WA-46, Position 1: A Primary Worth Understanding

I've been out of political activism for about a decade. But I've never stopped caring about this community, or about the larger question that's driven my work for twenty-five years: why do some civilizations succeed at coordinating toward human flourishing, and why do others fail?

That question led me to write Living Civilization, a framework I've been building for most of my adult life. It draws on geometry, on the physics of coordination, and on the patterns I have observed during fifteen years in politics, procurement, and systems analysis. The central idea is that the same structural distinction, between coordination that builds from verified present reality and coordination that extracts from imagined futures, runs through everything from molecular chemistry to civilizational flourishing or collapse.

I call that distinction wealth-based versus debt-based coordination. And I believe it offers something that conventional political scorecards cannot: a way to evaluate what a candidate would actually do with power, independent of the tribal signals they send and receive.

I am not endorsing in this race, that is not my goal. The axes and geometric positioning system that the framework provides are tools for going beyond headlines, hype and rhetoric into real issue positions that matter to our community. I've known Gerry throughout my entire time in politics. Ron is new to the scene. But both offer their viewpoints and make promises about what they would do if given the chance. A single state house seat might not have a massive impact on the headlines, but it can have profound impacts on the long term future of the civilization we build today and that our children and grandchildren will live in. Each and every race on every ballot needs a way to see those impacts in context, and that's what I hope to provide here.

This is not an endorsement. The framework I have been building does not tell you who to vote for. That choice belongs to you, and it should be grounded in your own values, your own sense of which fields matter most to your community, and your own judgment about what verified record means relative to stated intention.

What coordination geometry can offer is a different kind of map. Not left versus right, not progressive versus moderate, not incumbent seniority versus fresh energy. Those framings tell you which team a candidate belongs to. They do not tell you what a candidate's positions imply structurally, or where the same stated values produce opposite real-world outcomes depending on which domain they are applied to.

Both of the candidates in this race are progressives. Both have endorsements from labor unions. Both support the environment. Both care about affordability. The conventional scorecard will give you a version of that description and ask you to pick. Coordination geometry goes one level deeper and asks: where does each candidate's positions build real stock, and where do they protect positional value at the cost of access for those not yet inside the system?

If this type of analysis is useful to you, you can reach out to me and I can run the same analysis on other candidates, other races, anywhere in the country. Indeed, they can be used to provide information for any position anywhere in the world. One of the core assumptions that the book and the framework makes is that we are, all of us, on a single world and that we are all within a single global civilization. The goal should be to make that a Living Civilization.