Credibility eludes you altogether, David, and rather you earn whooping, guffawing, knee-slapping ridicule when you try to sell us the right-wing wackadoodle Susan Hutchison as a "solution-seeking moderate."

The voters rightly rejected the dishonesty, mendacity, and sheer fraudulence of Hutchison's entire camapign -- except, apparently, for you and the far right. Ditto Jessie Israel, whose entire campaign was based on a lie -- that Nick Licata is both ineffective and an "obstructionist."

When your seeming hunger for "moderation" and "centrism" grows so ravenous as to include two such public liars, whose future political chances around here lie somewhere between zero and nil, I can conclude only that the voters are smarter than you are, and that you're the last to recognize it.

Rossi and Hutchison deserve respect for attempting to paint themselves as independents and distancing themselves from the bankrupt catastrophe that is the national Republican party. They are however both still 'Republican' and not true Independents.

Mike McGinn, though non-partisan, is effectively a Green party representative, to the left of the Democratic Party. Frankly it may be more practical at this point to support the election of the intellectually honest fringe on both the right and left, just so long as they agree on the accountability of the current 'I want' and 'me too' parties.

Respect for the independent is crucial, something Mr. Brewster has historically failed to show - including his support of Mallahan - an individual who scores an 'F' as businessman and an 'F' as a civic leader, as to most of his supporters, and, for that matter Mr. Brewster, your generation - most certainly the leadership it is producing today.

Anyone who has terms like moderate center sloshing around his noggin is just another David Brooks who is in fact an insidious and clever Neo-Con, otherwise of course he'd have been out on his ass at Auntie's rag a long time ago. David is a poor man's David Brooks which is why Crosscut quite unnecessarily links to him so frequently. Let us pray that Global Heat will come to Seattle, sooner rather than later, and dry out the murky brains of David Brewster and the like.

As usual, David, you're missing a lot. Here are three things to consider:

1. The Seattle City Council is already dominated by moderates. Moderate Democrats, to be sure, but here's my supermajority moderate lineup: Burgess, Conlin, Clark, Godden, Harrell, Rasmussen, and now Bagshaw. Not a bomb-thrower in the bunch. O'Brien and Licata will be the token lefties. Moderates control Seattle city government--they always have and they always will.

2. Hutchison didn't get thrashed in the election because she "used to be a Republican," but because she lied about her political record and beliefs. There is nothing non-partisan about this woman. She has attended Republican party functions for years. She toured the state in 2005 in an attempt to be considered as the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate. She donated $500 to Mike Huckabee in the last presidential campaign cycle, for pity's sake. Her campaign for executive was funded by Republicans: most notably Kemper Freeman, Bruce McCaw, and the BIAW. Voters saw who she really was politically and didn't appreciate her lying about it.

3. Reproductive choice is a litmus test issue in Seattle and King County. I realize that you don't approve of this, but there it is. Anti-choice candidates such as Hutchison and Robert Rosencrantz can make all the excuses they want, but the public has the right to know their position on choice. And, if they are not fully pro-choice, the public has the right to vote them down.

Brewster: I imagine that he'll try at first to build a new team of outsiders and activists dedicated to the new agenda of carbon-phobic urgency (transit, walkability, density, pro-developer, anti-suburbs) with a good-hearted dash of inclusiveness, neighborhood sensitivity, and social justice thrown in. It might work, though the McGinn agenda probably will isolate Seattle still further from the region, the governor, Sen. Patty Murray, and the Legislature.
-----
"Carbon-phobic urgency"? Really? Where do you get these ugly neologisms from?

And you might note that the immediate region around Seattle is King County, which will be run by Dow Constantine, a like-minded soul. I don't think relations with Olympia can get any worse than they were under Nickels, when Seattle's own state representatives would go out of their way to thumb their noses at him.

I think the economy is what did in Nickels and, if it recovers in time, it will deliver McGinn an easy second term as he has enough revenue to spread around and make his constituencies happy.

