The freedom of principle over party

Polls in recent years have shown the American public is getting increasingly exhausted of partisanship and the us-vs-them attitudes it brings to public discourse. Unaffiliated voters became the majority early this decade, and seven out of 10 new registrants continue to choose not to affiliate with either major political party.

A 2023 Pew poll found that overwhelming majorities feel exhausted and angry when they think about politics and say they do not feel hopeful or excited. They also found, “Nearly three-in-ten (28%) express unfavorable views of both parties, the highest share in three decades of polling. And a comparable share of adults (25%) do not feel well-represented by either party.”

There are, of course, some who love the daily fight over every partisan battle, where they can once again prove that their own team is full of giants of virtue and genius, while the other side is peopled with the weakest intellects and most corrupt characters. But a clearly growing segment of society would rather talk, like adults, about the issues than hear empty self-congratulatory talking points — from either side.

In my experience, if you have a calm discussion about an area of common interest — let’s say health care or housing — and both sides apply principles to try to reach a conclusion, even if you don’t agree, you see your interlocutor is approaching it with better intentions and reasoning than you may have assumed. John Locke Foundation and other non-partisan organizations try to apply certain principles to solve policy problems and argue that these principles hold the key. It’s not a failure of the opposition’s mind or character (necessarily) but their initial premises.

Of course, applying the specific principles that we do (small government, free markets, freedom of conscience, rule of law, and the importance of civil society), we’ll be in agreement with Republicans (the right-of-center party) far more often. Where we do not — like with funding NC Innovation or expanding Medicaid or making tariffs a major part of our global economic and foreign policy — we’re still obligated to apply the same principles. As people become tired of mindless partisanship on all sides, this kind of honest, independent approach is what gets many disaffected people back in the conversation.

But if you call balls and strikes, no matter who is up to bat, it’s not going to make everyone happy. Those who demand party loyalty above all can’t stomach this.

President Ronald Reagan famously said, “The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend, not a 20% enemy.” But social media has made even 1% enemies simply enemies.

When our CEO, Donald Bryson, suggested Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was a “liability in the press,” that touched off a firestorm of angry fellow conservatives ready to blast him as a person and our organization as a whole. Bessent was the right-hand man to George Soros before his current position and repeatedly blasted the idea of using tariffs in diplomacy. But now, he’s “evolved,” as team players are supposed to, and is saying we should hit European allies with tariffs if they oppose US efforts to take over Greenland, while asking those countries nicely not to retaliate.

And the rest of us are meant to get in line too, even if we work for organizations based largely on opposing things like tariffs and recently released a report showing these tariffs would greatly damage the North Carolina agriculture industry. Too bad, they say, it’s a team sport.

Opposing the team on this one issue of free trade (even if you’re friends on nearly every other issue) causes people like Luke Waddell, who is a former Wilmington City Council member and massive Scott Bessent fan, to go nuclear, calling Bryson every name in the book, including “boring” and a “charlatan.”

But that wasn’t even the most unhinged response. It was also a bridge too far for Woody White, a UNC Board of Governors member and somewhat frequent columnist on this publication, of which Bryson (as CEO of Locke) is the publisher.

White claimed that while Locke used to be a major force for conservatism in the state, we’ve changed. But his understanding of how we changed (by remaining with the “old-world party” and not getting on board with the Trump successes) betrays a misunderstanding. We do not stand for a political party, old or new. And remaining loyal to those old principles, even after others have abandoned them, does not mean we’ve changed. It means the “team sport” partisans mistook our 90% friendship for a 100% loyalty that we do not owe them.

It wasn’t surprising that NCGOP comms director Matt Mercer, living in a partisan bubble, found it laughable that anyone could question Bessent’s effectiveness. But Mercer and White’s back and forth was very telling. They made clear that anyone on the “conservative” side is expected to stay in their lane and on message.

Frankly, what’s “boring” and exhausting to most people at this point is playing their game, where we need to shut off our minds, abandon our principles, and follow wherever the partisan winds blow. Go ahead and continue to demand loyalty, but you’re not going to get it — from us, or, increasingly, from voters at large.

“The freedom of principle over party” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.