohio’s House Bill 920 (1976), which adjust the effective millage rate to keep revenue stable despite rising property values (more on this below). Here’s an example of how millage works: for a $200,000 home (assessed value $70,000) with a total millage rate of 50 mills (e.g., 5 inside mills + 45 outside mills), the annual tax is $3,500 (50 × $70,000 ÷ 1,000). If the home’s appraised value rises to $260,000 (assessed value $91,000), the inside millage portion increases proportionally, but outside millage is adjusted to limit revenue growth.
  So then what is the 20-mill floor?

The 20-mill floor is a provision in Ohio’s property tax law that prevents the effective millage rate for school districts from falling below 20 mills for current operating expenses (e.g., teacher salaries, utilities). This applies to the combined inside and outside millage allocated to schools. The floor ensures school districts maintain a minimum level of local funding, as mandated by the Ohio Constitution, which requires a combination of state and local revenue to fund public education. It was established to prevent school districts from losing too much local tax revenue when property values rise significantly. For example, if a 10-mill levy generates $1 million and property values rise 30%, the effective millage rate might drop to 7.69 mills to maintain $1 million in revenue. However, if the effective millage rate for a school district’s operating expenses falls below 20 mills due to these adjustments, the 20-mill floor kicks in. The millage rate is fixed at 20 mills, and the district collects additional revenue proportional to the property value increase. This results in higher tax bills for residents. In districts at the 20-mill floor (e.g., Cincinnati Public Schools in Hamilton County or Columbus City Schools in Franklin County), rising property values directly increase tax bills because the millage rate cannot be reduced further. For example, a 34% property value increase in Hamilton County could lead to a 10–12% tax bill increase for residents in such districts, as seen in 2024 tax bills. Approximately two-thirds of property taxes in Ohio fund schools, making the 20-mill floor a significant driver of tax bill increases in high-growth areas.

Now let’s look at some of Ohio’s largest counties, and how they square up currently in this rapidly changing tax environment.

Franklin County (Columbus, Dublin, Hilliard)
Assessed property values increased by 30–35% on average in the 2023 reappraisal, with some areas seeing up to 40% hikes. These values were finalized in December 2023 and reflected in 2024 tax bills. The 30–35% value increase does not translate directly to tax hikes due to Ohio’s tax structure. Franklin County Auditor Michael Stinziano noted that the last triennial update in 2020 (20% value increase) led to a 7.8% average tax increase. A similar ratio suggests 2024 tax bills may have risen by 9–12% on average.

Butler County (Fairfield, Hamilton, Middletown)
In 2023, The Ohio Department of Taxation recommended a 42% increase in property values, the highest since at least 1978. County Auditor Nancy Nix argued for a more accurate 24% increase based on three-year sales data. While the 42% value increase doesn’t directly equate to a 42% tax hike, Butler County taxpayers in school districts faced tax increases of 3–17%. Butler County is undergoing a sexennial reappraisal, with early estimates suggesting value increases of 13–25% by January 2026, to be reflected in 2027 tax bills. This follows a 37% average value hike in the 2023 triennial update.

Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, Parma, Euclid)
In the 2024 Sexennial Reappraisal, Property values increased by an average of 32%, with some areas like East Cleveland seeing spikes as high as 67.38%. The tax increase is moderated by Ohio’s tax structure, where about 90% of tax bills are rolled back to maintain fixed revenue for levies. However, areas with high value increases and school districts at the 20-mill floor likely saw tax hikes of 10–20% in 2024, particularly in high-growth neighborhoods. Cuyahoga County’s median property tax is $2,649 annually, one of the highest in Ohio, reflecting its urban density and higher property values.

Hamilton County (Cincinnati)
Property values surged by 34% on average in the 2023 triennial update, leading to an average 10% increase in 2024 tax bills. The tax increase was less than the value increase due to Ohio’s tax rollback mechanism for outside millage. However, school districts saw higher tax revenue and resident tax bills, likely in the 8–12% range. Hamilton County’s median property tax is $2,274 annually, above the state median. With all that in mind, it’s a shock that reforms haven’t been made sooner in the buckeye state.

In short, Ohio tax law is set up so that there are no protections against rapid unsustainable growth when it occurs. This is incredibly harmful to those on fixed incomes, who may even own their home but can no longer afford the taxes on it. A 60%+ increase in taxes is utterly unsustainable. Is this really ownership

MASSIE: “We've learned that state legislators are not going to do anything. Many don't even understand the complex property tax system. We were also told by elected officials that if we eliminated property taxes, we wouldn't need an auditor or treasurer, and I responded that it sounds like a good way of cutting down the size of government.

This is a systemic problem targeting each and every Ohioan. With a problem so abhorrent and a solution so seemingly obvious, why hasn’t anything been done? The answer, beyond the red tape and bureaucratic lethargy described by Mr. Massie is more surprising than one might think. It’s actually been quite difficult to convince Ohioans to sign any petition in support of this issue.

MASSIE: ““Many people don't correlate voting for a levy with an increase in property taxes. About 40% of people in Lake County with a mortgage never even see their tax bill. The state legislators are representing the donor class, not the average citizen, and are protecting themselves to get reelected.”

The bureaucrats have the home-field advantage here. Try telling your blue-collar neighbor flying a blue line flag and whose kids go to the local high school that he’d be voting to defund those things. It’s a tough pitch to make. To his credit, Massie, and many of his allies have encountered this obvious roadblock and make the pitch nonetheless.

MASSIE: “They ask me: ‘How are we going to pay for police and fire, roads and bridges?’ I say, ‘Figure out another way. Send me a bill, I'll pay for it, just don't tie it to my home. Right now, I get a bill; on my property tax bill it says "Concord Township: $2,000." I say, ‘Well, I want to know how much of the $2,000 I'm paying for police, how much I'm paying for fire, roads and bridges, administration, parks.’ I want details, because again in my world, transparency is the key to good governance. I want to find out if I'm paying $1,000 a year for police protection, and I compare it to the other townships and our cities in the local area, and they're paying $100 a year. What's the difference? Is there something that could explain that? But right now, they don't want us shining light on that because it might cause some questions, namely: "Are you being good with the taxpayer money?"

A certainly poignant question in these polarizing times. For those interested in the movement or getting involved, Massie says it’s all about signatures at this point. They need more than 400,000 names collected from at least half of Ohio’s 88 counties to get on the ballot in November. Those interested can visit axohtax.com or citizensforpropertytaxreform.org, as well as their Facebook group. Brian Massie also has a YouTube channel where he discusses this issue in depth. So far, it’s not looking like they’ll have the signatures in time. The good news is that proposed constitutional amendments can be pushed back to future elections, so expect these organizations to grow in size, scale, and necessity, as taxes soar. The solution isn’t clear or obvious, with many people advocating for a scaling down or phasing out of property taxes, or some alternative tax untethered from the home. Massie, and others like him, see this as not extreme enough, hoping to scare the suits in Columbus straight.