How could anyone possibly mistake Joe Mallahan for Mayor Bloomberg? Bloomberg is a real businessman - or a "macher", as they say - with a billion dollar financial media corporation that bears his name. Mallahan was a middle manager in product support. These guys couldn't be any more dissimilar.

Keep your eye on McGinn, Dave. He's smart, he's ambitious, and to the extent Seattle really wants and needs a "moderate" mayor, I suspect he'll adapt.

Rossi an "independent"? Is that why he identified himself as GOP instead of Republican? Duplicity = independent?

"...secular, educated, affluent, solutions-hungry suburban moderates..."
Ah, the whiny longing of the Ancient Brewster for a champion for that crew. Let's see what acronym that makes: SEASHSM. No more unpronounceable than anything else we have around.

Mr. Tooley was right when saying electing Mayor McGinn was like electing a candidate from the Green Party versus a Democrat.

Being a left leaning moderate in King County is beginning to feel more and more like being a Republican the way any one other than someone on the far left is castigated.

The radical left in this state is out of control.
By the way- Ivan (above) posts on many sites, is an active democratic party member from West Seattle I believe and regularly says the most mean-spirited things in his posts. How sad.

Civility but not consensus.

I am about as moderate as they come in terms of policies -- a capitalist "carbon-phobic" Democrat. But _your_ "moderation" is all not what we need. You are confusing civility with consensus. This desire to seek moderation and consensus prevents honest discussion.

It's our Seattle disease and is one reason why we are in such poor shape. Take Sally Bagshaw. She says things like

"We're gonna stop the bickering. It's time for us to come together."

I heard Bagshaw use that "No Bickering" phrase at a candidate forum and it was a huge turn-off. It convinced me to vote for Bloom. Now I am sure Sally Bagshaw is competent and I do wish her well as a Councilmember but it sounds as if she is really saying "Let's all pretend we all agree i.e. with me." And If you do disagree with me I will try to exclude you from the discussion by characterizing you as "bickering" and "not nice."

Typical Seattle. Deny others' opinions by characterizing them as "bickering." Paper-over genuine and legitimate differences of opinion on policy by characterizing it as "bickering." Very nanny-statish. Infantalizing of voters. As if disagreement, on ________ (name any issue important to you), is bickering.

What we need in Seattle in more bickering, not less.

Let me put it slightly differently: mellow is not marshmallow.

I understand the impulse which calls forth the desire for moderation. But that is a moderation of temperament and civility in relations. All well and good.

But we here in Seattle too often confuse moderate temperament with meaningless consensus.

I think that's all wrong. Moderation may still have a steel core.

Three points on Brewster's provocative analysis:
I'm not sure that independents truly are; it strikes me as more of a form of identity politics of a false individualism (the myth of the rugged individual so popular out here in the wild West), so I'm not sure anyone knows what voters were accepting or rejecting. Consequently, Ivan's "analysis" is a bit thin, and maybe just the projection of his/her own fantasies and feelings;
My speculation is that McGinn doesn't fit in the left-right continuum, but is more of a Naderite populist with fantasies of revolution; for example, his critique of the tunnel was Republican--this public works project will cost the taxpayers too much in cost overruns; don't trust government (in this case three of them). This is the same argument the R's are making about health care reform--a purely economic argument based in an appeal to greed--you'll be taxed too much. He did not make an environmental argument or an argument for public good, just money.
I agree with Brewster that the issue isn't local squabbles but the relation of Seattle to the county, state, and feds; if we don't get those relations right, we'll be condemned to the cutsie silliness of Lesser Seattle.

"Independent" usually seems to be a term used by Republicans who don't want to call themselves Republicans. I've never heard anyone on the left call themselves an independent because they're usually honest enough to say they're lefties or Dems or whatever. Republicans also like to exhort others to think "independently", which can be translated as "think like us" (i.e., Republican).

It's hard to imagine a "Naderist populist with fantasies of revolution" who sounds like he might appoint some Vulcan people to his administration. That whole exegesis is a little overwrought. But a year from now we will see what he is, and we've certainly been fooled before.

