Blog

Hawthorne Bridge and Portland, OR City Skyline Along Willamette River

Bringing Portland’s Weird Heart to the U.S. Senate In a state famous for its independent streak, few candidates embody Oregon’s individual spirit quite like Russ McAlmond. Raised in the Rose City, Russ has spent nearly his entire life living, working, and raising a family right here in the Portland area. He knows downtown Portland like the back of his hand and worked in many buildings in the city. After the Marines he started his working life in local warehouses and was a member of the Teamsters Union Local 26 loading grocery trucks. He ended up working with US Bank in downtown as a Vice President and owning his own registered investment advisory firm called Evergreen Capital Management. He had a corner office that looked out over the city and Willamette River. That is a weird combination of workplaces for anyone - except in Portland.&nbsp; But Russ doesn’t see “weird” as a bumper-sticker punchline. He knows it’s deeper than that. Portland Weird isn’t about purple hair or food-cart fusion. It’s about giving every single person the freedom to be their unapologetic, idiosyncratic self. We are all unique and that should be celebrated.&nbsp; The street musician who plays theremin at Saturday Market. The software engineer who spends weekends brewing experimental mead in her garage. The retired welder who builds twenty-foot-tall kinetic sculptures out of scrap metal and hope. And even the bankers in Oregon are weird.&nbsp; That’s the real Portland Weird, and Russ McAlmond has lived it every day.“Being ‘Portland Weird’ applies to all of us,” Russ says. “Most especially me. I’m a guy who once wore a kilt (yes he has one) and my wife almost divorced me. I’m weird. You’re weird. The farmer in Klamath Falls who talks to his cows is weird. The fisherman in Astoria who carves totem poles out of driftwood is weird. That’s what makes Oregon magic, and that’s what makes America magic.” This from a guy talking about "magic" and lives next to Merlin, Oregon.&nbsp; Russ is running for U.S. Senate because he’s tired of watching Washington, D.C. sort Americans into demographic boxes: red team, blue team, urban, rural, this identity, that identity. He’s tired of policies that treat people as avatars of groups instead of the gloriously unique individuals they are.“When the federal government hands out benefits, writes tax code, or drafts regulations, it should see 330 million distinct human beings,” Russ declares. “Not 12 focus-group segments. Not ‘communities’ to be elevated or protected. Individuals. Every single one equal under the law, every single one free to be as weird as they please.” That’s the core of Russ’s platform: Radical Equality for Every Unique Individual. It means: Tax policy that treats you as you, not as a member of some favored or disfavored cohort.&nbsp; Healthcare freedom that lets you choose the plan that fits your weird life, not the one a bureaucracy decided your “group” needs.&nbsp; Education dollars that follow your kid, whether they’re a future rocket scientist or a banjo prodigy homeschooled on a houseboat.&nbsp; Criminal-justice reform that sees defendants as individual people with individual stories, not statistics to be managed.&nbsp; Environmental regulations that respect the logger in Tillamook, the solar-tech inventor in Bend, and the urban bike commuter in equal measure, because every Oregonian’s livelihood matters. Russ isn’t running to represent “progressive Portland” or “rural Oregon” or any other faction. He’s running to represent you, the one reading this right now, with your own peculiar dreams, your own private struggles, your own magnificent weirdness. In a Senate chamber filled with politicians who speak in poll-tested platitudes about “communities” and “identities,” Russ McAlmond will be the guy in the kilt (maybe not literally) reminding everyone that government exists to protect the rights of individual human beings, period. So if you believe government should keep its hands off your life and let you be as wonderfully, defiantly weird as God or the Universe intended, Russ McAlmond is your candidate. Because in the end, Portland Weird isn’t just a city slogan. It’s the American promise. And Russ is taking it to Washington. Russ McAlmond for U.S. Senate: Equality for Every Unique Individual. Keep Oregon Weird. Keep America Free.

Portland Weird

The phrase " Zero tolerance for antisemitism " drawn on a carton banner in hand. A girl holds a cardboard with an inscription. Girls on the street. Protest, march. Rally.