MASSIE: “This is a freedom and liberty issue. The Declaration of Independence says that citizens shall have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe homeownership is the basic foundation of our freedom, and we are not renters from the government. We need to make a statement and get on the ballot to eliminate property taxes completely. Homeownership is the basic foundation of our freedom and liberty. Our position is that the people should have a chance to go to the ballot box and vote on whether to abolish property taxes. We believe that any tax that causes a citizen to become homeless is immoral.”

Whether through grassroots action, legislative reform, or public scrutiny, the question remains: can economic theory and political reality ever align to protect the people the system was meant to serve?

FULL AUDIO INTERVIEW AVAILABLE BELOW

Leave a comment

Phineas Kelly is an undergraduate student at The University of Dayton pursuing a bachelor’s degree in both Political Science and International Studies.

There was no one quite like Charlie Kirk. Whether it was through debating college kids, hosting his national radio show, or working to get out the conservative vote through his organizations, Charlie was one of the hardest working men in the conservative movement. He served as a mentor to countless young professionals coming up in politics, as someone who spoke what millions of Americans were thinking, and as someone who introduced the goodness of our Lord into the lives of everyone he interacted with.

I never had the opportunity to meet Charlie, but I had to go back through my photo gallery and X feed to make sure I hadn’t. I’ve watched so many of his debate videos, and listened to his daily radio show on 98.9 in Columbus, that it felt like he was a friend. He was someone that was not just known in political figures. In the era of Instagram Reels and TikTokes, he capitalized on those platforms and effectively spread his message to the point that everyone knew him. Some colleagues and friends that I have never spoken to about politics reached out and asked if I knew Charlie. They were followers. He was winning the culture war.

There is only one way to describe what Charlie Kirk was able to accomplish in his short thirty-one years on Earth, and that is cultural domination. Ask any college Republican who their biggest inspiration was and I’m sure you would get the same answer.

It’s important to point out that the bullets only seem to fly one way. The Republicans that champion the second amendment aren’t the ones that shoot their political opponents. When there was a shooting at the Congressional Baseball Game practice that threatened the life of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), it wasn’t a far-right actor that fired. It was a left-wing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I/D-Vermont) supporter that hit the Congressman. When God protected President Donald Trump and saved his life during that fateful Butler, PA rally, it wasn’t a Trump supporter that pulled the trigger. Although they have not yet found the assassin’s motives, I would almost guarantee that it isn’t a lifelong Republican behind the rifle.

A bad actor may have believed he could silence Charlie Kirk by taking his life, but in doing so they only ensured that his voice will echo louder than ever. Charlie’s fight is now our fight. His mission is now everyone’s mission. Charlie carried the banner with courage, faith, and unshakable conviction, but now it is in our hands. Let us honor him not with fear or silence, but with action, truth, and boldness. Those are the characteristics that have defined his thirty-one short years on this earth. He may not be in his body, but he is now with the Lord, and his legacy will never be extinguished.

Joshua Lickliter is a nineteen-year-old conservative activist and political figure based in Madison County, Ohio. He serves on the Madison County GOP Central Committee, is the founder of Excel Political Strategies and is the former chair of Teenage Republicans of Ohio.

As Ohio Governor Mike DeWine anticipates the inevitable end of his over 45 year political career, an attempt at a potential last minute Supreme Court seat appointment could be his lasting legacy.

Meet Pat Fischer, Justice on the Ohio Supreme Court. His career path includes serving on the Hamilton County Court of Appeals from 2000 to 2011 before returning to private practice until his initial Supreme Court run in 2016. Fischer won a narrow election, winning over 50.28% of voting Ohioans against Democrat Justice John O’Donnell to begin his first six year term. Notably, this was before partisan labels were added to Supreme Court races, so the endorsement of individuals like DeWine and the Ohio Republican Party helped boost his name statewide.

In 2022, after party labels were added to the ballot, Pat Fischer was re-elected to the Supreme Court by a wider margin, this time getting 56% of the vote. He defeated Democrat Court of Appeals Judge Terri Jamison to begin his second six year term. At the completion of this term in 2028, Justice Fischer will be 74 years old. For those unaware, in the state of Ohio, Supreme Court Justices cannot take office after reaching the age of seventy (A-IV, S6, ORC).

In the 2026 election, Democrats will be defending their last Supreme Court seat, a seat currently held by former Secretary of State, Justice Jennifer Brunner (D). With partisan labels on the ballot, this is an all-but-guaranteed election win for the GOP, so the thought of running for this seat has entered the mind of many in the Ohio law arena. So far, both former Judge Colleen O’Donnel (R-Grandview Heights) and current Court of Appeals Judge Andrew King (R-Granville) have thrown their hats in the ring, and Judge Ron Lewis (R-Greene County) is being floated as a potential candidate.

You’re probably asking yourself, what is the correlation of anything I’ve discussed up-until now? Well, on January 1, 2027, when Justice Brunner’s court term is up, Justice Fischer will be sixty-nine years old, allowing him to complete one more term on the state’s highest court before he is aged-out.

In short, Justice Fischer appears poised to run for Justice Brunner’s seat while still serving, positioning himself to serve two more years before mandatory retirement.

Some may ask: Josh, How is this a DeWine power grab? To put it simply, if Fischer vacates his seat on the Supreme Court before the end of his term, DeWine gets to hand pick his replacement. Not only will Fischer get another two years on the court, keeping a new elected face from serving, but DeWine also gets a chance to repay political favors on his way out of the door.

According to Ohio Conservatives PAC, an organization I am not associated with, they’ve been told “DeWine’s preference [to fill Fischer’s seat] is long time DeWine family friend and Court of Appeals judge Ron Lewis who was appointed to that position by DeWine.” A keen-eyed commenter on the PAC’s Facebook said, “I’m hearing that Mike DeWine wants to appoint his daughter Alice DeWine to the seat that Judge Ron Lewis currently holds.”

I don’t dislike Justice Fischer, but it is not an accurate assessment to describe him as a hardline constitutional conservative Republican. He led to the rewriting of the 2023 abortion amendment language to favor the abortion groups, and also aligned with the liberal justices on decisions regarding judicial misconduct and workers’ compensation.

If you’re an Ohio voter and you’re fine with this solution, vote for Pat Fischer in May 2026. If you’re an Ohio voter and you want a say in who our next Republican to serve on the court will be, throw your support behind any of the other candidates.

I heard Judge King speak at the Madison County GOP meeting last month, and he put it pretty simple: ‘If you like Justice Fischer and you like me, vote for me and you get us both.’ (Not an exact quote, but the sentiment is there.)

Most likely, this race will come down to the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee, which is the governing body of the Ohio GOP. Traditionally, the SCC makes an early primary endorsement in judicial races, hand selecting who Ohioans will get to vote for in both the primary and general elections. To prevent this game of judicial musical chairs, voters should contact their State Central Committee representatives [the most recent contact list I know of can be found here] and to encourage either a vote against endorsements entirely, or in support of endorsing one of the other qualified judges for the seat. State Central Committee members are assigned based on State Senate districts.

The need for primary endorsements in judicial races is no longer. Now that voters know the party affiliation as soon as they look at a ballot, the need for over twelve months of campaigning with the “Republican Endorsed” banner has lapsed. When given the opportunity, let the voters decide. And that goes for the Governor, the Justice, the State Central Committee, and anyone else attempting to take away the voice of Ohioans.

