Category: Centrist Politics

A Bigger Tent Needs Stronger Stakes

Democrats can win everywhere without accepting everyone who can win somewhere.

Large open canvas tent filled with people, anchored by stakes labeled liberal democracy, constitutional government, pluralism, public safety, regulated market economy, individual rights, and democratic allies.

A bigger political tent can welcome many people, but only if it is firmly anchored by shared democratic principles.

I am not a Democrat. CIVPAC is not a Democratic organization. We support Democrats, Republicans, and independents when we think they represent a more responsible, centrist, democratic, and politically realistic alternative.

So any advice I offer Democrats is, by definition, unsolicited. But the Democratic Party is one of the two major governing parties in the United States. Its internal arguments matter even to those of us who do not belong to it.

Two Ideas in Tension

Right now, Democrats seem caught between two ideas that are both partly right.

The first is the “win everywhere” idea. I have argued before that both parties should try to compete beyond their comfort zones. A serious national party should not write off whole regions, classes, religions, or cultures. Democrats should want candidates who can compete in cities, suburbs, small towns, working-class communities, and rural areas. They will not all sound alike, and they should not all sound alike.

A party that wants to govern the whole country should try to understand the whole country.

The second idea is James Carville’s warning about the Democratic Socialists of America and the far-left edge of the Democratic coalition. Carville has argued that Democrats need to consider something close to a schism with some DSA-aligned candidates. His point is blunt but not foolish: if candidates who reject core assumptions of liberal democracy, pluralism, public safety, capitalism, or America’s basic alliances run under the Democratic label, Republicans will use those candidates to define the entire party.

That is not paranoia. That is politics.

But there is an obvious tension. How can Democrats “win everywhere” if they are also drawing sharper boundaries around who belongs in the party?

The answer is that “win everywhere” does not mean “accept everyone who can win somewhere.”

A Big Tent Still Needs a Floor

A democratic political party has to be broad. It has to include people who disagree on taxes, health care, immigration, policing, climate, foreign policy, and cultural issues. It has to make room for candidates who fit their communities. A Democrat running in rural Georgia should not have to sound like a progressive activist from Brooklyn. A Democrat running in Brooklyn should not have to sound like a rural Georgia moderate.

Local variation is not the problem. It is the point.

But a party also needs a floor. It needs some basic commitments that define what the party is and what it is not. For Democrats, that floor should include liberal democracy, constitutional government, pluralism, public safety, a regulated market economy, individual rights, and a foreign policy that does not treat America’s democratic allies as morally indistinguishable from its adversaries.

That still leaves room for a wide range of Democrats. It leaves room for progressives, moderates, labor liberals, suburban pragmatists, Black church Democrats, national-security Democrats, and former Republicans who broke with Trump over democracy and the rule of law.

But it does not require Democrats to treat every anti-capitalist, anti-police, anti-Israel, anti-party, or anti-pluralist candidate as merely one more flavor in the big tent.

That is the mistake Carville is reacting against.

The Fetterman Test

I thought about this while rereading my earlier post, “A Centrist on the Road.” On that trip, I spoke with a Democratic Party activist from a northeastern state. She described herself as left wing but not far left wing. We agreed that Democrats needed to reach voters outside their normal constituencies. But she also reportedly wrote Senator John Fetterman urging him to leave the Democratic Party.

That struck me then, and strikes me even more now, as a perfect illustration of the problem.

It is easy to say the party should broaden its coalition. It is harder to accept the actual people who make a broader coalition possible.

A party cannot become more competitive in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, or Maine if it treats every culturally heterodox Democrat as a betrayal. If Democrats want to win outside safe blue territory, they need candidates who sound plausible outside safe blue territory.

The Fantasy of Purification

There is also a darker suspicion, held in some quarters, that some DSA and far-left Democrats do not mind seeing moderate Democrats lose in competitive districts. Moderate losses weaken the party’s center of gravity. They make it easier for ideological activists to argue that the old coalition has failed and that the party must be remade in their image.

The fantasy seems to be that if the Democratic Party becomes uniformly left wing enough, millions of hidden voters will suddenly emerge from the woodwork and propel it to national power. That theory has always struck me as closer to faith than analysis. It ignores the voters who actually decide competitive elections. It also treats losing winnable seats as an acceptable price for ideological purification.