Brewster's piece hit several flat notes:
Licata does not seem tired;
Hutchinson is no moderate and most KC voters learned that;
Dull and moderate is not a winning combination.
The Bagshaw election and the affrimation of Ref. 71 and the defeat of Eyman's initiative are victories of moderation.
It was a great election.

"we'll be condemned to the cutsie silliness of Lesser Seattle"

LOL Great City Initiative as Lesser Seattle LOL

http://www.greatcity.org/about/leadership-and-donor-base/

I am not from West Seattle, and people who describe my comments as "mean-spirited" appear to have a higher tolerance for fools and liars than I do.

This is indeed the "Seattle disease." Somehow we're supposed to enable the most ridiculous people, the most ridiculous statements, and the most ridiculous public acts, by being "civil" or "nice" at any cost, rather than look them in the eye and tell them, "you know what, that's just ridiculous."

I'm not having any of that, and I don't much care if right-wingers or stuffy "moderates" don't like it.

A few comments on the above comments.

Independents surely exist, and in fact are probably the largest single body of self-identified voters even if relatively rare in Seattle. The simplest definition is that they are independent of both parties, usually voting for the person not the party. They also tend to look for solutions, and are tired of the polarization that may animate each party's base (and donations) but leave critical problems unresolved. A "centrist" solution need not be a lame compromise; it can sometimes be a very bold idea, though usually drawing from aspects of the more partisan positions. (An example, courtesy of Matt Miller: super vouchers for poor children that carry large dollar amounts going to either charter or public schools.)

Secondly, I did not mean my remarks to suggest that Susan Hutchison was in fact a centrist; only that her campaign held out that promise and was therefore an encouraging sign of Republicans moving to attract independents. I make it clear she was a very flawed candidate; nor did I support her.

Some of the comments exemplify what I am trying to criticize, and that is an immediate jumping to the conclusion that anyone trying to articulate centrist positions is a sell-out or a fraud. That's what discourages politicians from moving into the solutionist middle ground, and dissuades people of those views from running at all.

Lastly, let me put in a plug for Obama's way of dealing with these issues. He is a clear liberal and he articulates his values firmly. But he then wants to hear the other side and try to find common ground. That's a nice way of having your principled and authentic self while also pursuing a public good that is more than basking in your own proud purity.

David Brewster,

Do you really believe in the possibility of "post-partisan solutions" In the current political environment? It seems unlikely and maybe that's why so many react to your post.

A\In fact I wonder about the possibility of any such thing as a "post-partisan solution" to a significant problem in any era. That's why some problems are significant -- people really really disagree. Can you offer any examples of a "post partisan solution?"

"Respectful listening to opponents" is fine so long as there is an opposition which will listen back. Do you think that Republicans actually listen? Obama is to be admired and copied in his desire "to hear the other side." But let me ask you, has he been successful in finding opponents who wish to "try to find common ground?" Jeffrey Toobin writes about this desire to be nice in the New Yorker and concludes that it is a loser.

Yes, Obama wants to find common ground. But sometimes there is no common ground (for instance, common ground between the reformers and the Republicans on health insurance). Obama is a centrist, not a liberal, and in fact has been criticized as much by liberals since his election as by rightwingers (albeit less violently and stupidly).

I can't think of anyone who bothers to vote who doesn't say "I vote for the person" and "I'm looking for solutions." They're both cliches that everyone's proud of saying about themselves. I've voted consistently Democratic because consistently the Democrats have been more to my liking. If a Republican had been to my liking, I would have voted for the R. And solutions? That's the biggest cliche there is. What would you expect people to look for, problems?

There's a difference between "basking in your own purity" and seeing something dire happening and wanting to stop it or change it. There's a false purity in the claim that looking for common ground is always the best thing in every situation. Was there common ground to be reached between the lynchers and the civil rights activists? If that's too strong a contrast, here's one: Is there common ground between developers wanting to turn the city into a rich marketplace and homeless people wanting a roof? Should the homeless people back down from their unreasonable expectation that they need to be inside at night, even if it might cost the developers and other rather wealthy people higher taxes? What would be the common ground: carboard partitions, perhaps, instead of a roof? As it is now, tents are the common ground, except they have to be approved and licensed tents, and not too many of them, and they have to be behind a fence. That, and other situations, are not what I call common ground, and yet unless people really push, they don't even achieve that minimum.