Thank you for reading The Buckeye Beacon. ■

Disclaimer: The author of this story, Joshua Lickliter, has declared his candidacy for the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee, which is the governing body that will make the decision on whether or not to endorse in this contested race. This is not a paid advertisement or endorsement for his campaign.

Meet the new Democratic Party Chairwoman Kathleen Clyde, former county commissioner and state Representative. Despite having two elected offices to her name, she has not held one since 2020 and has not won an election since 2016. Let’s look through her electoral history.

• 2010 — Elected to State Representative (re-elected in 2012, 2014, and 2016).

• 2018 — Runs for Secretary of State, defeated in general election by current Secretary Frank LaRose

• 2018 — Appointed to Portage County Commission to finish the term of Mike Kerrigan, who resigned due to personal reasons.

• 2020 — Ran for Portage County Commissioner, defeated in general by current Commissioner Tony Badalamenti.

• 2022 — Ran for State Representative, defeated by former Representative Gail Pavliga

In 2026, the Ohio Democratic Party will fight to hold its final statewide seat, the Supreme Court position occupied by current Justice Jennifer Brunner, while also fighting to gain another Supreme Court seat, a Senate seat and every statewide executive office.

This does raise a major question about Ohio politics as a whole, though. What does it say about the state of our state politics that the Democratic Party is led by someone with very slight electoral victory? In a state of eleven million people, 88 counties, five elected Congressmen, 40 elected Democrats at the state level, ten major city mayors, and not even beginning to count county officials, the only person they could choose for the political suicide mission that is ODP chair is a former appointed county commissioner?

Personally, I’m glad to see this happen. Incompetence at the state party level could spell trouble for former Senator Sherrod Brown, who has begun fundraising for a potential gubernatorial run according to leftist blogger The Rooster. The ODP’s inept leadership will give Vivek Ramaswamy an even higher edge in our formerly purple-turned-solidly red state.

Thanks for reading The Buckeye Beacon, I’m Josh Lickliter, President of Excel Political Strategies and candidate for Ohio Republican State Central Committee in 2026. This edition is co-written and edited by EPS Vice President Phineas Kelly. This newsletter is supported by clients and friends of Excel Political Strategies. If you’d like to see how we can help your business, campaign, or other venture, shoot me an email today: josh@excelpolitical.com.

Subscribe now

Here are the Ohio political headlines you should know.

• CONTESTED PRIMARY: Retired Air Force combat veteran Marcel Strbich has announced his campaign to replace Frank LaRose in the Secretary of State’s office. He joins a primary with current state Treasurer Robert Sprague.

  

• PRO-LIFE LEGISLATION: Ohio Representatives will file the ‘Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act’ on June 18, 2025. End Abortion Ohio is organizing an assembly in support of this legislation, with speakers including Pastor BJ Newman. The event aims to rally support for the bill, which focuses on prenatal protections.

• WATCH YOUR SIX: Across the state on Saturday, June 14, leftist organizers are planning a “No Kings” protest. This is in support of the radical rioting currently taking place in Los Angeles, California. Find out if your city is on the list thanks to Ohio College Republicans chairman Gabe Guidarini.

  [Click here for the full list.]

  

• PETITION GATHERING: Multiple groups are gathering petitions for statewide ballot initiatives. One of the issues being gathered is to abolish property tax in the state. Another one is an effort to repeal Senate Bill 1. Read into the issues before you sign the petitions, — do not sign something you aren’t familiar with.

  Thanks for reading The Buckeye Beacon! This post is public so feel free to share it.

  Share

Subscribe now

As always, thank you for reading The Buckeye Beacon. ■

Subscribe now

In a press release in January, Senator Cirino laid out the foundations of the bill.

“In sum, Senate Bill 1:
Ensures intellectual diversity in the classroom and among the faculty.
Provides free speech protections for students, faculty, and staff.
Allows an education of free, open, and rigorous intellectual inquiry to seek the truth.
Eliminates DEI programming, staff, consultants, titles, and all spending.
Requires full syllabus transparency.
Bans political and ideological litmus tests in all hiring, promotion, and admissions decisions.
Installs a number of other worthwhile provisions including eliminating labor strikes by any university or community college faculty, establishing post-tenure periodic review, and requiring full disclosure of any donations made by any affiliate of the People’s Republic of China.”

The bill generally maintains the planks of SB83, with a few inclusions; most notably banning labor strikes by university faculty. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, spoke out against the bill. Chief lobbyist Gary Daniels makes his objections clear.

“To support SB 1, as is, is an invitation to chaos, confusion, and First Amendment violations on all our campuses. Instad, the ACLU of Ohio urges this committee's rejection of Senate Bill 1.”

Ignoring the fact that Mr. Daniels clearly didn’t proofread his closing sentences before publishing them, the fact is that the ACLU seems to make a compelling argument against this bill, citing free speech concerns and more. Dayton Daily News correspondent Avery Kreemer gathered data from polls and anecdotal evidence from various student governments at many Ohio universities and community colleges in an article published last week.

“Bobby McAlpine, the undergraduate student president of Ohio State University, told lawmakers Tuesday that students broadly disagree with S.B. 1’s provisions, according to a survey of more than 1,500 OSU students.

According to McAlpine, 78% of surveyed students said they feel free to express their political ideologies on campus; 81% of students do not feel that OSU faculty or staff seek to impose certain political beliefs, and 86% of respondents felt as though diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives were at least somewhat meaningful, while 46% believed they were extremely meaningful, to their college experience.”

According to the Ohio Capital Journal, more than 200 protestors were present and 800 written testimonies were submitted during the Ohio Senate Higher Education Committee meeting on February 11.

“Justin Robinson, Ohio State’s undergraduate student body vice president, read a letter from student body leaders from Ohio State, Bowling Green State University, John Carroll University, Kent State University, University of Dayton, University of Akron, Denison University, and Case Western Reserve University.

“If passed, this bill would strip institutions of the ability to govern themselves, limit the free exchange of ideas, silence conversations on critical social and historical issues, and impose top-down ideological control over faculty, staff, and students,” Robinson said. “This bill fundamentally undermines the mission of higher education: to create an environment in which students can engage in free thought, challenge perspectives, and grow into informed, engaged citizens.”

Predictably, many of those interviewed offered a broad idealogical scope of the potential consequences of the bill that seemed to be a general political outburst, rather than a targeted, rational criticism of the legislation.

“Many who testified against the bill warned university faculty and college students would leave Ohio if S.B 1 passes.

“Had Senate Bill 1 been in effect when I was choosing the appropriate higher education route for myself, leaving the state of Ohio would have been priority one,” said Sabrina Estevez, a second-year student at Ohio State University. “The merit of a degree from the state of Ohio is significantly eroded if this bill passes.”

Tara Godwin moved to Columbus from Salt Lake City, Utah to continue her education at Ohio State.

“If Senate Bill 1 had passed before I decided to attend OSU, I would not have decided to move my family to Ohio,” Godwin, a Ph.D. history student said. “Senate Bill 1 destroys the ability of faculty to determine how to best teach the content of courses in which they are experts.”

