Over 12 years of public service, I’ve supported candidates from both parties at different times. I hold certain views considered right of center. Limited government, local control, I do not believe the answer to every problem is throwing more and more money at it. I also hold views that could be considered left of center, particularly on social issues. I generally take a libertarian view when it comes to personal choices.

Ultimately, I left the two-party system because neither party represented me. Both have become institutions focused far more on gaining and keeping power than solving problems.

Congressional stock trading is a perfect example. Public support for a ban is overwhelming. The Republican-controlled House passed a limited bill in July, but Congress still has not enacted a clean, standalone ban. Republicans control Congress now, but Democrats failed to act when they had the chance too and also are guilty of theatrics with the issue. Both parties share the blame. If they truly wanted it passed, they would pass it. Tomorrow.

As part of an exhausted majority increasingly frustrated with both parties, I think we need to acknowledge that people with different political philosophies can recognize the same problems and genuinely want to solve them. (45% of Americans now self identify as Independent) 

Housing is unaffordable. Healthcare costs crush families and small businesses. College has become more expensive while the value of some degrees is increasingly questionable. Corporations have accumulated immense power. The disagreement is often not over whether these problems exist. It is over how we fix them.

It’s increasingly difficult for me to support a candidate who considers themselves hard MAGA. Why? I have serious concerns about the movement’s willingness to ignore constitutional norms, weaken checks and balances and place loyalty to one individual above institutions. MAGA captured a moment when folks were sick of parties ignoring basic problems. But they completely fumbled the opportunity.

Conversely, I would not support a candidate who openly identifies as a democratic socialist. My opposition is not based on some trumped-up accusation that everyone to my left is a communist. That is lazy and avoids the serious questions. Does democratic socialism equal communism? No. Could the average 12th-grade social studies student explain the difference? I’m not sure. And maybe that’s a question for our local school boards. Expanding civics education could go a long way to helping our nation have more civil policy discussions.

Either way, democratic socialist policies are no longer a fringe conversation. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 32% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters view political leaders who identify as democratic socialists positively. Among liberal Democrats that number rises to 52%. This does not mean one-third of Democrats personally identify as socialists. But it does mean these ideas should be taken seriously and scrutinized seriously.

I oppose many of the policies democratic socialists are proposing because many simply do not work. Others concentrate even more power in institutions that are already too large, too political and too unaccountable. Something I’m reflexively against.

Let’s take housing. The Democratic Socialists of America’s national program calls for publicly owned social housing and universal rent control. It also calls for public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries. This goes far beyond supporting a reasonable safety net.

I oppose universal rent control. I oppose government ownership of our largest corporations and industries. (And yes, POTUS also plays footsies with this) I oppose turning government into the primary landlord, employer and provider in American life.

Not because I deny problems. I don’t. I just don’t believe concentrating that much economic and political power in government will produce better or more accountable results.

Let’s drive down further. Rent control. Can it help someone who already has a regulated apartment? Yes. That benefit is real. But it does not build the next apartment. The underlying problem remains.

Publicly owned social housing can build apartments, but it shifts the cost of construction, operations, maintenance and long-term financial risk to taxpayers while concentrating power in government a massive transfer of cost and responsibility to taxpayers.

Let’s look at the biggest example. New York City is the poster child for long-term rent regulation in America. After decades of some of the most extensive rent regulation in the nation, the city still has one of the country’s most severe housing shortages.

In 2023, New York City had a rental vacancy rate of just 1.41%, one of the lowest levels recorded since the city began conducting the survey in 1965. Among rent-stabilized apartments the vacancy rate was even lower at 0.98%. At the same time, the median asking rent on publicly listed apartments reached approximately $3,500 per month, or $42,000 per year. A household would need to earn about $140,000 annually to avoid being considered rent burdened at that price.

Decades of controlling rents did not solve the underlying problem. The underlying problem, a shortage of housing remains.

Controlling the price of something that’s scarce doesn’t make it less scarce. In many cases it simply determines who gets access to it. Government picking winners and losers is a huge pet peeve of mine. I’ve never voted in favor of a tax abatement for developers.

What’s the alternative? Well, we should allow more housing types in appropriate places, including accessory dwelling units. We should encourage adaptive reuse, reduce unnecessary permitting delays, address financing barriers for buildings housing types such as duplexes and apply smart growth principles guiding growth toward existing infrastructure.

The same principle applies elsewhere.

We can improve healthcare access and reform the insurance system while demanding price transparency, competition and accountability.

We can protect workers and confront monopolies without placing entire industries under government control.

We can maintain a reliable safety net without allowing government to dominate every part of our economic lives.

My underlying political philosophy is simple. Disperse power whenever possible. Keep power closest to the individual. Families, workers, small businesses and local communities. Government has an important role, but it should be limited, competent and accountable.

Democratic socialism moves in the complete opposite direction. It concentrates enormous economic power in government and asks us to trust that political institutions will use that power wisely. The answer to unaccountable corporate power is not more unaccountable government power.

Both MAGA and Democratic Socialism tapped into legitimate frustration with institutions that were not delivering results. MAGA unfortunately devolved into a personality-driven movement willing to ignore constitutional norms. Democratic socialism channels frustration with corporate power and inequality toward concentrating more political and economic power in government.

I reject both approaches.

Democratic socialists and, at least initially, MAGA both deserve credit for identifying problems that establishment Republicans and Democrats too often ignored. But identifying a problem and solving it are two very different things. Good intentions do not guarantee good results.

We also need to remember that the ideological bases deciding party primaries represent a relatively small percentage of voters. In heavily gerrymandered districts, whoever emerges from the dominant party’s primary is often virtually guaranteed to win the general election.

Right now, voters are frustrated with the federal administration and looking for alternatives. The Democratic Party should not assume that every victory represents a broad endorsement of democratic socialism. In many cases, voters are simply rejecting the status quo.

This is also why we need open primaries. In heavily partisan districts, a small share of voters can effectively decide the election before most voters ever have a meaningful say.

The problems are real. On many of them, we seem to agree. But more centralized and less accountable government is not the answer. That does not mean the people proposing these policies are insincere. I reject villainizing folks we disagree with.  It means good intentions do not guarantee good results and I do not believe the solutions they are proposing will work.