Category: Centrist Politics

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.

Utah U.S. Senate Race

Vote in the U.S. Senate Race in Utah.

There is nothing normal about the 2022 race for the U.S. Senate seat from Utah.

Mike Lee (R) is the incumbent and was initially a heavy favorite. The race is now too close to call. Mike Lee is a full throated Trump supporter. Lee’s opponent, Evan McMullen is a conservative who has been endorsed by the Democratic Party in Utah.

While there is no true centrist running in Utah, you would not expect to see one in what is certainly among the most conservative states.

McMullen has promised not to caucus with either party in the Senate. That may be a mistake since it would limit his access to committee appointments. In our view, if he wins, he should caucus with the majority party. This is especially valuable if he gives that party a majority, in which case he should demand key committee assignments as a quid pro quo. He should then feel free to break party ranks and vote truly independently on legislation.

For the Centrist Independent Voter this is not a difficult call. The Centrist Independent Voter enthusiastically endorses Evan McMullen for the U.S. Senate seat from Utah.

Florida U.S. Senate Race

Our Board of Governors is still wrestling with whether to endorse Sen. Marco Rubio (R), the incumbent, or Rep. Val Demings (D) in the Florida U.S. Senate race.

Some oppose Rubio because he has Trump’s endorsement and because he co-sponsored Lindsay Graham’s national ban on abortions after 15 weeks. Some are also put off by Rubio’s dismissal of a bi-partisan effort to protect same sex marriage rights, legislatively, at the federal level as a “waste of time.”

Some oppose Val Demings because she consistently voted along party lines in the House and was therefore likely to be a rubber stamp for Majority Leader Chuck Shumer (D) in the U.S. Senate. This later fear is made all the more important by the fact that President Biden recently announced that if he gets two more votes in the Senate and keeps control of the House, he will support overturning the filibuster rule. Rep. Demings has referred to the filibuster rule as a “procedural game,” so we know where she stands.

Faced with the inability to find a majority in support of either of the two major party candidates, I decided to examine the issue positions of the other candidates in the U.S. Senate race in Florida.

The Libertarian candidate was far too isolationist for us. Many of the others were either too right wing or too vague to be worth considering.

One candidate had a surprisingly thoughtful, albeit short, set of policy positions that struck me as remarkably centrist and reasonable: Tuan Nguyen. To see his platform, click here: Platform.

I realize that Nguyen has little to no chance to win the election. However, if a centrist candidate were able to capture enough votes to prevent either major party candidate from having a majority, that could be important. If the votes for a centrist, non-affiliated candidate would have provided the margin of victory to the major party candidate that loses, we will have made an important point.

If either of the major party candidates were notably more centrist than the other, the opportunity cost of casting a vote for Nguyen might be considered too high. That does not appear to be the case.

If you were considering not voting because you cannot abide either of the major party candidates, please consider voting for Tuan Nguyen. There is no downside.

It is very easy to imagine that a centrist candidate could win if Florida adopts Ranked Choice Voting. Until then, it is important to do everything possible to demonstrate that extremism of the right and the left are not good campaign strategies.

At this point our Board of Governors is still trying to decided who, if anyone, to endorse in this race. I suspect that the fact that Nguyen’s platform does not address the issues of abortion, the filibuster, and court packing may make it difficult for the Board to endorse him. Nevertheless , Tuan Nguyen has my personal endorsement in the U.S. Senate race in Florida.

North Carolina General Election for U.S. Senate

North Carolina U.S. Senate Election

As Donald Trump’s problems mount, many Republican Senate candidates are now trying to distance themselves from him. Ted Budd, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate for North Carolina, is an exception to that trend. He has doubled down on his association to Trump while also emphasizing his support for national legislation to restrict abortion after 15 weeks.

To see Budd’s positions on a number of issues, visit his website.

His Democratic opponent Cheri Beasley is the former Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. She is no centrist but counts as a moderate among Democrats, although her willingness to consider expanding the U.S. Supreme Court seems less than moderate.

To see Beasley’s positions on a number of issues, visit her website.

Those familiar with the Centrist Independent Voter’s Policy Positions will know that we don’t align well with either of these candidates.

Nevertheless, the Centrist Independent Voter endorses Cheri Beasley for the U.S. Senate seat from North Carolina. We do so because of Budd’s close association with Trump and because Beasley is more moderate than most of the Democratic Party.

