Media conjures false image of moderate Kasich campaign

On Jan. 30, 2016, The New York Times “en­dorsed” (I use this term lightly) Governor John Kasich for the GOP presidential nomina­tion.

Though conceding that “Mr. Kasich is no moderate…he’s gone after public sector unions, fought to limit abortion rights and opposed same-sex marriage,” the Times nonetheless praised Kasich as a level-headed candidate whose positive and hopeful rhetoric stands in contrast to the many of the more inflammatory statements made by rivals Senator Ted Cruz and Donald Trump (The New York Times, “A Chance to Reset the Republican Race,” 01.30.2016).

However, the paper grossly understated some of Kasich’s more unsavory policies while serv­ing as governor of Ohio and ignored some of his extreme policy proposals during his presidential campaign. The omission of proper insight into Kasich’s career and his actual political agenda disregards the unpleasant reality that Kasich’s perceived moderation is, as Ohio Senate Mi­nority Leader Joe Schiavoni states, “just prettier packaging for the same right-wing agenda of the GOP presidential candidates” (The Washing­ton Post, “Myth of the ‘moderate’ John Kasich,” 08.18.2015).

The Times correctly cited John Kasich as both an experienced politician (once again, jux­taposed with the likes of Cruz, Trump and Carly Fiorina) and as one of the more centrist candi­dates running for the GOP nomination. In this election cycle, that’s not saying much. Nonethe­less, Kasich’s compromises have included the expansion of Medicaid in Ohio and speaking out in favor of a path to citizenship for undocument­ed migrants. Lauding these compromises needs to come with a giant asterisk. Hailing Kasich as the best GOP nominee needs to come with a gi­ant asterisk, too.

As Senator Schiavoni described in his Wash­ington Post column, Kasich spearheaded Ohio’s refusal to establish health insurance exchanges. The exchanges functioned as Internet-based markets where citizens could shop for insur­ance subsidized by the federal government and served as one of Obamacare’s most significant provisions.

In 2013, The New York Times discussed Ohio’s troubled relationship with Roe vs. Wade and Kasich’s stringent anti-abortion campaign, commenting that “Ohio has become a laboratory for what anti-abortion leaders call the incremen­tal strategy—passing a web of rules designed to push the hazy boundaries of Supreme Court guidelines…Many of the rules, critics say, are de­signed to discourage women from getting abor­tions or to hamper clinic operations” (The New York Times, “With New Abortion Restrictions, Ohio Walks a Narrow Legal Line,” 10.09.2013).

Kasich referred to these borderline-illegal restrictions as “reasonable.” Meanwhile, his ad­ministration significantly increased the pace at which these regulations were passed. His prob­lematic relationship with Obamacare and wom­en’s reproductive rights complicates the posi­tion of moderates who praise Kasich’s Medicaid expansion. A woman’s right to quality health­care must encompass proper access to repro­ductive services as well, something that Kasich has not only opposed, but profoundly weakened in his state.

As Schiavoni points out, Kasich’s curtailing of women’s health rights (which included cut­ting Medicare benefits for pregnant women and those with breast and cervical cancer making be­tween $16,000 and $23,000 a year) is set against the tragic reality of Ohio’s extremely high infant mortality rate (The Washington Post, “Myth of the ‘moderate’ John Kasich,” 08.18.2015). Kasich’s policies not only contradict the narrative of his moderation, but also negatively impact the health of Ohio women and children.

In the era of legislation as monumental as Obamacare, such attitudes towards healthcare should by no means be considered “moderate.” His legislative history speaks more than his words, emphasizing the reality that he is much more similar to his GOP counterparts than many pundits and media outlets are willing to admit. His demeanor and deliberately (and fallacious­ly) constructed rhetoric have fed the illusions of his moderation. He chooses his words carefully, ensures that he comes off as not too inflamma­tory and has emphasized the importance of gov­ernment in bettering the lives of the sick and the poor. His service as governor contradicts such notions.

Schiavoni further describes Kasich’s cutting of $1.8 billion of funding to public schools, which crippled dozens of schools with deficits. This occurred while “steering hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into a scandal-ridden char­ter school system, which has seen failing grades and has been called ‘the most troubled in the country’—a move pushed by charter-school operators who made the maximum legal contri­bution to Kasich’s political campaign along with his wife.”

In a nation where financial crises involving higher education are currently plaguing stu­dents, Kasich’s record on education is not reflec­tive of the type of candidate needed to properly address education at the federal level.

On the campaign trail, Kasich’s policy pro­posals have ranged from sensible to downright absurd, the latter seemingly not affecting his image.

In November 2015, Politico reported that Ka­sich spoke at the National Press Club in Wash­ington, saying that the United States “must be more forceful in the battle of ideas.” He thereaf­ter proposed a federal agency that would “pro­mote the core, Judeo-Christian Western values that we and our friends and allies share: the val­ues of human rights, the values of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and free­dom of association” (Politico, “Kasich calls for new federal agency to promote Judeo-Christian values,” 11.17.2015). The logistics of creating the agency were unelaborated, and Kasich has not addressed the proposal in full since the speech. This proposal went by relatively unscathed by the media.

When asked about the atheists, Muslims and various other religious groups that constitute our country, Kasich gave a weak, unfocused re­sponse that barely answered the question. (He still did not address Eastern religious traditions, atheists, agnostics, areligious people and oth­ers).

Such a ridiculous proposition that under­mines the inherent religious (or areligious) plu­rality of the country should have been torn apart by the media, pundits and other presidential candidates. The statement by its very nature ex­cludes groups and individuals whose traditions and beliefs don’t fall under the arbitrary cate­gory of “Christian-Judaeo values” that Kasich vaguely outlined, while also failing to uphold the separation between religious dogma and political institutions as promised by the First Amendment.

It’s nonsense. It undermines basic Constitu­tional principles. However, in the context of the offensive and astronomically outlandish state­ments made by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the creation of such an agency doesn’t seem so ridiculous. Nonetheless, advocating for the creation of an agency to spread religiously es­tablished principles in the United States is in­congruent with moderation. Once again, a giant asterisk.

John Kasich is not the candidate he—and the media—wants you to think he is.

In comparison with the other inexperienced extremists masquerading as legitimate candi­dates, he is the best shot that centrist Repub­licans have at instilling balance and sensibility into the GOP right now. However, it would be naive and intellectually dishonest to ignore Ka­sich’s political history and statements, which have been largely overlooked due to the fanat­ical ravings of the other candidates.

The Ohio governor has proven to be a decent­ly effective compromiser in terms of reaching across the aisle and making ideological sacrific­es for the good of the state and his constituents. However, his pushes to erode women’s rights, his outlandish Judeo-Christian Values Agency proposal, his support for a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and his ineffective ed­ucation policies must be noted at the forefront of public discourse about his campaign.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Miscellany News reserves the right to publish or not publish any comment submitted for approval on our website. Factors that could cause a comment to be rejected include, but are not limited to, personal attacks, inappropriate language, statements or points unrelated to the article, and unfounded or baseless claims. Additionally, The Misc reserves the right to reject any comment that exceeds 250 words in length. There is no guarantee that a comment will be published, and one week after the article’s release, it is less likely that your comment will be accepted. Any questions or concerns regarding our comments section can be directed to