In the landscape of American politics, where division often drowns out unity, candidates like Russell McAlmond emerge as beacons of principled resolve. A Republican contender for the United States Senate seat in Oregon McAlmond brings a unique blend of experience as a former U.S. Marine, financial leader, Universal Judaism rabbi, and human rights advocate. His platform, rooted in a fervent commitment to ethical individualism, positions him as a staunch opponent of all forms of group-based hatred, with a particular emphasis on eradicating antisemitism from the fabric of American society. McAlmond advocates for a zero-tolerance policy toward antisemitism, viewing it not merely as a historical atrocity but as one of the world's most pernicious manifestations of collective prejudice. This article explores McAlmond's stance, situating it within the broader context of antisemitism's enduring threat and the moral imperative of ethical individualism, a philosophy he has articulated as the antidote to such ills. The Enduring Menace of Antisemitism Antisemitism stands as one of humanity's most insidious and persistent forms of group hatred, a venomous ideology that has poisoned societies across millennia. From the blood libels of medieval Europe to the industrialized horrors of the Holocaust, and into the contemporary surge of online vitriol and campus unrest, antisemitism has repeatedly demonstrated its capacity to dehumanize entire populations based on perceived collective traits. In the United States, incidents of antisemitic violence and rhetoric have spiked alarmingly in recent years, with the Anti-Defamation League reporting a 140% increase in assaults following the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel—a trend that underscores the urgency of federal intervention. This hatred thrives on the fallacy of group judgment, where individuals are reduced to caricatures of their ethnicity, religion, or heritage, stripped of their individuality and rendered targets for scapegoating. As the founder and executive director of the Center for Human Equality in Grants Pass, Oregon, he has long championed anti-bigotry initiatives, including his role as Southern Oregon's chapter leader for the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR). In his writings and public advocacy, McAlmond decries antisemitism as a moral abomination that not only endangers Jewish communities but erodes the ethical foundations of any pluralistic democracy. For Oregon's U.S. Senate race, where issues of equity and justice resonate deeply amid the state's progressive ethos and rural-urban divides, McAlmond's zero-tolerance pledge translates into concrete policy proposals: enhanced federal hate crime prosecutions, mandatory education on the dangers of group-based prejudice in schools, and robust protections for religious freedoms. He envisions legislation that would classify antisemitic acts as domestic terrorism equivalents, ensuring swift accountability while fostering interfaith dialogues to prevent recurrence. This approach is not punitive for its own sake but restorative, aimed at rebuilding trust in institutions that have too often failed vulnerable groups. Ethical Individualism: The Philosophical Bulwark Against Group Hatred At the core of McAlmond's crusade lies Ethical Individualism, a human relational philosophy he developed and expounded in his 2021 book, Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy. This framework posits that true moral progress demands rejecting all forms of group judgments—those insidious categorizations that label people as inherently superior or inferior based on race, religion, nationality, or any collective identifier. McAlmond argues that such judgments are not only factually flawed, as no two humans share identical experiences or essences, but profoundly immoral, as they deny the inherent dignity of the individual. "Each person is a distinct mosaic of experiences," he writes, "not a stereotype defined by race, religion, or nationality." In an era where identity politics and tribalism fuel polarization, ethical individualism calls for symbiotic relationships built on mutual respect and equality, where interactions benefit all parties without favoritism or exclusion.McAlmond's philosophy is no abstract treatise; it is a practical ethic forged from his diverse life path. McAlmond rejects collective guilt outright, as articulated in his essay "The Fallacy of Collective Guilt," where he asserts that criminal justice—and by extension, social justice—must target individuals, not proxies like family or co-religionists. This stance opposes not only antisemitism but all group-based discriminations, from anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric to racial profiling, positioning McAlmond as a holistic defender of human dignity. For Oregonians, where rural conservatism intersects with urban progressivism, McAlmond's ethical individualism offers a unifying vision. He critiques both extremes: the demonization of "elites" that veers into antisemitic tropes and the overreach of affirmative action that risks reverse group judgments. Instead, he proposes Senate-led initiatives like nationwide "Individualism Education Grants" to fund programs teaching empathy through personal narratives, ensuring that Oregon's youth— from Portland's tech hubs to Eastern Oregon's farmlands—grow into citizens who see neighbors, not categories. A Senate Agenda for Zero Tolerance As a candidate for Oregon's U.S. Senate seat, McAlmond's zero-tolerance policy on antisemitism integrates seamlessly with his broader ethical framework, promising legislative action that safeguards individuality while confronting hatred head-on. He supports expanding the FBI's hate crimes division with dedicated antisemitism task forces, drawing on models like the Department of Education's antisemitism reporting mechanisms but amplifying them federally. McAlmond also advocates for tax incentives for businesses adopting anti-bias training rooted in ethical individualism, recognizing that economic vitality in Oregon's timber, wine, and tech sectors depends on inclusive workplaces free from prejudice. Critics might dismiss such zeal as performative, yet McAlmond's track record— from testifying before Oregon legislatures on parental rights and equality to authoring essays that dismantle groupism's logic—demonstrates authenticity. In a Senate chamber often gridlocked by partisan tribalism, his voice could bridge divides, co-sponsoring bipartisan bills like the Antisemitism Awareness Act while pushing amendments to embed ethical individualism in civil rights law. Russell McAlmond's bid for Oregon's U.S. Senate seat is a clarion call to reclaim America's promise of liberty through the lens of ethical individualism. By demanding zero tolerance for antisemitism—one of the world's most egregious group hates—he challenges us to transcend the shadows of prejudice and embrace the light of individual worth. In a nation grappling with rising bigotry, McAlmond's philosophy offers not division, but a path to genuine unity: one where every person, regardless of heritage, is met with respect and opportunity. As Oregon voters weigh their choice in this pivotal race, McAlmond stands as a reminder that true leadership judges actions, not affiliations—and in doing so, forges a more just union. His vision, if realized, could ripple beyond the Beaver State, inspiring a federal commitment to humanity's highest ethic: seeing each other as we truly are—unique, irreplaceable, and worthy.