That is not “win everywhere.” That is lose strategically and call it progress.

Disagreement Is Not Disqualification

The right answer is not to purge the left. Nor is it to purge the center. The right answer is to distinguish between disagreement and disqualification.

Disagreement is normal coalition politics. A Democrat who is more cautious on spending, more supportive of policing, more hawkish on foreign policy, or more skeptical of progressive cultural language should not be pushed out of the party. Such candidates may be exactly what Democrats need in places where they currently lose.

Disqualification is different. A candidate who rejects liberal democracy, excuses political violence, denies basic pluralism, or treats the Democratic Party merely as a ballot line to be captured is not simply a different kind of Democrat. That candidate is challenging the party’s identity.

So the lesson is simple:

Do not purge the center in the name of ideological purity.

Do not absorb the anti-liberal left in the name of coalition unity.

That is not hypocrisy. It is coalition discipline.

The Same Advice Applies to Republicans

I would offer Republicans the same unsolicited advice. There are elements on the far right that seem to have found a home in the Republican Party — indeed, may have seized control of much of it — and they may have permanently damaged the Republican brand. But that is a subject for another post.

The Goal Is a Stronger Tent

The broader principle applies to both parties. A healthy party should be wide enough to hold real disagreement and strong enough not to collapse under the weight of people who do not believe in the core principles of the coalition itself.

The goal is not a smaller tent.

The goal is a stronger tent.

“Win Everywhere”: A Virtuous Cycle for American Politics

The Rivera report on the Democrats’ 2024 loss is an odd document.

It appears to contain some useful insights. It also appears unfinished, poorly rolled out, and only grudgingly released. The Democratic National Committee held the report for months before releasing it under internal pressure. DNC Chair Ken Martin then distanced himself from it, saying he was “not proud” of the product and that it did not meet his standards. The DNC also attached a disclaimer saying it could not verify many of the report’s claims because it had not received the underlying sourcing, interviews, or supporting data.

That is not how a serious political party should handle a serious post-election review.

Still, buried inside the Rivera report is an idea that both parties should take seriously: Democrats need to organize everywhere to win everywhere.

That phrase matters.

In fact, it may be the key to a healthier American politics.

What “Win Everywhere” Should Mean

I would take “win everywhere” more literally than political consultants usually do.

Obviously, no party will actually win every race. Politics is competitive. If one party improves, the other party will adapt. Some districts are deeply Republican. Others are deeply Democratic. Not every race is polled, and not every race can realistically be close in any given cycle.

But the aspiration should be clear:

A healthy political party should try to make every election genuinely contestable.

Conceptually, every serious party should want to nominate candidates who could poll within the margin of error before Election Day if voters were paying attention and both parties were competing seriously.

That is not because every candidate will win. They will not.

It is because the discipline of trying to win everywhere would force both parties to become better.

A Democrat running in rural Georgia should not sound like a faculty-lounge progressive from Brooklyn. A Republican running in suburban Maryland should not sound like he is auditioning for a Trump rally. Candidates should fit their communities while still reflecting their party’s broad principles.

That is what political parties are supposed to do.

They are supposed to persuade.

Why the Impossibility Is the Point

The reason “win everywhere” cannot fully succeed is also the reason it is so important.

If Democrats became more competitive in rural America, small towns, the South, and working-class communities, Republicans would have to adapt. They could not rely as easily on Trump loyalty, cultural resentment, and the assumption that Democrats are unacceptable by default.

If Republicans became more competitive in cities, suburbs, college towns, and diverse metropolitan areas, Democrats would have to adapt too. They could not rely as easily on progressive cultural shorthand, demographic assumptions, or opposition to Trump as a substitute for persuasion.

That competitive response is exactly what the country needs.

The goal is not permanent one-party dominance. The goal is healthier competition.

When both parties have to compete everywhere, both parties have to listen. They have to recruit better candidates. They have to moderate their language. They have to understand local concerns. They have to stop treating entire categories of voters as either deplorable or morally superior.

In short, both parties would have to become less obnoxious.

That may be the best argument for “win everywhere.”

Democrats’ Bad Habit: “Failure to Communicate”

The Rivera report appears more reasonable than the progressive response to it because it recognizes real Democratic weaknesses with men, rural voters, non-college voters, Latino voters, irregular voters, and voters in Middle America and the South. AP reported that the report criticized Democrats’ focus on identity politics and said Harris “wrote off rural America.” Reuters similarly reported that the report faulted Democrats for failing to engage men, rural voters, non-college-educated voters, and irregular voters.