Endorsement In the New Hampshire U.S. Senate Race

New Hampshire U.S. Senate Race

The New Hampshire Senate Race Should be Closer than It Is

Normally, the New Hampshire Senate race would be in play since the the incumbent Democrat, Maggie Hassan, only defeated her Republican opponent by 0.1% when she took office six years ago. But despite the fact that mid-term elections generally turn against the party in power and the fact that President Biden still suffers from low approval ratings, Hassan appears to be about 11% ahead of her Republican opponent, Don Bolduc, a Trump endorsed extremist.

The reason Bolduc won in the primary is two-fold. The first is poor judgment on the part of Republicans in nominating him. The second is cynical hypocrisy on the part of some Democrats in promoting the election of Bolduc during the Republican primary.

It is difficult to understand how Democrats can think that their claims that MAGA Republicans are a threat to the nation will be taken seriously when they promote the election of MAGA Republicans in the primaries. All it leaves one with is the feeling that these Democrats are every bit as power hungry and indifferent to the fate of the nation as the Republicans they decry for sticking with Donald Trump.

The Centrist Independent Endorsement (with a caveat)

Sen. Maggie Hassan is a moderate Democrat. We might well have endorsed her even if the Trump endorsed candidate had not won the Republican primary. At this point, we have to move forward and endorse the more moderate candidate, while noting our disgust at the craven cynicism of Democrats who promote the election of the very candidates they believe constitute an existential threat to the nation.

With that caveat noted, the Centrist Independent Voter endorses Sen. Maggie Hassan for the U.S. Senate seat from New Hampshire.

New Hampshire Primary for U.S. Senate and Democratic Hypocrisy in Condemning MAGA as a Threat to the Nation.

New Hampshire Republican Primary U.S. Senate.

For the most part, I agreed with President Biden’s address to the nation about the threat posed by the radical right. I think it was a political mistake, however, to draw an equivalence between the radical right and all MAGA Republicans. It reminded me of Hillary Clinton’s blunder of labeling her opponents as a “basket of deplorables.”

What really upsets me is the hypocrisy of Biden labeling MAGA Republicans as a threat to the nation while his party actively promotes MAGA candidates, like Don Buldoc in New Hampshire. It appears the MAGA Republican won in the New Hampshire primary, by a narrow margin, over a more mainstream Republican.

Democrats support MAGA Republicans in primaries because they believe that MAGA Republicans will be easier to defeat in the general election. This is a cynical effort that puts party interests before the interests of the nation. This is the same thing that Democrats, rightly, accuse mainstream Republicans of, for not openly denouncing Trump.

Hypocrites to the left of us, cowards to the right and here we all are, stuck in the middle with poor choices in the general elections.

Wisconsin U.S. Senate Race

U.S. Senate Race in Wisconsin.

A Far Right Incumbent

Sen. Ron Johnson (R) is running to retain his seat in the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, he is far to the right on issues like abortion and climate change and he supports Trump’s outrageous claims about the 2020 election. He is also endorsed by Donald Trump.

A Far Left Challenger

Given all of the above, the Centrist Independent Voter would probably endorse Johnson’s opponent. Sadly, Mandela Barnes (D) is a self-described Progressive and a member of the Working Families Party. His positions on most issues are on the far left of the political spectrum.

Wisconsin is an excellent example of what happens when the base of both parties get to choose who we can vote for in the general election. I cannot in good conscience recommend endorsing either of them.

The Alternative

There is a third party, write-in candidate, Scott Aubart, from the American Independent Party. Aubart does not have a serious chance of winning, so voting for him is really a protest vote. I do not normally recommend protest votes, feeling that it is better to choose the lesser of two evils. I will, therefore, stop short of endorsing Aubart. You should check out his website. He is hard to pin down in terms of political philosophy. He claims to be centrist. He appears to be pro-abortion rights and pro-gun rights (with some interesting reservations in both areas). He is no libertarian, he recommends larger government in the areas of health care and education. He is interesting.

The Best Outcome

If the margin of victory for the winner in this race is far less than the vote for the third party candidate, it might make it clear to both parties that they need to turn toward the center. That would be a good thing.

Reaction to President Biden’s Anti-MAGA Speech.

The White House

First Where We Agree

In my opinion, there was a fair amount of truth in President Biden’s speech to the nation last night. I agree that the single greatest threat to American democracy, at the moment, comes from Donald Trump and his loyalists, what Biden calls the MAGA Republicans.

For that reason, the Centrist Independent Voter will be endorsing a number of Democrats who would be far too left or populist for our taste, in normal times. But as Biden says, “these are not normal times.” Generally speaking, we will be endorsing the opponent of any candidate who owes his place on the ballot to a Trump endorsement.

Where Biden Missed Opportunities

It takes no courage to call out extremism in your opponent’s political party. It takes courage to call out extremism in your own political party. Liz Cheney (R) and Adam Kinzinger (R) deserve praise for having done so in the Republican Party.

