Charting a New History: A Moderate Republican Calls for Change

The Milbank Memorial Fund is committed to the leadership development, nonpartisanship, and the depolarization efforts needed to bring all parties to the table to think critically and debate with civility as we collectively move toward better health and health care systems for all the populations we serve. As part of this work, we are inviting health policy leaders like former Representative Charlie Conrad of Oregon to share their perspectives on depolarization in their words. —Morgan McDonald, National Director for Population Health and Health Equity Leadership, Milbank Memorial Fund  

“History doesn’t repeat itself. Man always does.”—Voltaire  

I failed. I failed to win my Republican primary this past May and will be a one-term Oregon State Representative.  

In 2022, I ran for office as a pro-choice Republican, winning my four-way primary by 99 votes and the general election by 15 percentage points. Three months into my first term, I decided to be the only Republican to vote in favor of legislation codifying Oregon’s abortion laws and requiring state-regulated insurance companies to cover gender-affirming ​​care.  

I voted on this bill three times. The first time, in the health care committee, I voted “no” because I was concerned about gender-affirming care medical procedures for minors. This vote did not sit well with me and caused me to lie awake at night. After learning more about gender-affirming care by talking to doctors, clinics, and parents of trans people, I decided to change my vote on the House floor.  

I have always been pro-choice. That is, I support a woman’s right to decide when to carry a pregnancy to term based on her beliefs, values, and circumstances. This intensely personal decision should remain between a woman and who she chooses to consult with. I also believe this is the optimal policy because it enables people to make decisions with minimal government interference; it is neither a mandate nor a prohibition.   

Following my final vote, the vitriol from fellow Republicans was instant and steady. I was accused of being a pedophile and child murderer and condemned to hell. Even so, in September 2023, I decided to file to run again for office as a Republican instead of an Independent. While I might have won the general election as an Independent, I chose to continue pursuing my goal of moderating the Republican party’s tone by pushing back against extremists and being a voice for people first — not party first. I wanted to re-ground the Oregon Republican Party as the law-and-order party, advocate for small government, keep taxes minimal, and protect people’s Constitutional rights.  

​​At these three decision points — running as a pro-choice Republican (which I’ve always been); voting in favor of abortion rights (72% of Oregonians support in at least some instances); and then filing again as a Republican — I knew that ​a loss​ was highly probable. This was true even with a broad coalition of lobbyists​, fellow Republican legislators​, advocacy organizations, and voters supporting me, and despite ​spearheading productive legislative work on youth mental health and criminal justice reform in my first term. ​​ 

​​I was right. I lost to a far-right candidate who campaigned as 100% conservative, 100% pro-life and was endorsed by multiple conservative pastors and Oregon Right to Life. ​​​And I am not alone. Three Republican South Carolina state senators filibustered the Republican anti-abortion law and recently lost their ​​primaries despite being traditionally conservative multi-term veteran legislators. 

The interpersonal stress caused by identity politics — “either you are 100% with me or you are 100% against me” — is tangible. I experienced it firsthand during my campaign when Republican voters told me that “the Democrats are killing our democracy,” and accused them of being “vermin” and “evil.” And the media supports this divisiveness by highlighting the demagoguery and hatred present in today’s political environment. 

We are clearly at an inflection point. Remaining engaged in politics is mentally and emotionally taxing. We are inundated with information of questionable veracity, and divisive rhetoric can be both draining and blinding. As a result, people are disengaging and avoiding the political drama. They are choosing instead to focus on life’s immediate concerns —family, friends, school, jobs, and vacations. 

For me, a historical perspective massages the soul, helping me work through the socio-political stress. For instance, we are in a better position than our 14th-century ancestors, who suffered through the Black Death where a third of the population perished within a few years. The bacteria transmitted by fleas and rats that caused the disease was unknown, so conspiracy theories about Jews poisoning wells emerged. Many were tortured and burned in cities and villages. While we no longer behead people for heresy, the friction between groups caused by identity politics persists. I choose not to repeat history, especially that history, and take to heart Morgan McDonald’s advice on treating people with grace. 

We all have a choice to make.  

I choose to remain “in the arena” (Teddy Roosevelt) and fight polarization. I choose to fight for the Constitution and preserve the structures of our liberal democracy. I choose people over party. These are my choices, and I am not alone — but more need to stand for our shared democratic principles, for our vulnerable populations who can’t defend themselves, and for those who are yet to come.  

Let’s chart a new history ​​together. Our combined efforts to support and encourage legislators and public officials who possess a moderate temperament and who understand that making decisions based on the merits of arguments concerning choices and outcomes will lead to cooperation, compromise, and collaboration. We may need to write op-eds, vote differently, encourage true discussion in the public sector, and perhaps even go against the party on an issue. We must reject the populist current of personal attacks and unethical behavior. We may disagree on certain policies, but we agree that character, integrity, and ethics matter. Politics will always entail weighing and balancing the interests of various factions — but the tenor of the discourse and integrity of the process is up to us. Yes, us.