That is useful.

But Democrats often make the same mistake after losing: they describe the defeat as a failure to communicate.

Sometimes that is true. Sometimes the message was unclear, the candidate was poorly defined, the campaign failed to respond, or the party did not show up.

But sometimes voters heard the message clearly enough and did not like it.

That distinction matters.

Immigration was not merely a communication problem. Inflation was not merely a communication problem. DEI rhetoric was not merely a communication problem. Cultural overreach was not merely a communication problem. The Trump campaign’s “they/them” ad was effective not simply because Democrats failed to answer it, but because many voters already suspected the party had become too willing to indulge the cultural left.

A party that wants to win everywhere cannot treat every voter disagreement as a misunderstanding.

It has to ask whether voters understood the party’s priorities and rejected them.

The Democratic Lesson

For Democrats, “win everywhere” means more than opening field offices in red counties.

It means becoming plausible to voters outside deep-blue cultural environments.

That does not mean becoming Republican. It does not mean abandoning civil rights, immigration reform, climate policy, abortion rights, or concern for vulnerable groups.

It means learning to speak about those issues in a way that does not sound contemptuous of ordinary people.

Democrats need to stop assuming that voters who dislike immigration disorder are xenophobes. They need to stop assuming that voters who dislike DEI rhetoric are racists. They need to stop assuming that voters who reject progressive language about gender are bigots. They need to stop confusing academic vocabulary with moral seriousness.

People of good will can address the real concerns of transgender people without appearing so open-minded that their brains fell out.

A party that wants to win everywhere has to be able to say that.

It also has to be honest about inflation. Biden-era transfers were politically understandable during COVID, but in retrospect the additional fiscal stimulus was poorly timed. When supply chains were still broken and production capacity was constrained, aggressive transfers increased demand faster than supply could respond. That made inflation more likely, and Democrats then paid the political price for seeming surprised by a result that should have been easier to anticipate.

That is not a messaging problem.

It is a judgment problem.

The Republican Lesson

Republicans need the same discipline.

A Republican Party that wants to win everywhere cannot define “Republican” as “loyal to Donald Trump.”

It cannot treat every dissenting conservative as a RINO. It cannot indulge election denial, cruelty, corruption, or authoritarian rhetoric and then wonder why it struggles in suburbs, cities, college towns, and diverse communities.

A serious Republican Party should have room for fiscal conservatives, libertarians, national-security conservatives, business conservatives, social conservatives, moderates, and populists. Those factions will disagree. That is what political parties are for.

But when loyalty to one man becomes the organizing principle, a party stops being a coalition and becomes a personal vehicle.

That is bad for Republicans. It is also bad for the country.

If Republicans wanted to win everywhere, they would need candidates who could speak to voters who care about fiscal discipline but reject chaos. They would need candidates who can talk about crime without sounding cruel, immigration without sounding bigoted, religion without sounding theocratic, and patriotism without sounding authoritarian.

That would make the Republican Party better.

The Virtuous Cycle

Here is the point that matters most.

If one party seriously tried to win everywhere, the other party would have to respond.

That response would create a virtuous cycle.

If Democrats competed seriously in rural and working-class districts, Republicans would have to stop taking those voters for granted. If Republicans competed seriously in urban and suburban districts, Democrats would have to stop taking those voters for granted.

More races would become real contests. More candidates would have to persuade. More voters would matter. Fewer politicians could survive by appealing only to activists, donors, cable-news audiences, or primary electorates.

That is how American politics could improve.

Not because one party becomes dominant.

Because both parties become less complacent.

A healthy democracy does not require one party to win everywhere. It requires both parties to believe they should try.

Why This Matters to CIVPAC

CIVPAC’s interest is not in helping Democrats win for the sake of Democrats, or Republicans win for the sake of Republicans.

Our interest is in making both parties better.

The country benefits when Democrats are forced to understand rural, religious, working-class, culturally moderate, and non-college voters. The country also benefits when Republicans are forced to understand urban, suburban, secular, immigrant, educated, and racially diverse voters.

Both parties need to compete for voters who are not already on their side.

That is how parties become less ideological, less arrogant, and less captured by their loudest activists.

