John --
Last month our politics were consumed by what to do about unidentified flying objects <[link removed]> (remember that?) and the debt ceiling <[link removed]> (that’s still going on <[link removed]> actually). This week, it’s all about how to handle the Silicon Valley Bank collapse <[link removed]> and whether to approve the Willow Project <[link removed]>. Complicated issues all, with plenty of disagreement to go around. As expected, partisans have taken sides.
Disagreement isn’t the problem though, even in Congress. Disagreement is normal—even beneficial—and our democratic system was designed to deal with it <[link removed]> in a civil way. Accepting that we’re going to disagree is the first step in the process of turning respectful dialogue into building consensus and, ultimately, taking action.
Where we’ve gone wrong is stopping at disagreement, doubling down, and demonizing those who think differently from us. Sadly, some of our leaders in government are the worst offenders.
There’s rarely one right way to do things, especially in a large, pluralistic country like ours with multiple complex problems. But the two major parties would have you believe there is, and they’d rather halt progress altogether than give the other team a win. Their hubris hurts us all.
We don’t believe it’s up to politicians or political parties to tell you how to think in order to “belong.” Honestly, that's pretty weak. At Forward, we welcome differences, because we know they make us stronger.
- Willow Project approval heightens tensions between Biden and progressives —The Hill <[link removed]>
- Hard-right Republicans—DeSantis, Greene, Hawley—blame SBV failure on ‘woke’ policies without evidence —Forbes <[link removed]>
- <[link removed]> <[link removed]>Nick Catoggio: The politics of the SVB bailout —The Dispatch <[link removed]>
- ‘Hyper-partisan’ politicians get four times the news coverage of bipartisan colleagues —The Hill <[link removed]>
- Mark Harris: Thriving communities are a core principle of The Forward Movement —The New Political <[link removed]>
OTHER NEWS & VIEWS
Connecticut debates merits of RCV
Connecticut legislators heard public testimony on ranked-choice voting on Monday. Four bills introduced this session would implement RCV in the state for various elections: HB 5133, HB 5087, HB 5701, and SB 389. Teran Loeppke, organizer of Common Cause in Connecticut, which supports the legislation, said that RCV motivates “historically disenfranchised voters to participate in American democracy.” Loeppke added that choose-one elections can cause harm by contributing to “toxic campaign cycles” and advancing a candidate in an election that does not have majority support. —CT Mirror <[link removed]>
More ranked-choice voting news:
- Senate advances bill that could move Minnesota toward ranked-choice voting in state, federal elections —MinnPost <[link removed]>
- <[link removed]> <[link removed]>Jay Lee: Ranked-choice voting would help Oregonians vote for their true favorite —Sightline <[link removed]>
Nebraska could get nonpartisan statewide elections
Nebraskans could decide in 2024 whether the state’s constitutional officers, such as the governor or secretary of state, should be elected on a nonpartisan basis. Legislative Resolution 3CA, proposed by State Sen. John Cavanaugh, would provide that the top two vote-getters for governor, attorney general, secretary of state, auditor of public accounts, and state treasurer advance to the general election, regardless of party. If the Legislature approves the bill, voters would have the final say in 2024. “It has worked well for the Nebraska Legislature for nearly 90 years,” Cavanaugh said. “It’s time that we gave our voters the choice to make our statewide elections nonpartisan as well.” Hear, hear! —Nebraska Examiner <[link removed]>
More open primaries news:
- <[link removed]> <[link removed]>Karla Eickhoff: Open primaries are a voting rights issue —Albuquerque Journal <[link removed]>
- Dennis LoDolce: A new type of democracy —Stamford Advocate <[link removed]>
What Forwardists like you are saying…
“Kudos to the Forward Party for taking on the idea of another party to challenge what we have always had and what is not working anymore. I firmly believe that, at this point in time, Americans are voting just to stop the other guy from winning because they don't like that choice, rather than voting for someone they like. It’s a game of keep-that-person-out. Whatever happened to likable, respectful candidates who don't lose their direction once they are in power? Happens every time. And we the people are now turned off by this.” —K.L., a Forwardist reader
We’ll be in Phoenix this weekend for the Arizona Forward Together <[link removed]> event. We can’t wait to party with some Southwestern Forwardists and celebrate our progress in the Grand Canyon State! We’ll tell you all about it next week. See you then.
All the best,
The Forward Party Team
-=-=-
Forward Party - PO Box 9172, Fredericksburg, VA 22403, United States
This email was sent to
[email protected]. To stop receiving emails: [link removed]
-=-=-
Created with NationBuilder - [link removed]
