The Centrist Independent Voter endorses Mark Warner for reelection to the United States Senate from Virginia.
Warner has spent much of his public career occupying territory that has become increasingly scarce in American politics: economically pragmatic, comfortable working with the other party, serious about national security, and more interested in governing than ideological combat.
His Republican opponent, retired Army Major General Bert Mizusawa, deserves respectful consideration. Mizusawa has an impressive record of military and national-security service. His campaign also advances several ideas we find attractive, including fiscal restraint, simplification of the tax code, secure borders, and making legal immigration easier.
But Mark Warner is the stronger choice.
A Pragmatic Democrat
Before entering politics, Warner built a successful career in technology and telecommunications. He later served as governor of Virginia from 2002 through 2006 and has represented the Commonwealth in the Senate since 2009. His experience in business has helped give him an outlook that is noticeably different from the economic populism increasingly heard from portions of the Democratic Party.
Warner is certainly a Democrat, and centrist independent voters will disagree with some of his votes on taxes, spending, regulation, and other issues. But some disagreement from a centrist perspective is inevitable when endorsing a candidate from either of the two dominant parties.
Throughout his career, Warner has demonstrated an unusual willingness to work across party lines and to approach complicated issues as problems to be solved rather than opportunities for partisan positioning.
That instinct remains visible today. In August, for example, Warner joined Republican Senator Jon Husted of Ohio in introducing four bills intended to protect American technology and strengthen national security against China.
Serious About National Security
Warner’s position as Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is particularly important at a time when the United States faces challenges from Russia, China, Iran, cyberattacks, artificial intelligence, and rapidly changing military technologies. He has become one of the Senate’s more knowledgeable voices at the intersection of technology and national security.
He has also remained a strong supporter of Ukraine and of America’s traditional alliances. We consider continued American support for Ukraine important not only to Ukraine itself but to the broader credibility of American deterrence. Russia, China and other potential aggressors are watching what the United States does when an authoritarian power attempts to change international borders by force. This is also central to CIVPAC’s policy on Russia and Ukraine.
Warner understands those stakes.
Mizusawa articulated a view in 2016 that he called the “Trump Doctrine,” essentially a form of transactional realpolitik: American commitments abroad should be evaluated in terms of the costs they impose and the benefits they return to the American people. Mizusawa continues to describe himself as the author of the doctrine and speaks of directing national-security spending toward a positive return on investment for Americans.
There is nothing unreasonable about asking whether American foreign policy serves American interests. But America also has values, and pursuing those values does not always require justification in the narrow terms of self-interest. Aid to people suffering from famine, earthquakes, storms, or other catastrophes may require no greater justification than that Americans believe helping them is morally right.
In addition, we think that the “Trump Doctrine” can undervalue alliances and the international order they help sustain. NATO and other American commitments do not always produce an easily calculated return on investment. Their value lies partly in deterring wars, constraining aggressive powers, and maintaining a relatively stable international system from which the United States has benefited enormously.
On that question, Warner’s approach is closer to ours.
Institutions Still Matter
The differences between the candidates become more consequential when we turn to Donald Trump and the institutions of American government.
Mizusawa has chosen to run as an explicit ally of President Trump and continues to identify himself closely with Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government.
Warner, by contrast, has been willing to challenge the Trump administration when he believes presidential power is threatening institutional safeguards, particularly within the intelligence community and the election-security apparatus. As Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he has raised repeated alarms about administration actions that could undermine election security, including the politicization of election investigations and weakening of federal election-security capabilities. In June, Warner and other senators warned that election-security coordination was still in its infancy and that administration funding and personnel cuts had significantly weakened federal capabilities.
Those concerns matter. Presidents come and go. The credibility of the intelligence agencies, the independence of law enforcement, congressional oversight, and confidence in elections must survive them. Our broader approach to protecting both participation and election integrity is set out in CIVPAC’s Voting Rights and Reforms policy.
Immigration Without the False Choice
Warner also offers a more sensible approach to immigration than either extreme in the national debate.
He supports stronger border security and enforcement directed at criminals and genuine threats while also supporting comprehensive immigration reform and a meaningful pathway to citizenship for people who have made their lives in the United States.
We think that combination—control the border, enforce the law, expand workable legal immigration, and provide a realistic settlement for long-term undocumented residents—is much closer to what the country needs than either indiscriminate mass deportation or an unwillingness to enforce immigration law. Our sense is that a path to permanent legal status is a more promising approach than a path to citizenship for both political and ethical reasons. That distinction is reflected in CIVPAC’s Immigration policy.
A Senator Virginia Can Continue to Trust
Mark Warner is not a perfect match for the Centrist Independent Voter. Few candidates from either major party are likely to be.
But Virginia voters have a choice between an experienced senator with a long record of pragmatic government and bipartisan accomplishment and a Republican challenger who has chosen to identify himself much more closely with Donald Trump’s political movement.
We have repeatedly objected to that movement’s elevation of personal loyalty over institutional independence, its expansive view of presidential power, and its willingness to weaken long-standing alliances and democratic norms. Those are fundamental concerns for centrist independent voters, not simply disagreements over ordinary Republican and Democratic policy differences.
Warner brings business experience, institutional seriousness, expertise in national security and technology, support for America’s alliances, and a demonstrated ability to work with Republicans.
At a moment when those qualities are in short supply in Washington, they are worth preserving.
The Centrist Independent Voter endorses Mark Warner for reelection to the United States Senate.