It is also how voters get better choices.

Too many Americans are politically homeless because each party has learned to survive by making the other party unacceptable. Democrats rely on fear of Trump. Republicans rely on fear of the cultural left. Both strategies can work electorally. Neither strategy produces a healthy democracy.

“Win everywhere” offers a better discipline.

It says: do not write off voters. Do not caricature communities. Do not nominate candidates who can only speak to the converted. Do not assume that the other party’s failures are enough to excuse your own.

The Right Lesson From Rivera

The Rivera report may be unfinished. It may be poorly sourced. It may be incomplete. It reportedly sidesteps some of the hardest questions, including Biden’s decision to seek reelection, and the rushed elevation of Harris after Biden withdrew.

But the “win everywhere” idea is right.

The Democrats need it. Republicans need it too.

A party that wants to govern the whole country should try to understand the whole country. It should put forward candidates who can compete in places where the party usually loses. It should want every voter to believe that their vote matters and that both parties are capable of speaking to them.

That is not naïve. It is the competitive logic democracy is supposed to produce.

The country does not need one party to win everywhere.

It needs both parties to try.

That effort would force each party to listen more, preach less, and nominate candidates who can appeal beyond their own base.

That is the virtuous cycle American politics badly needs.

Of course, not everyone would welcome this. The activist wings of both parties benefit from safe-seat politics. Progressive activists have more power when Democrats only need to win deep-blue primaries. MAGA activists have more power when Republicans only need to win deep-red primaries. A genuine effort to win everywhere would weaken both groups because it would force candidates to persuade voters outside the ideological comfort zone. That is one reason the strategy is so attractive. It would return power from activists to voters.

A Centrist on the Road: Conversations About American Politics

A depiction of the Gand Canyon.

A Centrist on the Road

I recently traveled through the American Southwest. The scenery was spectacular, and the spring climate was remarkably pleasant.

Travel has a way of producing conversations that are different from ordinary social life. You meet people briefly, often in beautiful or unfamiliar places, and sometimes talk more freely than you might at home. Other times, of course, people avoid anything controversial.

During this recent travel, I had a few conversations about public policy and the state of American politics. Sometimes views were offered openly. In other cases, they emerged only after questions. None of the conversations were confrontational.

What struck me most, however, was not the number of political conversations, but how few there were. Despite making my interest in politics clear more than once, most people avoided the subject almost entirely.

That itself seemed revealing.

Democratic Party Politics

The easiest conversation to begin was with someone who had volunteered an interest in politics. This person had been active in Democratic Party politics and described their own views as left wing, but not far left wing.

We agreed on a number of things, including the need for Democrats to reach voters outside their normal constituencies. I shared the CIVPAC website and asked for reactions. My suspicion is that the site may have been reviewed, but it did not generate much enthusiasm.

I heard, from someone else, the view that Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania should leave the Democratic Party. I found that revealing. Fetterman still votes with Democrats the overwhelming majority of the time. He is also exactly the kind of culturally heterodox Democrat who may be able to reach voters the party otherwise struggles to reach.

It may be easier to accept the concept of a broader coalition in the abstract than to accept the reality of sharp disagreement from members of one’s own coalition.

A Competitive Senate Race

Another conversation concerned a competitive Senate race in the Northeast. The person I spoke with knew the race well and was clearly dissatisfied with the available choices.

The reaction was not enthusiastic support for one side so much as exhaustion with the alternatives. The sense I took away was not ideological excitement, but political fatigue.

For CIVPAC, races like this are difficult. A candidate may be more centrist on a number of public policy issues than most members of that candidate’s party and may even have broken with party leadership on some important questions. But that same candidate may also have supported party leadership on many other issues in ways that weaken any claim to independence.

At the same time, the opposing candidate may hold views on socialism, foreign policy, public safety, or political violence that many moderates find difficult to accept.

The conversation itself was short. Unlike my exchange with the Democratic activist, this did not feel like a conversation with someone trying to shape the future of a party. It felt more like a conversation with someone tired of choosing among imperfect options.

My suspicion is that this kind of voter may be more representative of the broader electorate than the activists who dominate so much political discussion.

Immigration and Economic Dislocation

I have also encountered strong views about immigration, especially when people believe immigration has affected their own economic prospects.