It's easy to talk about common ground when you are not the one hurting.

Sarah, you write well, but stopped short. How then do you settle things?
How'd those civil rights activists make your first example for the most part historical?

I go pretty far back -- I was referring to the 50s/60s re civil rights, and then jumped many decades forward.

I would settle things by imploring (because demanding doesn't work) people to cease the useless harping upon "common ground" and look at situations from an ethical point of view. Moderation has no value in itself. Isaiah and Amos didn't think much of moderation; I think theirs is a much worthier perspective. We need prophets, not people who "get along."

David, I'm as much a champion of practical politics are you are, and I'm old enough to remember when both parties were lead by pragmatists.

However, given that the Republican party has been hijacked over the last 20 years by ideologues like Rush Limbaugh and cynics like Karl Rove, pragmatism these days has little to do with bipartisanship. For the pragmatist, the Democrats are almost the only reliable game in town.

As for the Seattle elections, every candidate that made it passed the primaries is both a moderate and a pragmatist. They only seem immoderate if you assume the angry, ignorant, and paranoid perspective of a hardened conservative. And nothing good will come of assuming that perspective.

Perhaps the concept of "interest" will get us beyond these now meaningless terms "conservative", "liberal", moderate. To reply to the immediately preceding comment by Sean: the extreme wing of the Pooplikan party, Limbaugh, Rove and now Palin: it is an outgrowth of what was once known as the Republican Southern Strategy: the Republican interest was in power, it appealed to the lowest common denominator particularly in the South and it succeed in appealing to status quo anxieties, prejudices, the right to bear arms, the right to life. Limbaugh Rove are pure exploiters, they are like oil wildcatters, lots of the preachers are too. I myself happen to respect physicians who refuse to perform abortions, and few of them are militarists, as most right to lifers are.
"Pragmatic" is another fetish word: was it "pragmatic" for Seattle to tear out the tram ways under the pressure of the automobile industry after ww II? Ad now it is putting them back in."Pragmatic" to dump all its refuse into Lake Washington? "Pragmatic" to build tne 520 Floating bridge without walk or bicycle paths? I could go on forever, nearly.

Terms mutate over time. Conservative and liberal are still meaningful in today's definitions. Pragmatism is also related to what milieu is current; it isn't a term that can mean (i.e., project a picture) of something static through the ages. It simply means (now) that we do what we think we want to do considering the conditions we have and those we want to get to. Most of the time we're wrong in both our desires, our assumptions, and our methods.

We are only slightly evolved apes, after all, who continue playing ape games while reciting complex verbiage in justification.

"And solutions? That's the biggest cliche there is. What would you expect people to look for, problems?"

One virtue in getting old is increased potential for seeing how often problems are prescribed as solutions. I suppose in that respect one could and should call "solutions" a cliche.

But the question remains: how then do we settle things?

I think it's a combination of Ed Wenk's standard advice: "when experts disagree get more information" (Making Waves) and Daniel Yankelovich's account of how the "invincibly ignorant" somehow, slowly, dare I say invincibly, "keep faith with the Socratic tradition of listening carefully, assuming that one's partner in dialogue has a useful point to make, and [assisting in] showing it in the best possible light" (Coming to Public Judgment--Making Democracy Work in a Complex World).

In short, enhancing peoples ability to understand each other permits them to take concerted action. Thank you Crosscut.

I applaud your hopefulness, Afreeman, if not your naivte. For an example of the antithesis -- or the failure -- of your last point, consider the health insurance reform process. (And I say health insurance because actual health CARE reform has not really been considered.) I must have missed the part where peoples' ability to understand each other permitted them to take concerted action. Unless that occurred when the Blue Dog Dems, the Republicans, and the insurance companies linked arms and stood in the House doorway blocking anything meaningful. They definitely understood each other and took concerted action.