Any reasonable bystander, when presented with the data and testimonies I’ve laid out here, would certainly have a lot of questions for Mr. Cirino; if not an outright objection to his bill entirely. All of this information is freely and easily available with a quick Google search, in fact it’s quite difficult to find a source praising these lawmakers for their ideas. Between the potential free speech violations, risks of government overreach, and the operating costs of executing such a bill, any conservative worth their salt would never even consider adopting such a policy. This all begs the question of why such predictably staunch, MAGA republicans in Columbus are praising this bill?

For his part, Senator Cirino fired back in the previously referenced press release.

“Critics who claim the bill promotes censorship have it exactly backwards,” said Cirino. “Senate Bill 1 will allow students to exercise their right to free speech without threat of reprisal by professors or administrators. It will permit the marketplace of ideas to flourish, which is the ideal environment for any educational institution.”

Certainly a nice sentiment, but on first glance it falls flat in the face of boisterous activism and outcries from Ohio’s college students. Both proponents and critics of the bill suffer from the same problem: not defining DEI. I’m going to focus the remainder of this piece in deconstructing the ACLU article, as it makes the most comprehensive arguments against the bill, whereas the data and anecdotes are just symptoms of the fallacies committed in Mr. Daniels’s piece.

Daniels’s first claim is certainly his most compelling, and I’ll even concede accurate.

“Like its predecessor, last session’s Senate Bill 83, Senate Bill 1 is an often confusing and contradictory mix of language and provisions that appears to have much less to do with actual policy than it does to inflame culture wars, which for many decades have targeted our colleges and universities.”

I’ll consider this to be his thesis, from there he supports this with two points. First, the “nonsensical ban” of DEI and second, the free speech violations.

I’ve read a lot of state and federal legislation over the years, I can tell you none of it is easy to read. Ohio’s SB1 is no different. Although not uncommon, the fact that the bill lacks any sort of crystal clear definition of its key terms leaves it up to the reader’s interpretation, which the ACLU is certainly happy to do. Mr. Daniels takes it upon himself to also not define DEI, and proceeds to fear-monger about the potential consequences of removing it from publicly funded institutions. Before I commit the sins of my predecessor’s: the best, most accurate definition of DEI (and the one I assume SB1’s sponsors are operating under) is from the American Psychological Association

“Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) is a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially populations that have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.”

The logic then flows that DEI policies in schools and the workplace would be policies that seek to balance power and influence between the historically oppressed and the historical oppressors. In other words, quotas based on race, sex, and disability status. Despite the flowery phrasing and colorful sentences, the only reasonable practical application of DEI philosophy is to hire, grade, and teach based on race, sex, ethnicity, etc instead of merit. To assign value based on the color of the person’s skin, and not the content of their character. Daniels continues:

“Supporters of SB 1 continue to frame this as merely a ban on racial quotas. But, such quotas are already illegal, have been for a long time, and nowhere in SB 1 is its language limited to this concern. So, what exactly will the General Assembly ban with passage of SB 1? Here is a short, non-exhaustive list:

Some of Ohio’s universities offer scholarships to traditionally and currently marginalized and/or underrepresented people and communities. For example, scholarships exist to exclusively benefit military veterans, physically disabled students, and victims of human trafficking, among many others. But not after passage of SB 1.”

In light of what I’ve discussed previously, Daniels is exactly right when he says laws barring hiring, public access, and admission based on quotas have been outlawed for three quarters of a century. However, the practical effect of executing DEI policies is exactly that; there is no other reasonable expectation. It’s here where Daniels’s inner activist gets the better of him, and he stops reporting with genuine concern, and instead inserts his own application of the definition. The implication that Ohio’s lawmakers are interested in denying applications to military veterans, rape victims, and students in wheelchairs is utterly ridiculous, he may as well have thrown in kids with cancer and terminal puppies.

“The same is true for any and all outreach efforts. One might think it is a positive thing for a university to look around, see the demographics of their students and staff are not reflective of society around them, and then make efforts to diversify. So, they revisit and redouble their recruitment and retention efforts. Again, not quotas. Just a recognition their past and current practices have fallen short.”

His attempt to distinguish DEI policies from racial quotas again falls short, especially given the fact that he also hasn’t defined DEI. Ohio State’s practices have fallen short of what? I fear Mr. Daniels isn’t interested going further in justifying his argument.

“So, using just one example, perhaps they increase recruitment efforts at Ohio high schools with largely black and brown students. Or rural students. Or first-generation college students. Or maybe it is something as simple and effortless as including language on application and employment paperwork reading something like, “All are encouraged to apply, regardless of race, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, or physical ability.” All of this and much more is diversity, equity, and inclusion in action. All of it is apparently so objectionable and distasteful it must be totally banned, as is required under SB 1.”

Again he muddies the water in an attempt to “own the conservatives.” He knows his application is dishonest, but I’ll take him at his word and rebut the claim anyway. Switch black and brown in that sentence with white and asian, then it starts to sound a little racist; almost as if black and brown students don’t need the cold, administrative hand of government to be able to succeed. Furthermore, what’s the logical conclusion of his claim? In his world, SB1 passes, and now applications and paperwork must not include specific wording of who is encouraged to apply. The implication being that marginalized communities are only applying to college or jobs because the application says they’re allowed to— another ridiculous assertion. Then, if that means they’re only applying and presumably being accepted then that acceptance is based entirely on their race. No matter which way you slice it, he’s either a liar or a racist.

“And, to demonstrate SB 1 seeks to ban any and all DEI efforts no matter how small or big, no matter who may be affected, this bill also makes clear “a state institution shall not replace any orientation, training, office, or position designated for the purpose of diversity, equity, and inclusion that is prohibited under this division with an orientation, training, office, or position under a different designation that serves the same or similar purposes, or that uses the same or similar means.” (Lines #638-643)”

This is a pretty normal policy provision seeking to close potential loopholes, the gravity of the impact which the author intends is not felt because he still hasn’t defined the terms.

“Proponents of SB 1 feign surprise when opponents claim this bill requires widespread bans of each and every diversity, equity, and inclusion effort, proposal, position, and more. They proclaim opponents are reading too much into it. But all we are doing is reading the actual bill language, as cited above.”

His big argument seems to be that “they haven’t defined the term so I will for them.” Which says a lot about the ideology of the activist. They take admittedly vague legislation, (but legislation that assumes the goodwill of both its executors and opponents) stretch the definition to its largest possible extent so as to include ridiculous “potential applications,” and then cry and protest and boycott the consequences which exist only in their head. This is truly a moral battle more than a cultural one. SB1’s proponents are assuming the goodwill of the people receiving and executing these policies, assuming that they will apply it judiciously and reasonably. Just the mere fact that misinformed students have already taken to the statehouse and beyond to protest the perceived effects of legislation that hasn’t even passed, is just further proof that the ACLU and its affiliates are only interested in scoring cheap political points over comprehensive moral policy.

“But, if all these bans and prohibitions are not the goal of SB 1’s supporters, then the answer is simple – amend the bill to make abundantly clear to all involved what is acceptable versus what is illegal. Again, a great place to start would be actually defining “diversity, equity, and inclusion” for the purposes of this bill.”

