"And yet, paradoxically, this impulse toward moderate politics produces a far better environment for innovative policy. "

Does it? Where are the results in Massachussets?

"Bush is totally unbelievable, unreliable, and incompetent."

Isn't that the conclusion in Oregon as well? Unless you listen to Lars Larson?

The polarization in Oregon is largely because conservatives still think they can win on conservative issues. I suspect they don't have a prayer in Massachussets so they don't get into the public discourse. When was the last time there was a public debate of right-to-work laws in Oregon? They don't debate it in Texas either. People generally fight about the things they can change, not things they can't.

"I'm sticking, resolutely, to the "radical center" thesis."

There is a radical center in every state, including Oregon.

Amen, Jeff!

I was initially excited to learn that we now have some blue blogs and talk stations (KPOJ, KOPT for two) in Oregon, but have been somewhat disappointed in the quality of rhetoric often encountered here, and there. I don't like hearing lefties RANT any more than the neocons. Any argument that's built upon the perfidy of your opponent, rather than your own plan for redressing the problem, automatically lacks credibility in my book.

The problem, of course, isn't limited to the media. There are plenty of ideologues in public office on both wings who are so convinced of their own infallibility that they can't even reach out as far as the middle. Anyone who tries to negotiate for half a loaf is in danger of being labeled an enemy and thereafter shunned by the True Believers.

In my personal experience, I have made some posts here that were immediately attacked as not being "progressive." I hope your article helps to create a more tolerant atmosphere here in Blue World, so that it can be a place where more than 5% of the population could stand to live.

"The polarization in Oregon is largely because conservatives still think they can win on conservative issues"

So Ross....what would you expect them to think? Don't we liberals think we can win on progressive issues?

In Oregon it's a mixed bag. Those silly conservatives that try to win on conservative issues kicked our butt on gay marriage and land use planning the last go around. We win our share too.

Maybe this state is indeed screaming for a moderate movement that will put us all out of business.

what would you expect them to think?

Uh - I think you missed the point entirely. Massachusetts conservatives believe their ideas are far enough out of step with the rest of the population that they don't believe they can win on them. So they try to make the majority agenda more acceptable to them. It is a strategy of a minority that invariable involves persuading other people based on those other people's beliefs rather than persuading them to adopt the minorities.

In Oregon the divide is there because both sides think they can win while holding to their ideology. They are addressing their arguments to the middle who both share some values and reject others on both sides. They are trying to persuade those people to adopt their ideas, not persuade those who disagree with them to incorporate some of their ideas.

I think the "middle" Jeff perceives in Massachusetts is really just the left in power. But frankly, Portland and even the state in general seems to be a long way ahead of Massachusetts on public policy. So I am trying to figure out what it is that makes Massachusetts better. Oregon has medical marijuana, death with dignity, funds abortions, urban growth boundaries, huge investments in new transit, the Region 2040 plan, ... there are a lot of unusual public policies. What is it that Massachusetts is doing that should be emulated in Oregon? More erudite talk show hosts and callers?

Wayne, thanks for that insightful post.

I've often thought that the problem with Oregon is the scarcity of liberal Republicans AND conservative Democrats (Quick - name one anti-abortion Democrat in state government...or one gun-control Republican). The problem with our state is that our two parties have become wholly owned subsidiaries of the narrow-minded interest groups (Dems - abortion, unions; Repubs - business and guns) and have lost sight of what people like Tom McCall used to represent.

I would love to see a political realingment in Oregon, and perhaps the nation, that would create a "middle of the road" party--a party made up of moderate Democrats and Republicans and a helluva a lot of independents.

There still are moderates in Oregon. Guv Ted has governed like a moderate Republican. Peter Courtney is no flaming liberal. It's hard to find moderate Republicans in the legislature, but in recent years there were Lynn Lundquist and Lane Shetterly. You could probably put Jack Roberts and Ben Westlund into this group.

A middle of the road party could easily become the majority party in Oregon, considering voters are far less polarized than politicians. This is not only because of the influence of heavy hitter special interests, but because ideological activists control both of the major parties now.

A party based on pragmatism rather than ideology and special interests might become awfully wonky, or even as boring as The Oregonian's editorial page, but if a few well known moderates came together, it could get off the ground. After all, I'd bet people like Shetterly or Len Hannon would prefer to have some clout in a new party of former moderate D's and R's instead of sticking loyally to their old party.

The boundaries would be really blurry, I suppose. I'm not sure I'd join such a party or stay with the rest of the lefties in a smaller but closer knit Democratic party.

There also is the problem of what to name this new party.

ANDY AND GIL....I totally agree!

I do think we have some moderate Republicans and Democrats in the legislature. They don't make much noise or have much influence because they are gently pushed off to the side by the leaders of their respective parties. Ben Westlund is an unhappy moderate and that's why he has been at least exploring a run for Governor as an independent. Some compare him to Tom McCall. He'd need a hell of a bank roll but I'd like to see him give it a shot. It's a dead certainty the two clowns the Dems and Pubs will put into the race aren't going to be worth electing.