Sarah: "Pragmatic" is the voodoo concept one [or a group] invokes when one [a group] decides to do what it wants to do anyway, and usually, as in the cases that I cited, pragmatic is the easiest the laziest of "solutions" ; pragmatism is THE all-American ideology. To give a few momentous examples: when Carter + Brzesinski to destabalize Afghanistan to draw in the Russians; when the American people are paranoided into supporting the Bush/Cheny/Rumsfeld desire to conquer their once ally against Iran, Saddam Hussein; when Obama decides to "go forward" [a phrase also used by Bush to put the pragmatic disaster of a then few years past behind him] and not pursue crimes committed by his immediate predecessors - the decisive element, the element that allowed permitted these "minds" to do what they did was their belief [and at the moment of belief minds close, thinking stops] was invocation of pragmatism, that it was the pragmatic, the "BEST" thing to do [always of course UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES!]. These are the matters I mean when I suggest some thought be given to automatically adhering to "pragmatism "- I am not talking about what is the best way to drive a nail into a piece of two by four. It is this way of "going forward pragmatically" that ensures that the same old same old stays the same, that you keep making the same mistakes over and over, inadvertently? For example, something that would be to the general good would be full employment and a guaranteed living wage even when there is not enough work: because it would ensure consumption and production and general basic health - that is something a large family might decide for itself as being pragmatically advisable for the present and the future. It is most unlikely to be instituted on a national level isn't it?

sarah, I agree that "liberal" and "conservative" aren't terribly useful as political terminology, but I'm not quite ready to give up on "pragmatism".

The main problem with Brewster's article is that he doesn't explicitly define the term. Instead, he seems to be working with an implicit definition in which pragmatism is inherently bipartisan and is something like a middle ground on today's right-left continuum. I don't think that's correct.

In my mind, pragmatism is a bottom up approach to politics that isn't locked to a particular ideological framework. If your answer to every problem is cut taxes and privatize it, you are not a pragmatist. If you see every problem as a matter of rich white guys exploiting everyone else, you are not a pragmatist. If you insist on imposing your values (e.g., christianity, vegetarianism) on everyone else, you are not a pragmatist.

Pragmatism doesn't guarantee we'll come up with the best solutions. Or that we place the same priorities on various problems. And of course, even self-proclaimed pragmatists cling to pet solutions and ideas, even in the face of unsupportive facts. But pragmatism is an ideal worth pursuing, even fetishizing, especially when you consider the alternatives.

Pragmatism is, e.g, the Dred-Scott decion, most infamously. It is when the right long term decision is not made, or not putting in the right rails in the tunnel here in Seattle, it is invariably more costly than what is saved. Here, in Seattle, I have noticed during the 15 years I have been here, cheap runs deep, thus you have some hugely costly "pragmatic" compromises. Somehow with the length of time to reach a decision here, the famous "process," that ought not to be the case. See what the word "pragmatic" does as you invoke it as you reach a decision; have an M.R.I. scan done at the same time, and see what part of the brain blanks out!

Maybe the most shocking thing about Brewster's piece is the renunciation of the two-party system, in favor of campaigns by self-described "moderates" based entirely on personality.

He also seems to blame the Democrats for having become a majority as the Republicans have increasingly refused to take art in problem-solving. Considering the erosion of the institutional blocs, such as unions, which supported the Democrats, I consider the Democratic growth a ringing affirmation of the good sense of the average person.

According to many political scientists, the two-party system in America is not only a good thing, but actually essential to gaining a real majority that legitimizes, at the ballot box, the decisions made by leaders.

Now Republican intransigence is making it plain that we need a supermajority, at least 2/3 or more, to transact the vital business that must be done if we are to survive as a nation or species.

Mike McGinn is a candidate of the middle- the middle which does not believe in labor unions, does believe in birth control, and vaguely wishes problems could be solved without them personally having to learn much about it or act in discipline with other party members.

This "middle" voter reminds me of what was said about the "well-rounded" person- that they were like a ball and would roll whichever way they were pushed.