The H-1B visa program for highly skilled workers is a good example. At the national level, expanding the supply of skilled labor may increase growth, reduce costs, and support innovation. That is the standard economic argument, and it has real force.

But the individual experience can look very different. Someone who invests time and money in retraining for a technology-related career, only to find the door closed, may experience immigration policy not as an abstraction, but as a personal economic threat.

I am not in a position to judge whether any particular person’s career disappointment was caused by foreign labor competition. Labor markets are complicated, and individual outcomes rarely have a single cause.

But the feeling is real. And politically, feelings of unfairness matter.

Policies that appear efficient at a national level can still generate resentment and distrust if people experience the burdens and benefits as unfairly distributed. A politics that ignores those concentrated costs should not be surprised when affected voters become angry.

International Politics

Another conversation turned to European politics, immigration, and nationalism. The person was very familiar with European politics and followed political developments there closely.

The views expressed did not fit neatly into standard American categories. There was concern about democratic backsliding and authoritarian politics, but also some sympathy for European leaders who had taken a harder line on immigration. The argument was that immigration restrictions may have protected some countries from social and public-safety problems experienced elsewhere in Europe. There was also interest in pro-natalist policies, including benefits and protections for new parents.

This was not a wholehearted endorsement of European nationalism. Nor was it a full-throated condemnation.

What interested me most, however, was how poorly the conversation fit American political categories. A person with cross-border experience expressing partial sympathy for nationalist European leaders because of concerns about immigration, crime, and demographics does not fit comfortably into the ideological narratives that dominate American politics.

For myself, I viewed recent political change in parts of Europe, including the defeat of Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party in Hungary, with guarded optimism. Guarded because it is never immediately clear how a new government will actually govern. Optimistic because cooperation with democratic allies and support for Ukraine matter a great deal.

Real voters are often more complicated than our political labels.

Conclusions

There is nothing remotely scientific about gathering political impressions while traveling. But informal conversations sometimes reveal things that polls cannot.

I had only a handful of political conversations. Despite making my interest in politics clear, most people I encountered did not express political views at all.

I increasingly think that silence itself may say something important.

Most people may simply be exhausted by the current political environment. They may also be reluctant to expose their views to criticism from people they do not know well. In many social settings, politics increasingly feels less like a conversation and more like a potential social risk.

People naturally search for conversational ground with strangers. Passing on an obvious invitation to discuss politics may therefore tell us quite a bit.

I also suspect that some vocal people already have relatively fixed political identities and voting behavior. But the quieter majority may still be politically available in ways activists and highly engaged partisans often underestimate.

Both parties should recognize that and act accordingly.

In retrospect, I also wish I had identified myself more strongly as a centrist independent and not simply as someone interested in politics. I wonder whether that would have changed some of the conversations — or perhaps encouraged more of them.

Maybe next time.

Centrist View of the Debt Ceiling Debate

The Democrats’ Position

First, let’s admit that Biden’s arguments about the Republicans’ opposition to raising the debt limit without reductions in the deficit have some merit. The Republicans raised the debt limit repeatedly during the Trump administration. The Republicans, also, increased the deficit and the debt level by passing significant tax reductions during the Trump administration.

Biden has indicated that he will not compromise on the issue of the debt cap and expects the House to approve an increase without any conditions.

Some Democrats have suggested a variety of work-arounds that don’t require raising the debt limit, like minting the trillion dollar coin (essentially printing money). Many of these options are legally dubious and/or economically dangerous.

The Real Republican Position

Based on its actions, the Republican Party is not concerned about the debt or the deficit level. What they do want is lower taxes and less government spending, particularly on social welfare programs. They also want the drama of a showdown with the Democrats, to excite their base. They are happy to use the leverage of resisting increasing the debt cap to accomplish these latter two objectives.

A Centrist View

Unlimited government spending and an escalating debt to GDP ratio is a bad thing. Shutting down the U.S. government or putting it into default are bad things.

As President Obama said, “elections have consequences.” The Republicans gained control of the House and governing requires compromising with them. In the past, attempts by the Republican Party to use the debt ceiling as a tool have backfired politically. I am guessing Biden hopes that history will repeat itself. Unfortunately, for the Democrats, taking the position that they will not compromise on the issue, in any way, puts the blame for a government shutdown and possible default at least partly on them.

