Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Race to the Middle?
A former state GOP chair and a former Democrat lawmaker in Washington State are coming together with a few others to form Washington Independents. The stated goal is to:
reshape and reform our political system by electing independents to office in Washington State. We will support and encourage centrist, thoughtful candidates who will put our country and state ahead of any political faction in order to solve problems.
Sure, it sounds a little like the “no labels” movement of a few years ago, except that being aligned with the Centrist Project involves some actual principles. I normally think those in the middle haven’t made up their minds and don’t know what they stand for, but this movement states things like “We are committed to putting the nation on a sound fiscal path. We recognize that this will require a combination of revenue increases, spending cuts and reforms to our major entitlement programs.” I appreciate that such a statement recognizes both the input and output problems we face.
However, there are some warning flags to this sort of movement. Being centrist and moderate, the program does look to government as perhaps more than just a necessary evil.
Government should be pragmatic [I loathe this word] and solve problems. Rather than a rigid ideology, governance should be a process where we come together and ask: What is the problem we’re trying to address? Why isn’t the market fixing it? What policy would produce a better outcome? And what are the tradeoffs to implementing this new policy? After weighing these considerations, the government should then take appropriate action that makes us collectively better off than we are today.
On the other hand, since it is not just leftists masquerading as moderates, the movement also advocates for things conservatives can support as real compromise.
We believe the role of government is to create an environment in which the private sector can thrive; to provide a meaningful safety net; and to ensure that every American has an opportunity to achieve his or her economic potential.
We have to modernize our programs for the twenty-first century economy. We need to invest in human capital (early childhood education, quality K-12, and modern workforce skills). And, we need a safety net that is finely targeted; benefits should go to those who really need them.
The left and the right have been in a race to the outer extremes of late. This push for moderation is not perfect, but perhaps it can throw a little sand in the gears of the crazy. I know this can’t solve our political problems, but I can maybe live with it if it curtails the worst of the partisanship we’re suffering under now. We’ll never truly realize a conservative or libertarian Utopia, so maybe this is the best we can hope for.
Here’s a video of the two mouthpieces for the Washington State version of this nascent movement.
.
Published in Politics
Problems = things liberals don’t like
Solutions = things liberals like
I have seen this show before.
Liberals don’t like fiscal sanity. Liberals don’t like reforming entitlements. This movement desires both.
Sure it does.
I’m skeptical, but right now almost anything else would be worth a shot. Maybe.
As a long time Washingtonian, I am wary of anything involving Chris Vance, a local equivalent of the GOP establishment that just wants to get along. This just looks like a scheme to create a “safe space” for those still anti-Trump no matter what.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/gop-senate-candidate-vance-calls-trumps-views-insane-wont-vote-for-him/
Naturally. But, Trump should not be the singular binary of any political position. No individual politician should be. Ever.
Yeah anything else for that loony government. I wish you luck
The senate here just flipped to the Ds, so our ridiculously liberal governor is unrestrained. If this restrains him and his cohort the price might be worth it.
KP makes the key point in #8 (above) IMO.
The reality is that an appeal toward the center is kinda’ important if it can temper the faaaar Left extreme that will be soon holding sway here in WA.
I’m not so against tempering the far right either. I’m very conservative (with libertarian leaning…leave me the hell alone, and all that), and a step to the middle is a step in the right direction in this state, and about as close as I’ll ever get to my ideal. McDonalds is preferable to dog food.
Yeah, pretty good deal for Conservatives considering that there’s nobody on the far right in Washington politics.
We shipped them all to Idaho I guess.
But seriously, I don’t want any more Moores or Frankens.
If an extremist isn’t allowed to be an independent, then it isn’t very independent, is it?
It’s independence from party dogma as far as I can tell.
So why do they talk against extremists, then? A good extremist should be independent of party dogma and into his own.