Daniels commits the exact same fallacy throughout his piece. If he was interested in an honest takedown of the bill, he would argue honestly. The fact that it’s not made abundantly clear, and that most universities are opposed to this bill and have extremely left wing administration and faculty leads me to believe that the actual effects of this bill on Ohio’s public universities will be quite minimal. It’s really a microcosm of the 10th amendment, SB1 is limiting the scope of the interpretation of so that universities can best apply it judiciously based on the needs of each institution. If the bill came down too hard, Daniels would make all the constitutional arguments he’s about to, if it doesn’t come down hard enough then some institution will take it upon itself to abuse the interpretation. Of course, I side with the more constitutionally accepted perspective, giving universities (the states in the the 10th amendment example) prudence over how the law will be executed, limiting the scope of the state. I say all this in preparation for the fact that Daniels is about to claim that this is unconstitutional, however I’ve already proven that the bill is at the very least based on the philosophy of constitutional values.

“At best, this language is the micromanaging of individual courses and instructors by the General Assembly. At worst, it is what opponents have claimed all along. That is, SB 1, and SB 83 before it, requiring all sides of every issue being evenly presented by instructors, ignoring their First Amendment right to academic freedom.

This is precisely why opponents point out these mandates will require any and all coursework on, say, the Jewish Holocaust of the 20th century, to include the perspective, opinions, and justifications of those who orchestrated those mass murders.

If the issue is post-Civil War United States, the obliteration of the progress gained during the Reconstruction period, and the ushering in of so-called Jim Crow Laws, the perspective, opinions, and justifications of those who do not believe Black Americans should have been able to vote, hold elected office, serve on juries, own businesses or work various jobs, and more.”

As I’ve already laid out, it’s far from micromanagement. It’s contradictory for Daniels to claim that both the bill is so vague as to be abusive, but also it’s so specific that it infringes on teachers rights to teach. Which is it? I think it is completely reasonable to expect history teachers to present a comprehensive unbiased view of human history. I think diving into this claim is getting further away from the point, but the bill states:

“An affirmation and declaration a state university “ensure the fullest degree of intellectual diversity.” (Lines #668-671). SB 1 defines “intellectual diversity” as “multiple, divergent, and varied perspectives on an extensive range of public policy issues.” (Lines #605-607)”

“A requirement “faculty members remain committed to expressing intellectual diversity and allowing intellectual diversity to be expressed” during classroom instruction, discussion, or debate. (Lines #746-749)”

The idea that “expressing intellectual diversity” is somehow micromanaging what professors are and aren’t allowed to teach is ridiculous. At its core Daniels’s second point betrays his first. He claims that the bill is so vague that it will be abused by lawmakers to deny access to homeless, legless veterans, but also that it’s so abusively specific that professors right to free speech is violated. Make it make sense!

“After all, SB 1 requires the fullest degree of intellectual diversity. But, as we believe at least some SB 1 supporters fully intend, the end result will be instructors and classes avoiding any and all subjects where such scenarios may arise. This is compounded by SB 1’s requirement to slash funding for those who violate SB 1’s fuzzy, inexact requirements. As we often see in the world of First Amendment controversies, vagueness results in silence, muzzling, and fear. Keep people guessing what speech Big Government allows or does not allow, and this is what happens.”

His final points are his most muddied. First, he doubles down on his contradiction, and makes a decidedly anti-first amendment argument. It’s bold to claim that fuzzy, inexact arguments lead to free speech violations, when in fact it’s the exact opposite that results in said violations. Free speech violations are always because of compelled speech, when someone is forced to say what they don’t believe against their will, or not allowed to say what they do believe against their will

. This bill includes no such provision. I would like to see the link between “fuzzy, inexact requirements” and “silence, muzzling, and fear.” In fact, it seems to me that the inexact wording leaves it up to the interpretation of the university, which as I’ve already argued, is expressly constitutional. Furthermore, he draws the link between the slashed funding (a consequence of violating the bill) and first amendment violations. However it is illegal for such a circumstance to occur, (the state can’t penalize people for exercising free speech) which I’m sure Daniels is aware of. Therefore, it stands to reason that the funding cuts would be enforced around intentional violations, such as creating a DEI department under a different name, et cetera. The funding cut would be a result of upholding racial quotas, not exercising free speech, unless Daniels wants to make the argument that racism should be protected under the first amendment.

“Certainly, we want our universities to promote, motivate, and accommodate individual thought, expression, and opinion in classroom discussions, examinations, and projects. Except for some isolated allegations, we do not believe SB 1 proponents have sufficiently demonstrated there is any type of widespread or concerning pattern among Ohio’s institutions of higher education necessitating what boils down to a classroom coup orchestrated by this legislation.”

He ends the piece with a completely unrelated argument. The first sentence is certainly what the bill is attempting to achieve, the very ideas that are hindered by racial quotas under DEI policies. If Mr. Daniels doesn’t believe that judging people not on their merit, but their external characteristics constitutes reason enough for change, I don’t know what would be evidence enough for him.

This bill is certainly reactionary to the growing anti DEI sentiment, and is definitely more nuanced than either side would have you believe, however states across the country have already passed similar bills across the country. In 2023, Florida passed SB 266, which restricts DEI programs and certain course content in public colleges and universities. The Texas state legislature passed SB 17 in 2023, which bans DEI offices and programs at public universities. In April 2023, North Dakota passed HB 1503, which prohibits mandatory DEI training and restricts certain DEI initiatives in public higher education institutions. Tennessee passed a law in 2023 that bans the use of state funds for DEI initiatives in public colleges and universities. In May 2023, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed an executive order prohibiting DEI spending at public colleges, universities, and other state agencies. The left started the culture war, and the right intends to end it.

I have to say, I am completely impartial at this point. Yost and Ramaswamy both have their positives and their faults, but if you would’ve told me two weeks ago that the statewide elected officials (LaRose and Sprague, so far) would abandon him, I would’ve laughed in your face.

Welcome to The Buckeye Beacon, I’m Josh Lickliter, founder of Excel Political Strategies.

Join myself, along with Dave Yost and Clark County Sheriff Chris Clark at the Clark County, Ohio GOP Lincoln Day Dinner next Friday, the 21st. Get your tickets and join us here!

Governor names his new Lieutenant

Governor Mike DeWine (R-Yellow Springs) announced this week that former Youngstown State University President Jim Tressel (R-Medina) has been inaugurated as interim Lieutenant Governor, replacing now-Senator Jon Husted (R-Upper Arlington). Tressel is most well-known for coaching Ohio State’s football team to one national championship, four Division I-AA championships, and nine wins against the Michigan football program, prior to serving as President of YSU. He is the 8-time National Coach of the Year. He also served as a major draw to a fundraiser for now-Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Westlake) during the 2024 cycle.

To all public opinion, as well as to state officials I spoke to off-the-record, this is a major shock. Unlike Jon Husted’s Senatorial appointment, that was rumored for a while before the actual appointment, very few if anyone mentioned Tressel’s name for consideration. I subscribed to the belief that Director of Development Lydia Mihalik (R-Findlay), and DeWine throwing someone in way out of left field (wrong sport, I know) is uncharacteristic, but I’m hopeful for this.