A Centrist Recommendation

The Democrats need to concede that compromise is appropriate and necessary. They need to offer something to the Republicans in return for an increase in the debt cap.

My recommendation would be to address the problems with Social Security in a bi-partisan manner. Republicans want to raise the age for future eligibility to benefits. Democrats want to raise the income limit on the Social Security tax. Why not do both? Calculate the amount of money it would take to keep the system solvent for the foreseeable future and raise half the money by raising the income limit on the tax and half by extending the age for future eligibility. For more detail on the Centrist Independent Voter’s position on this issue visit the Social Security policy position.

This is not the only compromise that could be offered, but it is a simple, straightforward one that is also good public policy.

For a more detail discussion of the Centrist Independent Voter’s policy position on the questions of the deficit and the national debt visit the policy position on Taxation, Spending, and Debt.

Re-ordering the Democratic Primaries

Why Biden Pushed for Re-ordering the Primaries

The official reason for re-ordering the Democratic primaries, to allow South Carolina to go first, is to increase the influence of Black voters in the selection of the presidential nominee. A second reason is clearly to strengthen President Biden’s position if there is a contest for the Democratic nominee for President.

Why Iowa Was Always a Bad Starting Point

I was never a fan of giving Iowa outsized power in the selection of presidential candidates. For decades it has forced otherwise sensible candidates, like Sen. Bill Bradley (a moderate Democrat from New Jersey), to reject reason and embrace subsidies for “gasohol.” Subsidies for gasohol are irrational and merely a subsidy for corn production.

The Upside of Iowa for the Country

That being said, there was some value to allowing the Iowa caucus vote to come first. Winning in Iowa requires meeting with small groups of voters. Candidates whose appeal is based on a manufactured media presence are at a disadvantage in Iowa, relative to those with real personal appeal.

The Dilemma of Iowa for the Democratic Party

The disadvantage of Iowa from the viewpoint of the Democratic Party is that the voters, even the Democratic voters, are overwhelmingly White. It may be true that this tilts the contest away from candidates whose primary appeal is to Black voters. Nevertheless, it may provide a kind of advantage to Black candidates. Barack Obama’s strong performance in Iowa provided evidence that he could garner significant support among White voters. It is not helpful to either Black voters or Democrats in general, if the primaries produce candidates who have limited appeal to White voters. Remember, the voting public in the general election remains predominantly White.

The Long-Term Consequences of Leading with South Carolina

Let’s consider a post-Biden election. In 2028, it is easy to imagine a primary battle between Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris. Buttigieg is not popular in the Black community, as evidenced by his poor performance in the 2020 South Carolina Presidential primary. It is hard to say exactly why this is the case. It may be because Buttigieg is openly gay and it may be because African-Americans disliked his response to policing issues when he was Mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Kamala Harris has stronger, but not unqualified, support from the Black community. If Harris wins the nomination, she would likely go down to defeat in the general election because she is deeply unpopular, a bad campaigner, and is tied, rightly or wrongly, to the chaos at the border. Buttigieg did well in Iowa because he is a good campaigner. He would do well in the general election because, in addition to being a good campaigner, he is a relative moderate and is not linked to the most unpopular aspects of the Biden administration. If South Carolina goes first, it improves the odds of Harris winning the nomination and, in my opinion, lowers the odds of the Democrats winning the Presidency.

A Better Choice for Both Parties

I think the most rational thing for the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party for that matter, is to lead off the primary season in a state where the party’s demographics (racial and political) mirror those of likely voters in the general election. As a first approximation, I would suggest considering the so-called “battle ground” or “purple” states including: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada. Ideally, the selection requires matching up the party’s political and racial demography in each state with that of general election voters. If anyone is aware of sources for this kind of data, please let us know.

Moderate House Republicans Need to Push Back Against Freedom Caucus

Who Should Be Speaker of the House?

It looks like the Republicans will have a slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Kevin McCarthy hopes to become the Speaker of the House. The House “Freedom” Caucus is trying to extract concessions from McCarthy in return for their support.

The Freedom Caucus is a far right group of roughly 47 Republicans in the House. They tend to be Trump supporters and election deniers. They tend to vote against bi-partisan legislation as a matter of principle. They are, mostly, members of the Centrist Independent Voter’s Rogues Gallery of candidates we would never endorse.