Zero Tolerance for Antisemitism

Lot of people shadows against USA flagged fence, shutdown concept

Oregon is not a red state or a blue state; it is a state of neighbors—farmers in the Willamette Valley who know the exact hour the dew lifts from the grass, loggers in the Coast Range who can read a forest like scripture, and fishermen on the Columbia who measure their lives in tides and salmon runs. From the high desert of Harney County to the rain-soaked cliffs of Astoria, from the tech corridors of Hillsboro to downtown Portland, Oregonians share one quiet demand: leaders who solve problems with common sense, heal divisions with human connection, and defend free speech and religious liberty without apology. This is the mission of my U.S. Senate campaign: Putting People Over Politics. I am Russell McAlmond—U.S. Marine veteran, father, businessman, Executive Director, fiscal conservative, rabbi, Republican, and founder of the Center for Human Equality (CHE) in Grants Pass. My life’s work - whether counseling families through financial hardship for Oregon military members, authoring Ethical Individualism: A Human Relational Philosophy, or being the son of a former US Senate Candidate who ran as a Democrat, - has prepared me not to play the partisan game, but to end it. We are better together.&nbsp; In the Senate, I will represent every Oregonian, from the progressive coffee shops of Eugene to the conservative cattle ranches of Baker County, with the same steady voice: yours. Common sense is Oregon’s native tongue, yet Washington speaks in jargon and gridlock. Wildfires don’t wait for environmental impact studies; they devour homes while federal agencies argue over jurisdiction. I will champion immediate, science-based forest management—controlled burns, thinning, and grazing—that local fire chiefs and tribal leaders have begged for years. The fentanyl pouring across our southern border doesn’t respect party lines; it kills sons in Scappoose and daughters in Sisters. Common sense demands we secure the border, hold cartels accountable, and fund rural treatment centers, not endless task forces. Housing costs in Bend and Beaverton don’t bend to ideology; they bend families. I will push to stop corporate investors from creating too much demand on residential housing by trying to increase the return on their investments and tax credits for first-time homebuyers - solutions that work whether you vote D, R, or write in “None of the Above.” But common sense without compassion is just cold calculation. Oregon thrives when we see each other not as demographics but as unique individuals. As executive director of the Center for Human Equality, I have written a book on how to return to human dignity and respect for the uniqueness of every human being we meet.&nbsp; In the Senate, I will author a National Human Relations Act - modeled on Ethical Individualism - that funds dialogue training in high schools, veteran reintegration programs, and rural mental health hubs. Imagine town halls in every county where a Klamath Falls rancher and a Portland teacher trade ideas over coffee, not insults over cable news. This is human relations improvement: legislating with empathy, not enmity. Free speech and religious liberty are not culture-war props; they are the oxygen of Oregon’s soul. From the pulpits of rural churches to the open-mic nights in dive bars, Oregonians speak their minds and live their faith without permission. &nbsp; Whether it’s a Christian trucker in Ontario praying at roadside rest stops or a pagan baker in Corvallis refusing to violate conscience, faith must remain a sanctuary, not a subpoena target. Freedom of religion is one of our most valuable human rights for all Oregonians. I will fight to protect it.&nbsp; “Putting People Over Politics” is more than a slogan; it is a pledge.&nbsp; I will term-limit myself to no more than two terms, because the Senate is a duty, not a dynasty. Oregon sent pioneers to the Senate who built dams, protected wilderness, and brokered peace between labor and capital. Today, we need a senator who brokers peace and understanding between neighbors. Join me. With common sense as our compass, human connection as our bridge, and constitutional freedoms as our foundation, we will put people over politics and remind Washington what Oregon already knows: the answers are here, among us, if only someone will listen.