As President of Youngstown State, Tressel did not mandate masks to return to campus, but he appeared in a video with fellow OSU coach Urban Meyer encouraging mask wearing. I’m of the belief that actions (no mandates) is more important than words (the video).

I don’t see Tressel running for Governor, as I don’t see DeWine trying to appoint a successor two years before his (assumed) end in politics. Tressel is rumored to have declined the Senate appointment that Husted took, and one of DeWine’s criteria for that seat was being able to run and win in 2026.

Antani, Roegner run for Treasurer

Former State Senator Niraj Antani (R-Miamisburg) declared his run for Secretary of State three weeks ago, prior to Treasurer Robert Sprague (R-Findlay) shifting his campaign to that seat. Rather than challenge a current statewide official, Antani is moving from SOS to Treasurer, he announced in a series of statement on X today.

“It’s no surprise that just a day later last week the current Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who came in last place in the primary in last year’s U.S. Senate race, announced a campaign for State Auditor. The day after that Secretary LaRose and Treasurer Sprague endorsed each other, finalizing the 3 act play of the week. These copy-paste politicians are playing musical chairs with Ohio’s Constitutional executive offices. They’ll do whatever it takes to stay in power, no matter what. This is the political gamesmanship that Ohioans are tired of, and that I’ve stood against.” Former Sen. Niraj Antani

After this series, State Senator Kristina Roegner (R-Hudson) has declared her run for the same office. I expect this to be one of two races with a decent primary, unless Antani changes races again.

SB1 passes the Ohio Senate

Senate Bill 1, introduced by Senator Jerry Cirino (R-Kirtland), will ban DEI and require students to take American history courses, as well as more common sense reforms to Ohio education. According to Ohio Capital Journal, a left-wing ‘news’ source, “The bill stipulates classroom discussion allows students to ‘reach their own conclusions about all controversial beliefs or policies and shall not seek to indoctrinate any social, political, or religious point of view.”

The bill passed in a 21-11 vote, with all Democrats and two Republicans, Sen. Bill Blessing (R-Colerain Township) and Tom Patton (R-Strongsville) voting against. In the coming days, The Buckeye Beacon’s Phineas Kelly will have a write-up about the benefits of SB1 and how they will improve higher education, so make sure you’re subscribed to our email list to see that.

Subscribe now

Current state of statewide races for 2026, with those currently holding statewide offices indicated with an *.

• Governor

  • Dave Yost (R), Ohio Attorney General*

  • Vivek Ramaswamy (R), 2024 Presidential candidate (undeclared)

  • Heather Hill (R), Ohio MLK Holiday Commissioner

  • Amy Acton (D), former Director of the Ohio Department of Health

• Secretary of State

  • Robert Sprague (R), Treasurer of State*

  • Bryan Hambley (D), Doctor from the Cincinnati area

• Attorney General

  • Keith Faber (R), Auditor of State*

• Auditor

  • Frank LaRose (R), Secretary of State*

• Treasurer

  • Niraj Antani (R), former State Senator and candidate for Congress

  • Kristina Roegner (R), State Senator

We will keep this list published as changes happen, so you can keep up with all of the candidates and information you need to know here at The Buckeye Beacon.

Thank you for reading this edition of The Buckeye Beacon. If you enjoyed, or learned something, forward this email to three friends, subscribe if you aren’t already, have a great library lovers day (assuming you love libraries) and we’ll see you again next week.

Thank you for reading The Buckeye Beacon, I’m Josh Lickliter, President of Excel Political Strategies, the sponsor of this newsletter. Visit ExcelPolitical.com today. Edited by Excel Political Strategies VP Phineas Kelly.

Statewide Musical Chairs process begins

In a surprise twist, current Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague, who changed his political campaign committee designation to Governor just a couple of weeks ago, announced in a post on X Wednesday that he’s running for another statewide office: Secretary of State.

In the same vein, Secretary of State and former US Senate candidate Frank LaRose announced his run for state auditor on Thursday morning.

LaRose starts his campagin with current Auditor Keith Faber showing support for his candidacy.

What we’re seeing here is a very expensive game of musical chairs between statewide elected officials. Here’s where the races stands so far:

Current Statewide officials are indicated with a *

• Governor

  • Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General*

  • Vivek Ramaswamy, 2024 Presidential candidate (undeclared)

  • Heather Hill, Ohio MLK Holiday Commissioner

    • Democrats: Dr. Amy Acton, former Director of the Ohio Department of Health

• Secretary of State

  • Robert Sprague, Treasurer of State*

  • Niraj Antani, former State Senator

    • Democrats: Dr. Bryan Hambley, Doctor from the Cincinnati area

• Attorney General

  • Keith Faber, Auditor of State*

• Auditor

  • Frank LaRose, Secretary of State*

• Treasurer

  • N/A

Every office but treasurer has a current statewide vying for it, so it will be interesting to see who gets a seat and who ends up falling behind a new voice in the state.

Vivek Ramaswamy picks up major endorsements

You better get used to hearing the name Vivek Ramaswamy, because he is running for Ohio Governor and he has the backing of major conservative leaders to prove it.

Before Treasurer Sprague announced his aforementioned Secretary of State bid, he endorsed Ramaswamy for Governor in a video posted to X.

As the first statewide official to endorse, Ramaswamy announces with a major head start over fellow candidate AG Dave Yost. However, his endorsements don’t end there. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) issued a statement to Fox News on Monday.

"If Vivek Ramaswamy runs for governor of Ohio (and I hope he does) he will not only win—he will transform Ohio for the better. The results will benefit Ohioans—and Americans—for generations I’m honored to have worked with [Ramaswamy] and I support him wholeheartedly." - Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)

Mike Lee isn’t the only senator throwing his support behind Vivek, with Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) mailing in their endorsements as well.

On the contrary, Dave Yost has received one endorsement that I’ve seen, and that is from Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State and Treasurer.

Early fundraising numbers

Attorney General Dave Yost has been traveling the state attending picnics, dinners, galas, and more since winning re-election in 2022. I’ve personally seen him a few times, and his face time with the voters has proven beneficial for his campaign committee’s coffers.

According to a press release reported by Henry Gomez of NBC News, Dave Yost for Ohio brought in more than $1 million in the second half of 2024, before announcing his candidacy. This has lead to Yost beginning the year with $2,463,385.36 on hand. There were no personal contributions (that I found) by Yost in this period. You can read through the contributions here.

At the same time, Dr. Bryan Hambley, a hematology oncologist and Democrat activist, announced his campaign for Secretary of State on January 2. Between January 2nd and 31st, he raised $362,081, according to his financial reports.

If you exclude his personal $30,000 contribution, he raised an average of $10,712.29 every day of January. Looking through the employer line of his contributors, the vast majority of them are people working in the medical field from around the country.

In fact, $90,926 of his donations, 114 total contributors, were from states outside of Ohio, averaging just under $800 per donor. My likely guess is that Hambley is calling in favors from his old friends. I can’t imagine a steady flow of cash, to this degree, to remain over the next 452 days until the 2026 primary.