And just what do they mean by “Quality K-12”? The Seattle Supreme Court now runs the state schools, and even when half the total state budget goes for more leftist indoctrination, it’s still not enough. I’m betting that they still mean “better funded”, when the state schools are already over-funded and wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money every day. And student graduation rates are abysmal.
They (Supreme Court) voted 9-0 that there is still more to be done, especially regarding a “compliant salary model.” What???
With Vance and some others in the mix it could mean that plus more school choice. They seem to be more about both/and rather than either/or.
I believe Vance is just another establishment Republican who deplores the ordinary voters. I am not sure what the phrase “singular binary” means, but over 1.2 million Washingtonians voted for Trump/Pence, and to me, with the state House, Senate and governorship now all in the hands of the Democrats as a result of last week’s special election, this move by former state GOP chair and failed congressional candidate Vance can only be intended by our “betters” to stick a finger in 1.2+ million people’s eyes.
I voted for Trump, and I don’t see it that way. Maybe 1.199999+ million people feel that way, but I prefer to look forward. What’re we gonna do about it? We’re backed up on our own 1-yard line, so it’s not the best time to throw the bomb. We must first put the brakes on the most radical of the Dems, and if it means teaming up with some less-than-ideal politicians then so be it. I couldn’t find any Conservatives running for any office on my ballot a few weeks ago. I’m hoping that Dino Rossi can hold Reichert’s House seat next year, but I don’t have much confidence in Western WA voters.
I love that particular turn of phrase. I may steal it.
Out of 4.2M eligible. Not strong numbers. You don’t win anything or implement any policies with 29% of the vote.
There’s the problem. Yes, Vance is 100% establishment republican, but deploring voters is a work of the imagination. We have enough enemies in this state on the other side of the spectrum that we have absolutely no need to create extra ones on our side.
How many Democrats have run unopposed in state elections lately? There were two on our ballot last year, and one this year in my district alone. There is no real Republican party left in Washington. There may be individual republicans like Mark Harmsworth, but the party is a sad joke.
So what will we be getting now? A new Carbon Tax. An Income Tax. No relief from the Sound Transit Taxes (my 9-year-old car now costs $200 a year to license).
If this organization can support candidates to run against the dems when the republicans can’t field a candidate then maybe that will be something positive.
If this is like other attempts at finding the political center in the past, it’ll be attacked by both sides even more viciously than the two sides attack each other. Moderation is hard to do these days.
No socialist program of any kind can ever be ‘fully funded’. No matter what the level of funding is there is always room for more since the standard is perfection which is unattainable in the real world. This phrase is just a red herring used (successfully) to muddy the waters. (sorry about the mixed metaphors)
Also there is the problem of no real fiscal accountability. When spending other peoples money the sky isn’t even the limit, there is no limit. If you bought my groceries I’d have Kobe steak every morning, why not?
Thomas Sowell was the first author I read to reveal that Progressives have no limiting principles. This is a crucial point to understand: With Progressives, there is never “enough.” There is only “more.” And that alone is reason to oppose Progressivism.
It’s a way to try to consolidate gains when the Federal government has proven that it can’t make even a lionel electric train run on time. The pragmatic middle means accept the administrative state monstrosity, the tax code abomination, socialized medicine quagmire because they have been losing elections with their leftist pc extremism. One step back prior to two steps forward. Some of our establishment Republicans will be easily convinced. Another insight to bring is Mancur Olsen’s essay on the difference between stationary bandits and roving bandits. Roving bandits take everything, rape everybody and move on. Stationary bandits foster enough prosperity so their parasitism enjoys a long life. The Detroit model is based on the roving bandits and has no future, so some of them want to adjust toward stationary bandits. Even liberal Democrats learn some things.
That’s exactly right because their principles are just the spin of the moment and mean nothing beyond their usefulness to build power or weaken a competitor at a specific point in time.
This is not about progressivism vs. conservatism. It’s about extremism vs. normalcy.
Same difference either way.