Joel Webbon and Andrew Isker, pastor and author of The Boniface Option, are both highly influential Christian Nationalists. They both share the view that Democrats pose a severe threat, and generally support right-leaning candidates. However, there is some level of beefing online between the two, particularly over select Republican races such as Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio and James Fishback in Florida.
Webbon’s Position
Webbon’s position is that Christians should vote for most preferred GOP candidates (he has cited support for figures such as Bo French and Paxton) but can withhold votes in isolated cases where a candidate’s policy edge is outweighed by a damaging precedent. He singles out Vivek Ramaswamy, citing public comments that treat American children’s heritage and inheritance as meaningless, and argues that if the GOP can count on Christian votes merely by being marginally better than Democrats, better options never emerge.
He also defends Fishback as a personal friend with sound policies, and warns that mocking him alienates his supporters who would otherwise back other candidates in the broader camp. Fishback finished 3rd in the Florida Primary with around 10%. Fishback did not outperform his polling. Webbon frames this as a long-term leverage strategy, drawing a parallel to how refusal to settle earlier helped produce Trump.
Isker’s Position
Isker’s position prioritizes denying the left power “by any means necessary,” including voting for candidates he personally dislikes. He has described Vivek as loathsome and an “unassimilated anchor baby scammer” yet still supports voting for him in Ohio, arguing that the alternative hands a strategically important state to Democrats, that governors do not control visas, and that the current Midwest GOP establishment is worse.
He treats sustained online opposition to such candidates as demoralizing to Republican voters and largely ineffective at changing outcomes. On Fishback, he has called him a shameless grifter who never had a realistic chance and said both Fishback and those who promoted him deserve mockery.
The Real Differences
The concrete differences are therefore narrow but pointed: Webbon favors selective vote-withholding (never a Democratic vote) to avoid locking in bad precedents and to retain leverage, while Isker favors voting for the flawed Republican to block left control of key offices. Webbon treats Fishback’s supporters as useful allies not to be alienated; Isker treats the Fishback effort as grift that warrants public dismissal. Webbon has described the gap as slight and strategic and stated that he loves Isker; the public exchanges have focused on these candidate-specific tactics rather than broader theological disagreement.
Enter Larry Hogan
In 2024, Republicans nominated Larry Hogan for the Senate in Maryland. They sold it as him having the best chance of winning. But many Republicans, myself included, sacked him on the ballot. The result was a humiliating defeat for someone who won statewide twice in 2014 and 2018.
Hogan was liberal on every meaningful issue in 2024 and would have been a fat, vocal anti-Trump Senator. So having him in would have been a headache from the beginning, even if that was the best Maryland could do. A surprise R would have betrayed his voters at every turn and taken other Senators with him. Thus, the precedent outweighed whatever policy agreement existed.
My Thoughts
The Hogan example showcases the merits of Webbon’s logic. However, Isker is correct on the need to deny the left power where possible. Thus the bar is extremely high for how bad a Republican has to be to sack them in the general.
I believe Vivek Ramaswamy is that bad. He is Indian, not American. He’s a Hindu, not a Christian. And prior to his presidential run, he was little different than Larry Hogan. I do not believe he has changed, and his disdain towards Americans showcases this. Ramaswamy has promised to increase the population of Ohio by 25% in 4 years which sure sounds like flooding the state with his people, against the wishes of the Ohioans. I think he would be a horrendous governor, and that his demise in the general, already probable, would end his political career, which is a good precedent compared to his unbridled ambition to run for President again.
In contrast, Byron Donalds is a bad candidate, a crooked fraud, but not bad enough to sack. Donalds represents business as usual for the Florida GOP, a bad state party prior to DeSantis. Ron DeSantis was the exception. Rick Scott and Byron Donalds are the norm. This is highlighted in his campaign contributions. Florida is fumbling post-DeSantis, but electing a Democrat is still worse.
Regarding Fishback, I am rather agnostic. Fishback did not overperform in his election. There are a lot of questions surrounding him and whether he, too, is a scammer. I don’t think it was necessarily foolish to endorse him, but I do not see the merit in elevating his voice at this time. So I lean with Isker on the Fishback question. Additionally, I oppose demoralization ops.
Conversations like this are important and necessary to have, and people should not crash out and denounce each other over them.
Powered by RedCircle
One Response
This is the most balanced explanation for the disagreement I have seen. Both men seem to be overreacting a bit, and I am confident no friendships will be lost in this. Thankfully we are not too far from election day.