If Biden had called out the extremists within his own party, he would have earned our praise. There were many opportunities to do this.

Political Violence

Biden mentions that political violence is never justified. I could not agree more. But the only example he points to is January 6th. He could have mentioned the riots that accompanied many of the Black Lives Matter protests. He could have condemned the violence and vandalism that accompanied protests against the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank a few years earlier. But these were examples of the use of political violence by the left. I am glad that Biden condemned all political violence. However, to gain credibility with independents and mainstream Republicans, he should have admitted that we face the threat of political violence across the political spectrum.

Am I Expecting Too Much?

You might say that if Biden were to admit to faults on the left he would have hurt his party in the upcoming mid-term elections. Fair enough. But let’s not get sanctimonious and demand that mainstream Republicans openly condemn Donald Trump, in the middle of election season. I expect politicians to be self-serving. I am delighted when they are not. Biden’s speech, while correct on many counts, was self-serving.

Inflation

Another missed opportunity for Biden to call out extremism in his own party was his silence on inflation. We mention elsewhere that, in the end, inflation is a monetary phenomenon. However, in the face of accommodating monetary policy, aggressive government spending (fiscal policy) will increase inflation. Biden claims the employment benefits of the Covid relief spending without admitting its role in sparking inflation.

This would have been an excellent opportunity to reject the Modern Monetary Theorists in the Democratic Party. This crowd, which includes many in the Progressive Caucus, believe in a cornucopia theory of economics in which there is no price to be paid for ever expanding government spending.

Biden’s silence on the issue was to be expected from a self-serving politician. A simple admission that there should be limits on government spending would have given him real credibility among independents.

Democratic Party Support for MAGA Republicans

Perhaps the biggest missed opportunity in Biden’s speech was his failure to condemn cynical attempts by his own party to promote the candidacy of MAGA Republicans in the primaries. The Democratic Party, and associated PACs, did so because they believe that MAGA candidates will be easier to defeat in the general election. How can Democrats think that independents will take the threat from the far right seriously when the Democratic Party works to support these far right candidates in the primaries? How can Biden give this speech, arguing that MAGA Republicans are a grave threat to the nation, while his own party funds efforts to get them elected? The only conclusion I can draw is that he and his party are just self-serving politicians.

Even a veiled condemnation of these efforts would have given him a real boost among independents.

Bottom Line

Yes, extremist Trump supporters, like those who participated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, are a grave threat to the nation. We should all do what we can to make sure that they do not acquire political power. However, extremism has many faces. The President, and Democrats in general, would be more credible in calling out extremism if they were willing to admit it exists within their own ranks.

Why Second Best Climate Solutions are Counterproductive.

U.S. Capital

Doing Something is Not Always Better than Doing Nothing

I came across an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal this weekend that reminded me about why a carbon tax is not only the best solution, but it may be the only solution. Specifically, the author of the piece, Holman W. Jenkins, pointed out that subsidies for electric vehicles will lower the demand for oil and therefore oil prices. Lower oil prices mean that the owners of gasoline powered vehicles, in the U.S. and elsewhere, will drive those cars more and that purchasers of new gas powered vehicles will buy larger and less fuel efficient vehicles. In the short run this effect may be small, but in the long run it may wipe out much of the benefit of subsidizing electric vehicles. It is unlikely that the subsidies will entirely wipe out the carbon benefits, but these subsidies are not free. It is easy to imagine that the net benefit could be negative.

The Centrist Independent Voter makes the same point in the Energy Policy section as a reason for opposing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. CAFE standards, by forcing some cars to be more efficient, lower the demand for gasoline and therefore gas prices, which encourages drivers to drive more. This problem is well documented.

Taxing carbon does not have this shortcoming. Carbon taxes raise the cost of all fossil fuels, which not only provides an incentive for buying electric vehicles, it also encourages consumers to drive less and buy smaller cars.

Why Not a Carbon Tax?

The most common argument against a carbon tax is that it will only discourage fossil fuel use in the U.S., make American manufacturers less competitive, and encourage fossil fuel use in other countries like China and India.

Those are good arguments, but the solution is to match the tax with a comparable tariff on the carbon content of imported goods. A few countries in Europe are experimenting with just such a tax and tariff scheme. Imports from countries that impose the same tax and tariff scheme on themselves would be exempt from the tariff. When you think about it, why would any country allow its exports to be taxed by a foreign government when it could avoid the tariff and capture the tax revenues for itself by imposing its own carbon tax? It is easy to see how such a scheme could rapidly result in a virtuous cycle leading to a nearly universal global carbon tax.