It’ll be intriguing to see how these numbers end up growing, and to see if Democrats will continue pouring money into an election they lost by 20 points last time.

Share

Thanks for reading The Buckeye Beacon, brought to you by Excel Political Strategies. Are you a candidate mentioned (or not) that needs some excellent strategy? Give me a call: (614) 500-3096. I’m Josh Lickliter, and I’ll see you again this time next week.

Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy has been in the news a tremendous amount throughout the last four years. In 2021, he wrote Woke, Inc., a book that was a prerequisite to his presidential run. In 2023, he declares his run for President on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show. Editor’s note: I miss that show. As he traveled the country, practically acting like a delegate for Donald Trump, he showed America who he was, and he became popular among Republicans. On November 12, 2024, it was announced that Ramaswamy would lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with Tesla billionaire Elon Musk.

…that was until Christmas Day, when Ramaswamy went on a seemingly unhinged tirade in favor of importing mass foreign labor in the form of H1B visas. This event led to Trump advocating for him to be appointed to Vice President JD Vance’s Senate seat, basically forcing him out of DOGE before the department was officially created.

After Governor Mike DeWine went against Trump’s recommendation and appointed Jon Husted, his own Lieutenant Governor, rumors popped up that Ramaswamy would now run for Governor of Ohio in 2026. DeWine is term-limited.

Subscribe now

So far, only one other contender has put his name in the ring, our state Attorney General Dave Yost. Treasurer Robert Sprague has changed his committee designation, but has not formally announced. I have made my statement; I believe Robert Sprague would be the best man for the job. You can read that statement here. That doesn’t take away from the fact that I like some of what Ramaswamy says and some of what Yost does. However, in the name recognition game, it looks like one candidate blows the rest of the field out of the water.

PRESENTED BY EXCEL POLITICAL STRATEGIES: Your one-stop shop for campaign services designed for small-district races across Ohio. Visit ExcelPolitical.com to learn more.

Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, who most recently worked for the Trump campaign, released a poll this week with Ramaswamy topping 50%.

I wouldn’t take these early polls as gospel. Only one campaign on that list has even announced, and it’s obviously too early to assume voters have made up their minds. According to the first poll in the 2022 Senate race, former State Treasurer-turned-perennial Senate candidate-turned Chicken Soup for the Soul board member Josh Mandel would be our U.S. Senator (or Vice President, considering he might’ve beaten Vance) today.

At this point, it’s hard to advocate against saying this is Vivek’s race to lose, but it is way too early to be making any definitive claims in this election.

Thank you for reading The Buckeye Beacon, all of the Ohio news you need to know. I’m Josh Lickliter, co-written with Phineas Kelly. Send me an email here if you have any news you want to break or campaigns you want to win.

AG Yost Turns Against Costco’s DEI Policies

Written by Phineas Kelly, Vice President of Excel Political Strategies.

As President Trump’s first term takes shape, it is unclear exactly how his numerous executive orders will be enforced, and if they’ll even function in the way Trump intends. Already facing numerous legal battles, especially around the issue of birthright citizenship and unfounded claims of 14th amendment violations, Trump knows he needs foot soldiers at the state level to stand by his executive actions, something he notably lacked in his first term.

On January 27, the President announced an action entitled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force” which intends to reduce race and gender-based discrimination in the workplace masked as diversity, equity, and inclusion. If it wasn’t obvious by the presence of Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and countless others at his inauguration, it’s fair to say that Trump has killed corporate wokeism. Soon after the action was announced, executives at Amazon, Ford, McDonald’s, John Deere, and more bent the knee to the current administration, further proving what we all knew to be true– that they signaled their virtue so long as it was profitable. With a decisive referendum from the American people, the corporations looking to keep a sizable customer base changed their tune rather quickly.

Unfortunately for myself and many other Costco members, the supermarket giant decided to double down and defy Trump’s command. Now I have to admit, some part of me respects them for at least challenging the administration; one doesn’t grow into one of the most profitable and recognizable brands in the US by falling in line. However, this is a rare instance where Costco makes a poor business decision.

Enter our protagonist: Ohio’s own Dave Yost, who, along with 18 other attorneys general around the country, signed onto a letter to Costco CEO Ron Vachris demanding that Costco end their discriminatory practices. In a scathing condemnation of these practices, with arguments based in extremely recent legal precedent (see Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard) these AG’s flex both their knowledge of constitutional law and continuity, and Costco’s own policy inconsistencies. The cherry on top being a subtle dig at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which will always win points from me.

For Dave Yost, a hopeful for Mike DeWine’s seat come 2026, aligning himself with Trump and his legal record is imperative for any Republican nomination in what will be the waning years of the Trump era of conservative politics (at least as led by Trump himself). For my money, the candidate who can best convince Ohio voters of a pro-Trump agenda in a post-Trump Ohio has the best shot. A no-brainer play from the Yost camp, signing onto this letter will certainly win him points with Ohio voters, but as the field widens, does he have the endurance to be a competitive candidate?

Share

Keith Faber announces his candidacy

Current State Auditor Keith Faber announced his candidacy for Attorney General this week. He is well qualified, attending the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, according to his LinkedIn. He’s served as State Representative and State Senator before running for Auditor in 2018. As Auditor, he has headed up investigations that led to 129 convictions, has found over $5 million in what he describes as ‘questionable spending’, and audited over $241 billion.

I don’t see anyone else, at least on the Republican side, hopping into this primary. Faber has been a loyal, respected member of the party for a long time. He has all of the qualifications and experience. I’d have to say that, with this announcement, the Attorney General primary might as well be over.

Congrats, Attorney General-elect Faber. (Not quite, but you know what I mean.)

Give a gift subscription

This Week in Ohio on Capitol Hill: Senate Confirmation Votes

As the battle over President Trump’s cabinet nominees comes before the Senate, many people around the country are watching for Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Fetterman (D-PA), and former Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to be the deciding votes. These Senators will determine if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for HHS Secretary, Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, and Kash Patel for FBI Director will be the final pieces of the Presidents cabinet or not.

For once, I’m happy Ohio isn’t being discussed. Ohio’s Republican Senators Jon Husted and Bernie Moreno have voted for Every. Single. Nominee.

On behalf of Ohio, thank you, Ohio’s Senators.

Thanks for reading this edition of The Buckeye Beacon, I’m Josh Lickliter, co-written with my friend and the Vice President of Excel Political Strategies Phineas Kelly. Thank you for reading, and if you learned something new about what’s going on here in Ohio, forward this email to three friends.

Ohio Attorney General DAVE YOST formally launched his campaign for Governor yesterday, after running a shadow campaign beginning roughly fourteen seconds after the conclusion of the 2022 election. This makes him the first major candidate to throw his hat in the ring, although state treasurer ROBERT SPRAGUE filed his paperwork to transfer his campaign committee from “Treasurer“ to “Governor”, and businessman-turned-politico VIVEK RAMASWAMY has left President DONALD TRUMP’s Department of Government Efficiency to run for our state’s CEO.

It’s notable that rumors had Yost declaring in February, but something must’ve changed his mind. At least we had a couple weeks without campaign ads here in Ohio.