Talk about middle of the road: http://gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/community/tue02.txt

The article is about a "left" leaning republican party - they sound like they want to go back to some of the original conservative values.

The strongest deficiency that I see in the Oregon conversation is the lack of local debating forums where spokespersons for opposing views stand up, present their statements, and are exposed to direct questioning from the audience. The forum itself should be neutral--a stage, if you will, without further guidance. Moderation should be limited to controls over forum length, bad language, etc.

I have seen sporadic attempts at such a forum. One once existed in Corvallis, but has vanished. Sometimes, colleges will hold a debate, though not often and not always open to public input.

Marvin, are you familiar with the City Clubs in Portland and Eugene? They seem to offer a diversity of viewpoints (although in Eugene perhaps more left-leaning than right) and occasional debates.

Having moved from the Boston area to Portland, I believe the political differences between the two states are vast. This is not just a function of the very different economic and demographic profiles of Oregon and Massachusetts, but important changes in the Commonwealth that belie the old labels.

Some key points:

1. The Massachusetts Democratic party, like the union power that traditionally supported it, has become ossified. By 2002, the largest voting block was independent voters, who outnumbered registered Democrats (36%) and Republicans (13%).

2. While Democrats reliably dominate the legislature, they haven't won the state house since 1990.

3. Elaine Kamarck did an interesting study of this ("Glass Ceiling: Why the Dominant Democrats Can't Elect a Governor") in 2003. Despite their dominant lead among registered voters, Democrats have been failing among the people who actually vote. Her key findings had to do with the education and income of actual voters, not with party registration:

a) Between 1990 and 2002, the single largest group of voters changed from those with a high school diploma to those with a college or professional degrees. By 2002, that was half the state.

b) In 1990, the largest block of voters by income was those earning less than $15,000 a year. By 2002, it was those earning more than $75,000.

c) Democratic gubernatorial candidates had been hurt by running in non-Presidential years, when Massachusetts more liberal voters mobilized over issues like the balance of the Supreme Court.

Kamarck's guidance to Democrats: the Governor's mansion in Massachusetts is no longer won by appealing to union members or university audiences in Cambridge, but by carrying socially liberal but fiscally more conservative suburban voters along Route 128.

What innovative public policy has emerged from the state legislature in the past three legislative sessions? None. Why do you think that is?

And you missed my point. What innovative public policy has emerged from the Massachussets legislature or anywhere else in Massachussets government in the past 3 decades, muchless the last three legislative sessions?

In the cases you cite, you either have to dig back into the 70s legacy, when the radical center did dominate the political process, or look to initiatives

Not really. Look at the Oregon Health Plan.

There are conservatives in Massachusetts, they're just far less conservative--just as the liberals are far less liberal--than their counterparts in Oregon.

And I think you are wrong on both scores. The difference is that both are clear about who is governing the state.

I also think that we are caught in the media's red/blue orthodoxy when evaluating the political differences in each state. There is a very strong libertarian streak in Oregon. The anti-tax and government crowd mostly moved to New Hampshire in New England.

Ignore the rest of the state and just talk about Portland politics. Is it hopelessly divided between conservatives and liberals? Not hardly. The real political battles of Portland are mostly around the middle with ideologues on both sides complaining. The City Club is a great example of how that civil discussion takes place in Oregon. Of course that is another one of those institutions created in Oregon's past. Doesn't it surprise you or give any credit to Oregon that it continues to thrive?

"Again, I'm not trying to compare the states"

Jeff - you did compare states.

"I'm merely pointing out that the poisonous detente between the far right and far left in the state have created crushing gridlock."

And that ideological detente is what defines gridlock. You don't get innovative public policy when no one can take a stand without trying to appeal to the "radical middle".

"The Commish coup on gay marriage being the gold standard example."

Interesting example. The Multnomah County Commission isn't ideologically divided at all, muchless by extremes, yet it is at least as disfunctional as the legislature.

"Could Portland have found a political coalition to support gay marriage? Yes."

I think the people closest to the issue in the gay community disagreed. The testimony I heard after the decision was clear that they didn't think the commission would have stood up to the public pressure if they had opened it up for debate before making the decision. And frankly with what has gone on since, if the four hadn't come out together on it to begin with, I can't imagine it not turning into a political fight. They are looking for reasons to disagree and make one another look bad. That was clearly the BRO take on things, which is why they worked to get a consensus behind closed doors. They didn't expect to have to contend with Ted Kulongoski and Hardy Myer stabbing them in the back once the decision was announced.

You can argue it was a lousy way to make public policy. And I would agree 100%. But I think it is wishful thinking to believe the ultimate outcome on the issue of gay marriage would have been different with a different approach.

<hr/>