Moderate Republicans in the House, like those in the Problem Solvers Caucus, should unite to oppose granting any concessions to the Freedom Caucus. Moderate Republicans generally come from swing districts and have a lot to lose if the Republican Party turns further to the right. They also have alternatives. Moderate Republicans can change parties and have a chance at re-election. Short of that they are free to vote with the Democratic Caucus on a compromise Speaker of the House. That person does not even have to be a member of the House. (How about Liz Cheney). The members of the Freedom caucus have nowhere to go.

The Republican’s are likely to have, at best, a slim majority in the House. If McCarthy wants the support of moderate Republicans he should grow a spine and tell the Freedom Caucus to sit down and shut up. He should remind the Freedom Caucus that they, and those like them, are the reason the House majority is so tiny and the reason why the Republicans will, probably, not have control of the Senate. If McCarthy is too cowardly to do this he may lose, not just the Speakership, but also a Republican majority in the House.

Should Inflation Be the Dominant Election Issue in 2022?

Both Republicans and Democrats talk about inflation. Neither has anything useful to say.

A number of political analysts have observed that inflation has displaced other issues as the dominant issue in this election cycle. That may well be true, but should it be?

The left at first tried to dismiss inflation as transitory. When that was clearly false, some said inflation is not that harmful. When voters clearly appeared to believe that inflation matters, the left switched to “it’s not our fault,” citing high levels of inflation in many other countries and blaming supply chain disruptions and Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The last of these has at least a little bit of merit, but there are many low inflation countries that suffered from these same problems. The unifying feature of economies with high inflation is loose monetary and aggressive fiscal policies to combat the Covid induced recession.

Republicans certainly share the blame for loose monetary policy. Political pressure from both parties has encouraged the Fed to keep interest rates far too low for far too long. Other countries have experienced a similar dynamic to varying degrees. Democrats bear most of the blame for just how aggressive fiscal policy has become, but Republicans share some of the blame for actions taken during the Trump administration.

Democrats say that Republicans complain about inflation but offer no solutions. On that the Democrats have a point. The Democrats offer solutions, that aren’t solutions. The “Inflation Reduction Act” was about climate change subsidies. Most economists agree its role in terms of inflation will be minimal. Student loan forgiveness is a wealth transfer. If unfunded through tax increases on someone, student loan forgiveness will just make inflation worse in the long term. Price controls on drug prices, like all price controls, just make markets less efficient. Real reform here would require U.S. drug companies that receive U.S. patent protection grant “most favored nation” status to U.S. consumers. Under this rule drug companies would be free to set prices, but they could not charge any U.S. consumer, including Medicare, any more than the least expensive price they charge outside the U.S. This would be good public policy, but it has nothing to do with inflation.

What is inflation?

Remember, inflation is a rise in the general price level. Higher or lower prices for individual commodities are not inflationary or deflationary. For example, in the absence of accommodating monetary policy, higher energy prices just mean lower prices for other goods (or recession, but that requires a much longer discussion).

What would help?

So what should both parties be saying on inflation. First, it is a serious problem. Second, the Fed is doing the right thing by raising interest rates, and we (the politicians) will avoid pressing the Fed to back off before the job is complete. Third, if elected we (the politicians) will not make the Feds job harder by cutting taxes or increasing spending.

What role should inflation play in the mid-term elections?

Neither party is saying anything like that. So from my perspective, inflation is not an issue for the mid-terms. Maybe it should be, but it certainly does not help me decide on who to vote for. In any case, we will have divided government for the next two years, even if the Republicans gain both the House and the Senate, since Biden is President. Divided government means that we are unlikely to see either tax cuts or major spending legislation. That may be the best we can hope for since it will make the Feds job easier.

If not inflation, what issues should drive the election?

Vote on abortion rights, there are clear choices to choose from, no matter where you stand. Vote on preserving democracy and election integrity, there are clear choices. Vote on America’s commitment to NATO and the defense of Ukraine against Russia, there are clear choices. Vote on climate change or energy security, there are clear choices.

But please don’t vote on inflation. There is no party that offers a good answer here.

Recommendations for 2022 U.S. House Races

Vote, even if the choices are poor. Just Vote!

I have been asked why we have so few endorsements in U. S. House races for the mid-term elections. The answer is partly that we don’t have the resources to cover these races. It is also partly because most U.S. House races are foregone conclusions after the primaries.

