Re-elect Price: Rep. David Price is still the best person to represent North Carolina's Fourth Congressional District

David Price has served the Fourth District for 22 nearly unbroken years. He should serve for two more.

In discussions with Price, we agreed one word really characterized him: competence.
He has lived in this community for a long time. It has helped shape how he views the world.

And as our representative, he is the most capable of effectively reflecting those views because he has the institutional knowledge of how Washington works.

The editorial board has members of both political ideologies. But in thinking of how our endorsement should be made, we tried to set our personal biases aside.

The principle question was this: “Based on our interviews, who would best represent the values and interests of the Fourth District’s constituents?”

That person is Price.

In our discussion, Price took the view that “enlightened public policy” could bring real benefits to the Triangle. His belief in public-private partnerships has helped him marry private sector expertise to government concerns.

This is the kind of advocacy the Triangle needs.

America faces real fiscal problems. The job of Congressman is an unenviable one at a time when these problems loom and trust in government is so low.

But government grants to the University that keep America on the cutting edge of innovation and research are not part of those problems, and they would be rejected under his opponent’s opposition to federal funding.

This region benefits from a high concentration of human capital. It would seem foolish to discriminate between the private and public sectors utilizing that capital because of personal political leanings.

The government is an institution — and a large one at that. The benefit to Price’s incumbency is an understanding of how to navigate the institution to best serve his constituents.

While the possible downside is that one becomes more beholden to Washington than to those they represent, it just didn’t seem this was the case with Price.

Quite the opposite really — he seems to understand his district well.

Having said that, there is always room for improvement.

Price placed a lot of blame on the previous administration for the economic problems we currently face. It’s a standard talking point which has always felt unsatisfying.

The previous administration may be at fault for the situation President Obama inherited, but that cannot be his only response to the unpopularity of the Democratic agenda with voters.

In our meeting, Price divided his time speaking about Republicans between stressing the bipartisan work he has done for the district, and castigating the party at large for opposition to the Democratic agenda.

Government today is incredibly polarized. If elected, we hope Price will deviate from the standard Democratic talking points and continue to try to find common ground with the other side.

Price stressed his fiscal qualifications based on the work he did balancing the budget in the 1990s. That was also a decade of divided government, which Price can reasonably expect to be a part of if he returns to Washington.

We expect him to be in an advantageous position, then, to make progress on issues the country faces.

*Why not Lawson? *
B.J. Lawson is running on a platform of change — fundamental change. His ideal federal government is one that is drastically reduced to only the most basic functions outlined in the Constitution.

His devotion to his libertarian convictions is admirable. And many in the district may agree with them. But even if they do, it would be tough to argue that this philosophy best represents the values and interests of the constituency as a whole.

In a polarized government, his fidelity to his ideology would work against the pragmatism that our government needs.

If he had it his way, B.J. Lawson would end federal grants to the district. He would also end federal student aid.

The problems with federal funding he outlines are not necessarily unfounded. But his solutions stand only to hurt this region.

His principle goal is to advocate for sweeping changes to American government, none of which he is likely to accomplish as a freshman Congressman. Constituents are likely to be left with 100 percent of nothing.

Some argue that, even with his views, Lawson would be a reliable vote in the Republican agenda that would be friendlier to the private sector and spur economic growth.

This might be true, but no one can be certain what the effects of the new Congress will be — or even what it will look like. With such uncertainty, this argument alone hardly justifies throwing off an incumbent who navigates government well and delivers positive benefits to the district.