Welcome to the Buckeye Beacon, a new Ohio-oriented newsletter focused solely on Ohio politics and Ohio’s impact on the nation at large. I’m JOSH LICKLITER, former podcast host turned county GOP committeeman and founder of Excel Political Strategies, your presenting partner of this newsletter. If you’re running for office in Ohio, we want to help you! Email me: josh@excelpolitical.com

Subscribe now

PRESENTED BY EXCEL POLITICAL STRATEGIES: Your one-stop shop for campaign services designed for small-district races across Ohio. Visit ExcelPolitical.com to learn more.

Timken wins Senate appointment.. (no, not that one.)

Former Ohio GOP Chairwoman-turned-U.S. Senate hopeful JANE TIMKEN has been announced as the heir to the Ohio State Senate seat held by Senator KIRK SCHURING, who passed away at the end of November. Timken currently serves on the governing body of the national and state Republican Party, as Ohio’s delegate to the Republican National Committee and the 29th Senate seat’s representation to the Ohio Republican committee.

Prior to the RNC and after the ORP, Timken ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Senate seat formerly held by ROB PORTMAN. With Portman’s endorsement, and $8.7 million spent, she couldn’t overcome the Trump effect. She placed fifth in a seven-man primary receiving 5.87% of the vote.

Timken was seen as a potential replacement for now-U.S. Senator JON HUSTED in the Lieutenant Governors office, but that seems unlikely at this given moment.

Send me your thoughts

Who will replace Husted?

As Senator Jon Husted begins his abbreviated term, filling the vacancy of Vice President JD VANCE, his office in Columbus as right-hand-man to Governor MIKE DeWINE sits vacant. It is the duty of the Governor to appoint the replacement, and the State Senate has the duty to approve that replacement.

MY ANALYSIS? DeWine doesn’t want to create another heir-apparent to the Governor’s seat. He has two years left in government (unless he decides to make a for President at 82-years-old) and I have to assume that he has no interest in making the end of his very long government career any harder than it needs to be. A member of his cabinet with little ambition to run for anything higher, and to serve as Governor only if necessary due to a medical emergency, seems the most likely.

Share

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? Send an email to buckeyebeacon@gopjosh.com to let me know what you think and what you want me to cover. I look forward to providing more information about our state and federal delegation. Follow me on X and contact me at ExcelPolitical.com for any of your consultation or graphic design needs.

This has been the JANUARY 24, 2025 edition of The Buckeye Beacon, your bite-size Ohio political newsletter covering what’s impacting you.

Copyright 2025 Lickliter Enterprises, LLC. P.O. Box 24, London, OH 43140.

As Governor MIKE DEWINE mulls on a Senate appointment, and is reportedly considering Lt. Governor JON HUSTED very highly, the question rises as to who would replace him? The rumored choice is DeWine’s pick to run the Department of Development LYDIA MIHALIK, who is been seemingly out of the public eye but has been rumored for Lt. Governor since the Senate vacancy was announced, but who is she?

Subscribe

Currently, she is the Director of the Department of Development, which is (according to the Governor’s website) “a state agency committed to empowering communities to succeed by investing in the people, places, and businesses of Ohio.” She has served in this role since 2019, which was the start of the DeWine-Husted administration. During this time, Intel announced a $28 Million investment in Licking County, Ohio, which was characterized as the largest single private-sector investment in Ohio history.

The DeWine administration has been very proud of their work on Intel, and celebrated the release of federal CHIPS Act funding being released as recently as last month.

Prior to her service at the DoD, she served as Mayor of Findlay, Ohio from 2012 until her appointment in the DeWine administration.

Although generally out of the public eye, she appears to have a record of service and has worked behind-the-scenes on instrumental policy important to the Governor.

There is an event being held Thursday, January 16 (tomorrow, at the time of publication) with the Governor, current Lieutenant, Mrs. Mihalik and J.P. NAUSSEF, President and CEO of JobsOhio. (h/t Jeremy Pelzer of Cleveland.com). Needless to say, the entire political world will be watching this event tomorrow.

Comment

Lt. Governor Jon Husted (R-Dayton)

Lt. Governor Husted has climbed the ladder in Ohio politics in one of the most stereotypical ways, and he is one stop away from the Governorship, which has been his longtime goal according to all political circles I’m in. He’s served as the Speaker of the Ohio House, Secretary of State, and most recently is serving as Lieutenant. Before the controversy surrounding DeWine and the heated 2022 primary, in which less than 50% of Ohio Republicans voted for DeWine/Husted to retain the nomination, Husted was seen as the next governor if he wanted it.

More recently, however, Attorney General Dave Yost (R-Columbus) has thrown his name in the ring, in a not-so-cryptic X video. I have seen Yost trek the state throughout 2023 and 2024, when he was not formally running for anything. He has been putting in the work, and I believe he has a serious chance at winning a GOP primary for Governor.

Where does that leave Husted? He’s been second-in-command for eight years, has served at the top of the legislative branch, and according to his LinkedIn does not hold a law degree. I have to imagine he would prefer a smooth, campaign-free ride to the Senate over a competitive primary with the charismatic AG. Who wouldn’t?

The benefit: The Governor candidate once believed to be a shoe-in will be out of the race, and will open up competitiveness to others. We may see a primary involving even more candidates, and I believe competitive primaries make stronger Republicans and a stronger party.

Former Ohio GOP Chair Jane Timken (R-Canton)

Jane Timken served as Ohio GOP Chairwoman from 2017 to 2021, and ousted the chairman-turned-inmate and Kasich ally Matt Borges. More recently, she placed fifth in a seven-man primary for the U.S. Senate to replace Sen. Rob Portman, receiving 5.87% of the vote after having receipts totaling $8.7 million.

As ORP chair in 2018, she was influential in getting Governor DeWine across the finish line in his 4-point victory against former Attorney General Richard Cordray.

I’m not sure why DeWine would appoint her, but she seems to be on his radar.

The benefit: She would be easy for a conservative candidate to defeat in 2026. She ran for this Senate seat in 2022 and received just around 60,000 votes after spending a fortune on TV ads and door knockers. If Ohio wanted to vote for her, they would’ve.

Representative Mike Carey (R-Columbus)

Rep. Mike Carey won an 11-way primary for a special election House seat in August of 2021. Carey had Trump’s endorsement and a lot of money backing him, but it frankly wasn’t a close race even with well-known Ohio House members in the mix. He has proven himself to be a hard campaigner, running in the special Primary and General just a few months before running for a full term in 2022.

He has been campaigning for the Senate seat pretty hard, including having county central committees sign letters of recommendation to the Governor for his appointment.

The benefit: Not much, for this one. If we lose another House rep, our one seat majority in that chamber will be non-existent, and depending what Gov. DeSantis (R-FL) does about his open Senate seat, we may even create a Democrat majority.

I like Rep. Carey, but I don’t believe this is the time to poach House representatives.

Let me know what you think on who Gov. DeWine may appoint by emailing me (mailbag@gopjosh.com) or commenting on our Substack. I just hope it’s a true conservative Republican!

Subscribe now