Another argument against a carbon tax is that it is a political impossibility. To this I have to ask, what is the politically palatable action that will actually solve the problem? The carbon tax has something for everyone. It would actually work to address climate change and it would produce a revenue stream that could be used to reduce the deficit. It works, politically, precisely because it asks everyone to bear at least some of the cost of dealing with the problem.

Is Climate Change an Existential Problem?

If you think climate change is an existential problem, I would think that you might be willing to accept that the most, perhaps the only, effective way to deal with it is a carbon tax. Progressives seem to shy away from this solution because they like to pretend that the problem can be solved by taxing the rich to subsidize low-carbon technologies. As the analysis above suggests, these subsidies may not be capable of solving the problem.

What should be done with the revenues collected from a carbon tax? The left would like to see them redistributed. That could be done and it would be better than not having a carbon tax at all. However, if the left expects to get centrists and moderate Republicans to buy into a carbon tax, it might help if the revenues were used to offset the deficit.

In addition, it would be helpful if the left would get out of the way with respect to the use of nuclear power. In the presence of a significant carbon tax, nuclear power could be scaled up far more quickly than solar and wind power. Are there risks? Sure, but I thought we were talking about an existential problem.

For more on Climate Change and Energy Policy visit the Centrist Independent Voter’s Policy Positions.

Student Loan Cancellation

Executive Action on Cancelling Student Debt

Is the Cancellation of Student Debt Good Public Policy?

I have not actually heard a reasonable attempt to rationalize student debt cancellation as good public policy. If you know of one, please post it in the comment section.

The pause in student debt payments during the early stages of the pandemic could be justified as fiscal stimulus (needed at the time) or as part of a broad array of policies to cushion the individual financial impacts of the pandemic. What the White House announced yesterday is different.

More than anything, debt cancellation is now a political payoff to a special interest group that supported Biden, and the Democratic Party generally, in 2020. As a political payoff, it is no worse and no better than any other political payoff to a special interest group. It is no worse than Sen. Kyrsten Sinema getting rid of the carried interest provisions in the “Inflation Reduction Act,” in return for financial support from the private equity industry. It is no worse than Sen. Joe Manchin defending the coal industry. It is no worse than many of the special tax breaks added by Republicans to the 2017 tax act.

I am not saying that all of the things mentioned above are necessarily bad public policy. Some are, some are not. What I am saying is that they are not why these things happened. They happened as a quid-pro-quo for political support.

When viewed that way, the cancellation of student debt is just the payment of a political debt. It’s not good or bad, it’s just part of the grease that makes the political system work. It is hard to get angry about it when viewed this way, unless you believe the political system can be entirely altruistic.

Does it Lower the Cost of Higher Education?

Some might counter that the cost of higher education is too high and this lowers the cost of higher education. Student debt cancellation lowers the cost of higher education in the same way that cancelling auto loan debt for cars purchased in the last 2 years lowers the cost of cars. A lucky few have more cash, but the cars still cost the same. Cancellation does nothing to make higher education less expensive going forward. By the same token, the claim that it will cause colleges to charge more is weak, since there is little reason to expect the debt cancellation to be repeated.

If you are interested in some ways to actually reduce the cost of higher education, check out the Centrist Independent Voter’s policy position on higher education.

Is the Debt Cancellation Inflationary?

The debt cancellation is a form of fiscal stimulus. Unfortunately, stimulus expenditures are the last thing we need at this time. In defense of the cancellation, it is only mildly stimulative and therefore only mildly inflationary. To understand why, one needs to reflect on the income effects of the debt cancellation. Cancelling $10,000 of debt to be paid over 10 years only increases disposable income by about $1,000 each year. Theoretically, the impact might be slightly higher since the cancellation affects future income/wealth and therefore has a small additional impact on current consumption. More importantly, if the student owes a really large amount of debt, their annual payments may not be affected at all under the income-driven repayment plans. In those cases, the cancellation of debt just reduces the size of the debt to be forgiven in 10 to 25 years, from the date they borrowed the funds, depending on which plan they are participating in. Even that effect is potentially smaller if the debt forgiveness is a taxable event. All of that being said, student debt cancellation should have a negligible impact on inflation.

Of course, in the long run, debt cancellation will increase the size of the deficit. This could be offset by higher taxes. It is unlikely that the Biden administration will propose specific tax increases to accomplish this. To do so would make it obvious that this is simply a wealth transfer from one group of people to another.

The Bottom Line

Student debt cancellation is a payoff. If it is effective at keeping the target group aligned with the Democratic Party, and if it does not alienate others in the coalition, then it is good politics for Democrats. That is a big if.