Greg Orman retweetledi
There's been a lot of misinformation about Laura's and my politics of late that I'd like to clarify. TLDR: we don't associate with either party but support individual politicians who work in good faith to improve lives.
Most people involved in politics see the biggest divide as Dem vs Rep. It's true that there is significant power of the presidency or control of a chamber. That matters, and can be dispositive, on some issues. But most policies need 60 votes in the Senate and that requires bipartisan consensus.
The important divide to us is not along party but of members of Congress who spend their energy trying to find pragmatic solutions to real problems vs those promoting their own brand to partisan audiences. Congress is frequently increasingly labeled as dysfunctional, even by its members, as the number in the latter category keeps increasing.
There are members across the traditional left/right spectrum that fall into both buckets. And though the solutions can be very different depending on political ideology, there is often overlap and compromise possible.
The problem is there are many incentives fighting against this, and instead to be an agent of chaos. One's respective media celebrates you with lots of airtime. Partisan media seldom likes compromise; it likes ideological purity even if that means problems means stalemate. Given most races are only competitive in the primary, extremism and purity usually ensures reelection.
Again, politics and partisan control are hugely important. That's why there are tens of billions contributed on a strictly partisan manner. But even if we wanted to, I don't think we could additive in the battle between parties. Contributing millions to run even more presidential ads in PA or Senate ads in MT has zero value.
Instead, we carved out a space supporting members who use their seat to find solutions rather than increase vitriol. We seldom agree with everything that member supports. I would find it strange if we did agree with every position on every issue that anyone had.
But there are many members with whom we can agree on the goals of a particular system and who want to use their seat to work on a better outcome, even if that compromise might be criticized by the peanut gallery. We support them.
When members can agree on the ultimate goal and have pure motivations, there is often common ground. That's the space our foundation explores in issues like healthcare costs, higher-ed, housing, the deficit, criminal justice, immigration, energy/climate, and K-12.
These members need moral support, campaign support, and technical support because the current system under-resources all of the above for them. We don't care if they have a D or R next to their name. That's not the lens through which we see the world. But those are the candidates we're hoping win tomorrow.
English