We do have some general guidelines about how to think about these races. In order of priority they are: we oppose any candidate who supports Donald Trump and his 2020 election behavior; we oppose any candidate who is against U.S. efforts to aid Ukraine’s defense from the Russian invasion; we oppose candidates who support extreme positions on the abortion issue; we oppose any candidate who believes we should address inflation with price controls or windfall profits taxes; and we oppose candidates who deny that climate change is a serious issue.

Our feeling is that the first two of these issues are the priority for the 2022 U.S. Congressional elections.

Donald Trump, never a good person or candidate, has become increasingly destructive to the nation and even his own party. Candidates who would not be on the ballot but for Donald Trump’s endorsement and who support his wild claims about the 2020 election should not be voted for under any circumstances. For a complete list of Trump endorsements, go here. Obviously Trump endorses a lot of candidates just because he likes backing winners. As a general rule, I would recommend against voting for most of these candidates. (I might make exceptions for incumbent candidates who did not ask for and did not need Trump’s endorsement and who deny Trump’s claims about the 2020 election.) If you can’t abide the Democrat, vote for a third party candidate or write in someone’s name.

The fate of Western democracy, the preservation of a rules-based international order, and the prevention of a physical and cultural genocide in Ukraine depends upon the U.S. and our allies supporting Ukraine and expelling Russia from Ukraine. Conveniently, all 57 of the U.S. House members who voted against aid for Ukraine are Trump supporters. For their names, visit our Rogues Gallery of Candidates.

Abortion, no matter how important the issue is to you, or which side you are on, is almost certainly going to be decided at the state level. If that is your priority issue, focus your attention on the gubernatorial and state legislature elections.

Inflation is primarily an issue for the Federal Reserve Board. We would recommend voting against candidates who want to undermine the Feds efforts. We also oppose candidates who think the right way to deal with inflation is price controls or windfall profits taxes. There aren’t very many candidates who support either of these policies and they are recognizable by their association with the “Working Families Party,” so they are easy to identify.

On climate change, the “Inflation Reduction Act” went about as far as either party is willing to go. Republicans are unlikely to get enough votes to repeal it. Many Democrats seem reluctant to take the one step that would make a difference: a carbon tax with a comparable tariff. There are reasonable differences of opinion on the issue of what, if anything, should be done about climate change. However, candidates who view concerns about climate change as a hoax do not seem worthy of consideration. Again, these candidates are fairly easy to identify because they tend to be hard-core Trump supporters.

Guidelines for Centrists Voting in the 2022 Mid-Term Elections.

Vote to Move the Politics to the Center

What Should Centrists Do in the 2022 General Election?

The Centrist Independent Voter is a new organization. We have a very small, all volunteer staff. With the limited time and resources available to us this year, we have tried to identify some high profile, mostly U.S. Senate, races and endorsed candidates in the primaries and the general election in those races.

Beyond those specific endorsements, I have some general advice about how to promote a more sane and centrist approach to politics during the general election in 2022.

First, vote against any candidate that owes their position on the ballot to Donald Trump. This does not mean voting for every Democrat. It does not even mean voting against every Republican that Donald Trump endorses. Trump has endorsed many candidates who would have won easily without his support and did not go out of their way to ask for it. It does mean voting against any candidate that would not be on the ballot in the general election were it not for Donald Trump’s endorsement. Mehmet Oz and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, J.D. Vance in Ohio, and Herschal Walker in Georgia come to mind. Many of these candidates show up in our Rogues Gallery of Candidates.

Second, where the first rule does not dominate, vote against Democratic candidates that are endorsed by the “Working Families Party.” This far-left organization includes Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren along with the so-called Squad in the House of Representatives. Many of these candidates, also, show up in our Rogues Gallery of Candidates.

Third, vote for those Republicans who crossed party lines to support bi-partisan infrastructure, gun control, and aid to Ukraine legislation or to vote for Trump’s impeachment/conviction. This rule is rarely in conflict with the first rule, as far as I know.

Fourth, vote for fiscally conservative Democrats who broke party ranks to oppose excessive government spending and who oppose packing the Supreme Court and ending the filibuster rule in the Senate. This rule is never in conflict with the second rule, as far as I know.

Unfortunately, there may be races where these rules conflict with each other. In those cases, I would recommend that you start with the first and work your way down.