Paper stained with litmus which is used to indicate the acidity or alkalinity of a substance. Blue litmus paper turns red under acid conditions, and red litmus paper turns blue under alkaline conditions.

~Definition of Litmus Paper/DICTIONARY.COM

In politics, the term “litmus test” generally applies to something that has nothing to do with acidity, level of acid in a substance, or alkalinity, the capacity of water to resist acidification. It refers to a candidate’s or appointee’s allegiance to one side of a contested issue, an example being whether a nominee for Supreme Court justice is pro-life or pro-choice. Since 1980, the litmus test for one’s fitness for office, elected or appointed, is often judged on ideology or party affiliation. In 2015, we were introduced to a new kind of litmus test, fidelity to a single individual.

I am generally opposed to litmus tests, largely due to my belief in Miles’ Law, “Where you stand depends on where you sit.”  The most recent example being Joe Biden.  His positions on certain issues have changed as he navigated a career path which included U.S. senator, presidential candidate and now occupant of the Oval Office.  Same for Kamala Harris.  No one should expect a district attorney or state attorney general to maintain the same world view as a U.S. senator.

Yet, there are exceptions to every rule.  And the 2022 and 2024 elections seem ripe for that exception.  And serendipitously, the literal definition of litmus paper seems more appropriate than ever.  Why?  As would litmus paper react chemically, the GOP is pouring acid into the electoral waters in hopes of turning Congress and the White House from BLUE to RED.  In contrast, Democrats are hoping there is enough voter push back to resist this attempt at acidification of the body politic.

For dyed in the wool Democrats, the blue/red litmus test is party affiliation.  “Vote blue, no matter who!”  But what about independents and disenchanted Republicans?  Or if you live in a gerrymandered district where the chance of a Democrat winning a congressional race is not even slim.  It is non-existent.  Here is a litmus test that will guide my choices in election cycles for the foreseeable future.  Is a candidate, regardless of party or ideology, willing to say to voters, “Joe Biden won the 2020 election fair and square.  There is NO evidence of fraud.  And to say otherwise is an affront to the principles of which this country was founded, the Constitution and democracy.”

I do not care if a candidate is the second coming of Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa or Albert Schweitzer.  Or if he or she supports every policy or program I personally favor.  Perpetuation of the big lie trumps (pun intended) everything.  Without allegiance to the democratic process and the peaceful transfer of power, essential cornerstones of Madisonian self-governance, nothing else matters.

So, when someone you least expect says to me, “Ron DeSantis is doing a pretty good job.  I might even vote for him,” I put aside all the rational policy arguments about the governor’s hypocritical centralization of power in Tallahassee or his desire for government to become thought police on college campuses.  I just remind that individual, as recent as June 17, DeSantis was asked whether he believes the 2020 election was rigged against Donald Trump.  His reply, “Florida did its job.”  How hard would it have been to say, “No.”  Even Marco Rubio was honest enough not to vote against certification of the electoral vote on January 6th.

The same cannot be said for our congressman John Rutherford.  To put an exclamation point on his disdain for democracy, Rutherford joined more than 100 of his GOP colleagues and signed an amicus brief in support of the law suit filed by the Texas attorney general to overturn the election results.  Another example of Miles’ Law.  While Jacksonville sheriff, Rutherford constantly preached about obedience to the law.  Not so much as U.S. representative and Trump toady.

As I have in the past, I will likely switch party affiliation prior to the 2022 primaries, especially if I am confident the candidates I support for the Democratic nominations for governor and senator are guaranteed winners.  Why?  Voting in the Republican primary gives me a choice.  There are already rumors of a Trump insurrectionist challenging Rubio for not being loyal enough to “dear leader.”  I would of course vote for the Democrat in the general election.  But should she lose, I would be more comfortable with a flawed Rubio than another Marjorie Taylor Greene.

From the opposite perspective, knowing I live in a congressional district with a 3:1 Republican advantage in registration, I will join with moderate, anti-Trump Republicans to help them rid the GOP of the cancer that has metastasized within their party.  However, the deal depends if, and only if, the Rutherford alternative confronts voters with the truth about 2020.

You may ask, “How does this keep the water from becoming toxic and turning the blue litmus paper red?”  Because there are multiple potential outcomes, all, with one exception, are better than the current situation.

• The Democrat wins on the issues.
• The Trump/Sedition coalition claims their candidate would have won the primary but for Democratic support for the opponent, in which case they sit this one out and the Democrat wins due to low GOP turnout.
• The Sedition candidate wins the GOP primary and moderate Republicans and independents vote for the Democrat to again try and convince Republican leadership they need to jettison Trump and his extremist cult.
• I end up being represented by a Republican who, at least, does not live in an alternative universe.

I only lose if I am wrong the sedition candidate cannot attract close to a majority of votes.  In which case I should probably trade in my litmus paper for toilet tissue because we will all be up Schitt’s Creek.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP