Meet Brad Hessel - Libertarian Party of North Carolina Candidate for NC Senate District 18
Brad's LP National Candidate Page
Brad Hessel - Fairness for Independents
Brad Hessel NC Forward Party Endorsement
Brad Interview with the Tar Heel Libertarian:
Tar Heel: You’ve described yourself as someone who believes in the people of North Carolina—their spirit, ingenuity, and compassion—and you’ve pledged to treat opponents with respect rather than viewing disagreement as evidence of malice or stupidity. What personal experiences or values most shaped this commitment to seeing the best in others, even in politics?
Brad Hessel: I don’t think the focus is “seeing the best in others.” My conception of “best” often does not match that of others. It’s more like gaining an understanding of the other’s point of view.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s, in the midst of a sharp generational culture war—“Don’t trust anyone over 30” was the watchword of my generation. But I generally found adults to be more interesting than my cohorts. Both my parents were in the entertainment business and we lived next door to my Goldwater Republican father’s oldest sister, a politically active communist…so there was never any shortage of interesting adults of all colors, political persuasions, and sexual orientations about. And mostly they worked cooperatively on various and sundry business, entertainment, and, to some extent, even political endeavors.
So I learned early that the best way to get stuff done was to find folks who were competent and strive along with them to focus on the shared goal(s), minimizing economic, political, and social disagreements (which were effectively irrelevant for that particular project). And along the way, you could often learn more from folks with whom you disagreed than from those sharing your own point of view.
How that translates into practical politics is that the best way to get folks to help you is to demonstrate how doing that would benefit them. So, you have to learn both what they need and what they want—not always the same thing—and figure out how that dovetails with what you want. I am a firm believer in the old saw about catching more flies with honey than vinegar.
Tar Heel: You’ve run for office multiple times (including 2016 and 2018 in what became District 18) and served in leadership roles in the Wake County and state Libertarian Party. How has that sustained involvement tested—and strengthened—your personal resolve to maintain civility when campaigns and debates turn heated?
Hessel: I get heated—or, at least, animated—about issues, but generally not about people. Aside from occasional heckling from folks in line or overly officious polling station monitors at early voting sites, I cannot recall anything approaching heated in any of my previous three runs for NC Senate.
There have been some heated internal party debates at the state and national party levels.
At the state level there were proposals to expel folks registered as Ds and Rs from being members of the LPNC (of which there were a handful including some donors) and to ban independents from being able to vote in our primary elections. I vigorously opposed both these proposals; the first one was adopted and the second one was consistently defeated (and is moot now as the law has changed such that NC political parties no longer have the option to ban independents from voting in party primary elections). Life goes on; no one quit the party over these disputes.
At the national level, there was considerably more Sturm und Drang after the Reno Reset in 2022 when one of our caucuses took over total control. They were not very tolerant of differing points of view and donations and membership declined both for the national party and here in North Carolina. The situation took a turn for the even worse in 2024, when the party chair effectively endorsed the Republican candidate for President instead of our own Libertarian candidate. The declines in membership and donations accelerated.
Between 1992 and 2022, the number of registered Libertarians in North Carolina grew faster than the overall voting population every single year (except 2005-06-07, when we were off the ballot). We hit an all-time high of 51k in 2022. Since then, Libertarian registrations have declined 8% to 46k while the number of registered voters overall increased 3%.
Personally, I am not active in national party affairs…but the correlation of absolute control by a relatively intolerant caucus with unprecedented declines in membership and donations does reinforce my resolve to maintain civility.
The national party situation was finally rectified in 2026, so hopefully the decline is over.
Tar Heel: As a longtime Raleigh resident, family man, and knowledge management consultant with a background in technical fields and simulation design, how does your professional and personal life inform your view that politics should prioritize dignity, respect, and understanding over confrontation?
Hessel: It’s not just that respecting and cooperating with folks instead of castigating and confronting them is more ethical. It usually works better to advance the ball.
In my professional and personal life, I have teamed up with many highly creative people, including game designers, writers, marketing strategists, art directors, hardware engineers, software and systems architects, soccer coaches, religious leaders, and political activists. Generally speaking, those folks are not enthusiastic compromisers when it comes to their vision. But in human affairs, the best way to get to the end result you desire is usually not a straight line. In this respect, I am a student of B. H. Liddell Hart, who in his great book, “The Indirect Approach,” criticized the prevalent WWI tactic of fruitlessly throwing waves and waves of soldiers against entrenched defenders with machine guns exemplified in the Battle of Verdun. His advice: ignore the strong points and instead attack where your enemy is weakest and least expects it. It may take more miles to get to your objective going that way…but you will still reach it sooner—and with less loss of life—than attacking along the shortest route, where the enemy expects you to and has the strongest defense.
And in human affairs, the effect is cumulative. Even if in a particular instance the direct approach would be faster, there is still a cost in choosing feather-ruffling confrontation over cooperation: the folks you burn may be intimidated into acceding to your future demands, but they will do so only resentfully and, in their truculence, will take every chance to unobtrusively throw a little sand into the gears. Not to mention, they will be ripe for revolt and revenge should the opportunity arise.
So, for example, with the art director who hates every alternative cover for the licensed-property game box that the book or movie licensor offers, you point out that while doing our own artwork will doubtless look immeasurably better, the risk of pissing off the licensor and never being able to do a game on any of their other properties outweighs the benefit of a better cover on that one game. And then hope for the best; it doesn’t always work.
Tar Heel: In your Liberty Survey responses, you emphasized working across aisles and representing every constituent, including supporters of your opponents. Can you share a specific example from your activism or past campaigns where you deliberately chose respect over scoring political points?
Hessel: Libertarians eschew the initiation of force in pursuit of economic, political, or social change (the Non-Aggression Principle). So, generally speaking, our only way to achieve change that is not totally under our own control is by persuading the other folks with control that it’s in their own best interest.
Accordingly, while there may be compelling tactical advantages to burning a particular bridge by choosing to stand firm on principle and score political points rather than seek a compromise, it’s rare in politics—or life in general—that that maneuver will gain you more ground than being willing to trade something for what you want…or at least part of what you want.
When I was appointed executive director of the LPNC in 2014, one thing that irked me was the naming convention for county affiliate parties, which aped the state party. The argument was that “libertarian” being the most important word in the name, we should lead with it.
I agreed with respect to the national party and the state party. But “all politics is local,” and when it came to county parties, I felt it was important that the names reflect the focus of those parties on making life better right there in Wake County (for example). Thus, “Wake County Libertarian Party” rather than “Libertarian Party of Wake County.” Saves a word, too, and shorter is better.
Not to mention, directly applying the long name/short name “Libertarian Party of North Carolina/LPNC” convention does not work for our counties. We have Cumberland County, Caswell County, Chatham County, Caldwell County…and several others that start with “C”…how do we decide who gets “LPCC”…and what do the other 14 do for their short names? If you lead with the county, you get a distinctive short name—CumberlandLP—which is also much more recognizable than the cryptic alphabet soup acronym LPCC.
Well, my proposal was not very well received. For most of the party activists, promoting the “Libertarian” identity was a higher priority than pushing the notion that the Randolph County party, for example, would be focusing on issues that matter to the residents of Asheboro and Ramseur. (In fact, to my surprise, it turned out that very few Libertarians were motivated to attend town council meetings and citizen advisory board meetings and school board meetings to delve into zoning and small business regulation and water use rules and transportation modalities and so forth. But that’s a different matter.)
So we came up with a typical libertarian solution: every county party did whatever they wanted to. :-) Some such as WakeLP went along with my idea (my favorite is what the folks in Rockingham came up with: “RockLP”). Others stuck with the “LPNC” model…although even most of those jettisoned the acronym short name. “LPMeck,” while notably harder to scan than “WakeLP,” is miles ahead of “LPMC” as a short name.
Tar Heel: Many candidates claim to want “bipartisanship,” but it often feels performative. What makes your approach to civility and lowering the temperature feel authentic to you personally, rather than just campaign rhetoric?
Hessel: Sadly, I think fewer establishment party candidates are espousing the value of bipartisanship today than ever during my lifetime. The gravity well of tribal think has become so powerful culturally—and political reality in our ever more numerous one-sided “safe” districts so compelling—that an establishment party candidate speaking favorably of compromise is risking political suicide. He or she is all-but-certain to be primaried by a take-no-prisoners Democrat running to the left of them or a Republican running to the right of them…and lose.
I feel an obligation to champion the USA-founding notion that it is morally incumbent upon us to respect and safeguard each individual’s liberty. The job I seek is to represent all the people living in Granville and Northern Wake counties, and I don’t see how anyone can effectively do that by denigrating not only their opponents, but their opponents’ supporters.
And, speaking of bipartisanship, I am the only candidate in this race who has been endorsed by more than one party: both the Libertarian Party of North Carolina and North Carolina Forward Party. How that works for me is that the LPNC provides the general governing philosophy and the NCFP is focused on actually implementing policies that are both likely to effectively address problems and feasible politically. The fusion is greater than the sum of the parts!
Tar Heel: Your journey from early peace Democrat roots (McGovern era) through Ron Paul support to Libertarian activism shows evolution in principles. How has that personal political growth influenced your belief that we can disagree deeply without dehumanizing each other?
Hessel: I would say what has evolved is not my principles, but my appreciation of them.
My parents taught me not to hit folks, and not to steal their stuff…with the exception of the case where someone hit me first. But when I was young, did not grok how those rules applied to groups. I did not make the logical connection that if it’s wrong for me to use violence to get my way, how could it be right for a group of people—even if they had uniforms and/or badges—to do that?
And for a long time—despite the Warren Commission, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Pentagon Papers, the Church Committee hearings, et al—I retained faith that if only the right folks would be elected, that government could effect peaceful co-existence and the recognition of human rights. Not to mention stop spending money we don’t have on things we can’t afford.
I finally gave up on the Democrats in the 80s when it became clear to me that they were not only fiscally irresponsible but doggedly working to divide folks into arbitrary categories which invariably characterized them as either exploiters or victims of exploitation. I switched my registration to R and voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984, charmed by his vision of individual liberty and fiscal rectitude.
And then the second Reagan administration spent more money and ran bigger deficits than the Democrats had (since WW2). But my first child was born in 1985 and for the next 20 years or so I was pretty focused on career and family. By the time we moved from Brooklyn to North Carolina in 1992, we had three kids. I did pay enough attention to quit the Rs in disgust after we invaded Afghanistan—idiotically following in the failed footsteps of the Brits and Russians—and then Iraq after 9/11; I registered as independent.
On the advice of my wife’s older brother, in 2007 I turned on a Republican Presidential candidates debate. Lo and behold! There was Ron Paul attempting to explain the concept of blowback—the notion that treating people badly for decades by imposing dictators who torture and murder and give the oil companies sweet deals on their countries is likely to make them mad at us—to poor Rudy Gulliani, whose head proceeded to explode on national TV! Dr. Paul’s argument that the right way to interact with the world is to follow the advice of the founders and avoid entangling alliances and conflict and engage in trade and dialog was totally consistent with my reasoning for supporting George McGovern back in 1971-72 (although Dr. Paul makes a compelling case for the Rs historically having been better at keeping us out of war/ending them…up until 9/11).
All I knew about Dr. Paul before seeing that debate was that he was a Texas Republican, obstetrician, and the best non-professional baseball player ever to serve in Congress. But after hearing him talk about the need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, to end the counterproductive “war on drugs,” and to stop the fiscally and morally ruinous deficit spending, I donated to his 2008 campaign, and in 2012, I volunteered here in North Carolina. After Dr. Paul was not invited to speak at the Republican convention despite having the second-most delegates of any candidate, several of us here switched over to working for Gary Johnson, who had started out competing for the 2012 Republican nomination but after being frozen out of the debates, registered Libertarian and pursued that nomination.
So that’s how I made my way here.
Tar Heel: You’ve said you’re running to represent all the people of District 18, including those who support the Democratic and Republican candidates. How would you practically demonstrate that commitment once in the Senate—especially on votes or issues where your Libertarian views put you in the minority?
Hessel: I would work hard to communicate what is going on in the NCGA to constituents—my role model would be how Justin Amash handled the task when he was in the US House—and systematically recruit/enlist residents of Granville/Wake affected by any issue that is a high priority for me to be willing to talk to my NCGA colleagues. I would judiciously explain all my actual votes to both constituents and my fellow Senators…including the inevitable minority “No” votes.
Tar Heel: In today’s climate, it’s common for politicians to frame opponents as existential threats. How would you respond if colleagues or activists tried to pressure you into adopting more confrontational or partisan rhetoric during debates or campaigns?
Hessel: Depends on the circumstances. In most cases, I would likely work to demonstrate to those folks that cooperation generally achieves better results than confrontation (at least for me). But there are unusual occasions where confrontation is the more effective path forward, and if I believed it warranted in a particular situation, I would heed their advice.
Tar Heel: You’ve highlighted that voluntary cooperation and free markets work best when people pursue success “with dignity, respect, and understanding.” How does this philosophy extend to legislative negotiations and committee work in Raleigh?
Hessel: LOL, well you need at least respect and understanding on both sides to have such negotiations in the first place, so I would constantly work to achieve and maintain that level of relationship with all concerned. But the negotiations themselves boil down to a combination of horse trading and being able to demonstrate to the other fellow how it’s in her or his interest to help you out.
Tar Heel: What do you see as the biggest drivers of toxic partisanship in North Carolina politics right now, and what personal responsibility do you believe individual lawmakers (including yourself) have in addressing it?
Hessel: Gerrymandering is the prime driver. In one-sided “safe” districts—which are most of them thanks to political gerrymandering—only the dominant party’s primary matters…and primaries on both sides are dominated by true believers, who thrive on toxic performative politics. (And on the R side, being nasty—preferably in a clever/entertaining way—increases your chances for a Trump endorsement.) Snowball-in-Hell level experience for a moderate.
Tar Heel: If elected, how would you handle situations where a colleague uses inflammatory language or personal attacks—would you confront it directly, model different behavior, or something else? Why?
Hessel: My go-to is polite Socratic questions occasionally tinged with snarkiness.
Tar Heel: Your campaign and writings stress that no one who disagrees with you is automatically an “idiot or malicious.” How would you apply that standard when engaging with voters or colleagues who hold very different views on issues like taxes, education, or social policy?
Hessel: I usually imagine I am puffing on a cigar, fold my hands to make it problematic for me to open my mouth, and discipline myself to listen. I am searching for some area of agreement to initiate a response. I then reprise the points the voter or colleague has made, to be sure I understood them accurately. Segue into polite socratic questions.
Tar Heel: You’ve made electoral reform—specifically an independent, non-partisan redistricting commission, bringing back instant runoff voting (ranked-choice voting) for local elections, and fairness for independent voters—one of your top priorities to reduce toxic partisanship. Why do you believe these structural changes would meaningfully lower the political temperature compared to the current system?
Hessel: Getting rid of political gerrymandering would be the most effective of these in reducing toxic partisanship because we would have many more competitive districts where candidates would have an incentive to appeal to moderate voters in the center in the general election. But, unfortunately, it is the least likely reform to occur as whichever party has control of the NCGA always opposes it. Prior to 2011, the Republicans proposed a great bill to establish a non-partisan commission to draw district lines and the Democrats wouldn’t even allow it a committee hearing. Then the Rs won control of the NCGA…and lo and behold, the Ds suddenly became interested in reform and introduced a nearly identical bill…and now the Rs wouldn’t even allow it—essentially, their own bill!—a committee hearing.
IRV/RCV would also incentivize candidates to reach out beyond their base. In theory, our form of government in North Carolina is representative democracy…but in fact, under our current plurality voting system candidates can “win” election here even when a majority vote against them! For example in 2020 both Donald Trump and Thom Tillis won their elections despite the fact that a majority voted against them. In 2024, four of our US House elections featured candidates who “won” their March primary elections with only a minority of support—in one case 74% of the voters voted against the certified winner (Addison McDowell in US 6 for whom 26.4% of the electorate voted; he finished first in a six-candidate race). In 2026, we have six “minority report” candidates on the November ballot for US House.
So, in a plurality race with multiple candidates, appealing strictly to your base and stoking their enthusiasm for turning out by insulting everyone else is a viable strategy, presuming your base is north of 35% of the electorate. You will surely pick up some undecideds no matter what you do and—as you don’t need a majority, just more votes than any other candidate—that could plausibly be enough to win.
With IRV, though, to win a single-seat race you need 50%+1 at a minimum. So now you have to be thinking, how can I get to a majority? Don’t necessarily need to have folks make me their first choice, but I want as many 2nd and 3rd choice votes as possible, too, so as the also-ran candidates are eliminated, I gain support from voters who originally preferred them to me. If I am only addressing my 35% base and ignoring or insulting everyone else…well my chances of picking up enough support to win are probably not that great.
Fairness for independents includes reforming our election law to eliminate discriminatory and onerous petitioning requirements that apply to unaffiliated who want to run for office; these have the effect of keeping them off the ballot. If we had more independents running for office, they would likely raise issues that centrist/moderate voters care about, which would put pressure on establishment party candidates to address those issues instead of spending all their time denigrating each other’s character.
Tar Heel: Gerrymandering and safe seats are often blamed for polarization. As someone who has experienced redistricting battles firsthand, how would an independent commission change the incentives for candidates like yourself and your major-party opponents to appeal more broadly?
Hessel: Discussed above. Having more competitive districts would expand opportunities for moderate candidates and reduce the number of places where a candidate has to be a left- or right-wing firebrand to have a prayer of winning a primary election.
Tar Heel: Instant runoff voting encourages candidates to seek second- and third-choice support. How do you think this would shift campaign behavior in North Carolina away from negative, base-mobilizing tactics toward more civil, consensus-seeking ones?
Hessel: Again, discussed above.
Tar Heel: You’ve noted that redistricting has led to wasted taxpayer dollars on court fights. Beyond cost, how has the current partisan process contributed to the “us vs. them” mentality you want to change?
Hessel: As noted above, in non-competitive districts, only the dominant party primary matters, and primaries are generally low-turnout affairs dominated by the party’s most ardent and militant adherents. So we tend to get highly partisan Ds and Rs nominated in districts where they virtually can’t lose. And when they get to Raleigh, if they care to be re-elected, their incentive is to engage in performative partisan politics to constantly demonstrate their loyalty and avoid any hint of compromise with the enemy.
In competitive districts, there is opportunity for moderate candidates to make the case to their primary voters that they are more electable in the general election.
Tar Heel: If these reforms passed, what other steps (if any) would you take as a senator to further encourage civility—such as changes to debate rules, committee processes, or public engagement?
Hessel: My priority would be to canvass NCGA members in both the Senate and House to find those most favorable to the creation of a Problem Solvers Caucus.
North Carolina is a politically diverse state; for solutions to be credible and durable they require buy-in from all sides. A North Carolina Problem Solvers Caucus—drawing members from both the Senate and the House—would constitute a standing institution promoting nonpartisan collaboration at every level of state lawmaking. Members would commit to engaging in good faith with colleagues across all aisles to prioritizing outcomes over optics and to advancing legislation on the merits rather than partisan considerations. By spanning both chambers the caucus would be uniquely positioned to bridge not just partisan divides but the institutional divide between the Senate and the House as well.
The focus would be prioritizing consensus-driven legislation promoting bills that both offer practical solutions to serious issues and can earn across-the-aisles political support. The caucus would also champion procedural reforms in both the House and Senate to ensure that broadly supported bills actually receive hearings and votes instead of being blocked by leadership or committee bottlenecks and that individual Representatives and Senators have adequate opportunity to provide feedback on bills during markup and review and debate the final bill before voting on it.
A bicameral Problem Solvers Caucus gives North Carolina something it currently lacks: a durable organized coalition of legislators who are more committed to governing than to winning. It creates the conditions for practical progress on the issues where broad agreement already exists among the public even when partisan-focused party leadership have little incentive to act. And it signals to voters—especially the growing number of independent voters who now make up the largest registration bloc in the state—that their legislature is capable of working for everyone.
Tar Heel: On issues like education, taxes, occupational licensing, and healthcare freedom—where you hold strong Libertarian positions—how would you approach negotiations with Democratic and Republican colleagues to find common ground while staying true to your principles?
Hessel: Congruent with my aforementioned tactic of [a] listening and [b] looking for some point of agreement to initiate discussion with, I’d likely tend to emphasize the social freedom benefits of any given policy when discussing it with Ds and the cost benefits when talking with Rs.
And I would anticipate being in the minority voting “No” a lot.
Tar Heel: You oppose mandates on healthcare, medication, or vaccines and support greater parental choice in education. How would you discuss these divisive topics in the Senate in a way that invites dialogue rather than escalating division?
Hessel: As discussed above, I support the creation of a Problem Solvers Caucus in the NCGA. I would work to funnel my discussion of those issues (and others) through that group, or at least through other NCGA members interested in forming it.
Tar Heel: As a candidate who has earned high marks from groups focused on gun rights and cannabis reform, how do you balance advocating for liberty on these issues with maintaining respectful relationships across the political spectrum?
Hessel: Cannabis legalization is coming; I would do my level best to hasten its arrival, chiefly by helping my fellow legislators to understand how it will benefit their constituents.
I’d like to see constitutional carry enacted here, but generally, I don’t feel the 2A situation in NC is all that bad…and so it is not an issue I would be itching to expend political capital arguing with folks about. I would be vigilant with respect to any legislative or bureaucratic backsliding, however.
Tar Heel: North Carolina faces challenges with housing, infrastructure, and economic opportunity. How would your emphasis on voluntary cooperation and free markets, combined with your commitment to civility, shape your approach to finding practical solutions?
Hessel: We need to allow communities to become greener, fairer, and less expensive. Exclusionary zoning—especially single-family zoning—has often been used to discriminate based on income. Small groups of politically active homeowners work with local governments to create rules which keep growth and change out. Over time this distorts development, and limits the opportunities available to working families. Largely due to these arbitrary government limits on supply, housing costs are rising rapidly in our successful and growing urban areas, and many middle- and low-income people are cut-off from buying a home there. We need to ensure our cities remain adaptable, diverse, and inclusive.
Sprawling cut-de-sac neighborhoods on the whole are financially unsustainable. The cost-per-resident to build and maintain water and sewer and power connections and concomitant services for those homes far exceeds what can feasibly be collected in property taxes…so those areas are a constant drain on city finances. Meanwhile, thanks to higher valuations and the fact that they are much more cost-effective to service, the city “profits” on downtown commercial and denser residential areas. Thus, the folks who live and work there—largely at low- and middle-income levels—end up subsidizing the more wealthy cul de sac dwellers.
And, of course, with respect to environmental considerations, providing cost-effective energy-efficient transportation modalities when you have to service cut de sac neighborhoods is problematic.
So, eliminating arbitrary government restrictions on the supply of denser, more affordable housing is not just fairer: from the point of view of all of the residents of a city, it makes financial and environmental sense as well.
Tar Heel: You’ve said government should work through dignity and respect. In a closely divided or partisan Senate, what would success look like for you in advancing legislation or oversight while modeling the calmer tone you advocate?
Hessel: I don’t consider a “calmer tone” to be an objective per se. But success would look like the NCGA (not just the Senate) focusing more time and energy on studying and addressing serious issues that affect life in North Carolina and less on performative politics.
I would also like to see procedural reforms such as ending the practice of writing omnibus bills that cover more than one subject, enabling members on the pertinent committee to have more input in the drafting stage, and ensuring there is adequate time for members not on that committee to read legislation and offer amendments before a final vote is scheduled. The US House Problem Solvers Caucus on which my concept is modeled has been particularly successful at implementing procedural reforms.
Tar Heel: As a Libertarian in a competitive three-way race, how do you plan to campaign in a way that demonstrates the very civility and respect for all voters that you preach—especially when major-party candidates may use more aggressive tactics?
Hessel: Boys will be boys. Nothing I can do about the flood of millions of dollars likely to be spent by the establishment party campaigns and their surrogates blackening their opponent’s name, aside from lament it.
But I am working to pitch the notion of pledging to establish a “problem solvers caucus” in the NCGA to each of them; in fact one of them has already signed on. I believe that all three of us jointly announcing our support for such an initiative would gain some attention/mindshare for civility and respect…and if whomever among us succeeds in getting the caucus going, that has the potential to make a material difference..
Tar Heel: Looking beyond one election, what legacy do you hope to leave regarding the tone of North Carolina politics? How would you measure whether you’ve succeeded in lowering the temperature?
Hessel: Heh, not planning to go anywhere anytime soon. In the likely event that I do not win this election, I’ll continue to work with anyone interested in helping to exert a libertarian influence on government policy in particular, and make life in North Carolina better in general..
I am guided by the Judaic imperative, Tikkun Olam, to heal the world. I believe we are not just passive observers in our lives, but rather have a responsibility to actively work to promote righteousness and justice…and if not—ideally—leave things better then we found them, at least strive to minimize the damage.
“You are not required to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it.”
Tar Heel: If voters in District 18 elect you, what message do you want them—and the broader state—to take away about the kind of leadership that prioritizes character, mutual respect, and calmer discourse over partisan warfare?
Hessel: Well…if they tell me on November 4th that I got more votes than either of my establishment party opponents, I may well be the first winning candidate in North Carolina history to demand a recount.
I don’t expect my message to change whether or not I am elected. I still want to address real-life issues that affect us all—health care, education, the economy, and others—in ways that afford us all more control over our own lives. And if someone other than I is elected in Senate 18, I will do my best to help/encourage him to move in that direction.
Showing 1 reaction