By Constitution Staff

There is a concerted effort to move Oklahoma to the Left politically by ditching the closed primary and going to an open primary system. A closed primary is a method of choosing the candidates to represent the political party in the general election in which only registered party members can participate, while an open primary allows any registered voter to vote in any political party’s primary. The closed primary would seem to make sense, as one would not think Baptists should choose the Pope in the Catholic Church, or that Methodists should select deacons at a local Baptist congregation.

A recent fundraiser in Oklahoma illustrates that the goal of opening political party primaries to non-members of the party is to move Republican officeholders more to the Left – or as they put it, more “moderate.” Three political personalities prominent in Oklahoma were featured in a recent edition of the Oklahoman newspaper. (The Oklahoman itself was once a conservative daily newspaper, but since the passing of its founding family, and it’s becoming part of the left-wing USA Today network, it regularly slants its so-called news articles to favor progressive and Democrat positions).

Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, who in 2017 was rated a mere 13 percent on the Oklahoma Constitution newspaper’s Oklahoma Conservative Index, was among the participants advocating for an end to the state’s closed primary system. Holt was registered as a Republican while in the state Senate.

Tulsa Mayor G.T. Bynum, another well-known RINO (Republican in Name Only) in the Sooner State, explained why he supports the open primary system, arguing that it leads “to more effective government by reducing the potential for partisanship in office.” Of course, a government can be quite effective, without being a good government. Adolf Hitler, Mao, and Joseph Stalin ran pretty effective governments, but our nation was founded on the idea that the role of government is to protect our God-given liberties, not just be “effective.”

The Oklahoman article, which chose not to quote anyone who had a problem with open primaries, factually erred when it said that participant Mickey Edwards was a “prominent” Republican, along with Holt and Oklahoma Labor Commissioner Leslie Osborn. While Holt and Osborn – both of which previously served in the Oklahoma Legislature, with low conservative ratings – are certainly still registered as Republicans, Mickey Edwards is not a Republican. He formally left the party a few years ago. In fact, Edwards has now even endorse far-Left Democrat Kamala Harris for president.

Edwards supporting Democrats is no longer news. What would be news, would be if he were to endorse a Republican.

Before exiting the party, Edwards had drifted away from the strongly conservative stance that he took early in his political career, when he represented an Oklahoma congressional district from 1977-1993. Edwards won election in 1976 as a staunch conservative Republican, and during his tenure in Congress, he voted mostly conservative. He even publicly converted from Judaism to Christianity in the mid-70s, proclaiming himself a “born-again” Christian. But, not long after leaving Congress, Edwards renounced that conversion, and returned to the Jewish faith.

Edwards not only renounced Christianity, he abandoned the public conservative stance he had taken when he was running for office, and eventually even left the Republican Party. He joined the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization dedicated to globalism. He also has been a high-ranking officer in the globalist Aspin Institute. He voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. At a book signing, held at the University of Oklahoma a few years ago for his book, The Parties vs. The People, Edwards lamented that Utah had chosen Mike Lee (a staunch conservative) as their U.S. senator, to replace a “moderate” Republican.

In an Oklahoman article, Edwards explained that the closed primary “doesn’t encourage the selection of candidates who might have more moderate or centrist views.”

This is clearly what this is all about – moving the Republican Party closer to the Democratic Party. In Oklahoma, a state which has an overwhelmingly Republican legislature, every statewide elected official is Republican, and has not voted Democrat for president since 1964, it has become obvious that politicians who are Democrats at heart often run as Republicans. Matt Hindman, a political science professor at the University of Tulsa, was quoted as saying that many voters are “working within the system, registering as Republicans to try and elect more moderate GOP candidates at the primary stage.” That is obvious to anyone who has noted the large number of “Republicans” in the Oklahoma Legislature – like Mark McBride of Moore – who act more like Democrats than Republicans.

The name of the group promoting the open primary in Oklahoma is Oklahomans United for Progress, and their goal is to get the idea on the ballot through Oklahoma’s initiative petition process.

Other schemes designed to push our politics to the Left include the “ranked-choice” voting system, and the so-called “jungle primary.” In ranked-choice, voters are asked to vote for their second-choice, as well as their first choice in a “jungle primary.” This has tended to help more “moderate” candidates, as was the case in a recent election in Alaska, in which all candidates, regardless of political party, run in one giant “jungle” primary.

The Oklahoma effort is part of a national effort. On the Open Primary site, a photograph has a woman holding a sign reading, “Closed Primary = Voter Suppression.” Of course, “voter suppression” is a charge leveled quite often by Democrats, such as Stacey Abrams in Georgia. In other words, this is what is all about – electing more Democrats and Republicans who will vote like Democrats.

All sorts of arguments are put forward to get Oklahomans to agree to open primaries, by supposedly conservative campaign consultants like Pat McFerron. In a recent article from “Oklahoma Voice,” a liberal news group, McFerron was cited as saying Open or “unified primaries” could help “engage” more people. (A unified primary – also known as a “jungle primary,” is one in which all candidates, regardless of political party, run in one primary). Oklahoma Voice’s slanted article – which did not quote anyone in opposition to the open or unified primary idea – said that McFerron is working to bring these types of primaries to Oklahoma.

“Oklahoma is now 50th in the nation in voter turnout for November elections, and if we don’t do something to change it, we’re going to continue to have less and less civic engagement,” McFerron said.

But should getting more people to vote be the goal? Or is liberty, limited government, the free enterprise system, and the like more important? The purpose of government is not to get uninformed voters to vote, but rather to protect our lives, our liberty, and property. Perhaps McFerron should be asked what is his opinion about that.