Putting People Over Politics

My name is Russell McAlmond, and I'm running for the United States Senate to represent the great state of Oregon. As a long-term Oregonian and raised on the principles of hard work and community service—I've seen firsthand how our federal government has drifted far from the people it serves. That's why, if elected, I pledge to serve no more than two terms in the Senate. After two terms, I will voluntarily step down and return home to Oregon, making way for a fresh voice to carry our state's banner in Washington. This isn't a gimmick; it's a promise rooted in the belief that career politicians breed corruption, entrench lobbyist influence, and stifle true representation. Congress must impose term limits to restore accountability and prevent the toxic cycle of money-driven politics.The Founding Fathers never envisioned a professional political class. James Madison warned in The Federalist Papers that prolonged power could lead to "ambition counteracting ambition" devolving into self-serving factions. Yet today, the average Senate tenure exceeds 10 years, with many incumbents clinging to office for decades. This longevity isn't born of superior wisdom but of a system rigged for reelection. Without term limits, politicians prioritize survival over service, becoming beholden to the very interests they should regulate.Consider the corruption that festers with time in office. Freshman legislators arrive with ideals, but as years turn to decades, they morph into insiders. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that incumbents win reelection over 90% of the time, thanks to name recognition, staff support, and—most insidiously—campaign war chests swollen by special interests. A 2022 study by the Campaign Legal Center found that members of Congress who serve longer than 12 years are twice as likely to receive contributions from PACs tied to industries they oversee. This isn't coincidence; it's corruption by design. Long-term politicians trade votes for donations, embedding themselves in a web of lobbyists who fund their perpetual campaigns.Lobbying is the lifeblood of careerism. In 2023 alone, over $4 billion was spent on federal lobbying, per OpenSecrets.org, with top spenders including pharmaceutical giants, Wall Street firms, and energy conglomerates. These aren't charitable gifts; they're investments expecting returns. A senator in their third or fourth term, facing multimillion-dollar reelection bids, can't afford to bite the hand that feeds. Take the example of opioid crisis legislation: Despite public outrage, reforms were watered down because Big Pharma donated heavily to veteran lawmakers on key committees. Career politicians don't just accept this money—they court it, hosting fundraisers in D.C. swamps where access is auctioned to the highest bidder.Term limits would sever this umbilical cord. By capping service—say, at 12 years for senators and 6-8 for House members—we'd inject turnover, forcing politicians to focus on policy over perpetuity. Evidence from states with term limits proves it works. In Michigan, where legislative terms are limited, a 2019 University of Michigan study showed reduced earmarks and pork-barrel spending, as lawmakers knew their time was finite and couldn't build empires of favors. Nationally, presidents are term-limited to two terms under the 22nd Amendment, preventing monarch-like rule. Why exempt Congress? Critics claim term limits rob us of experience. Nonsense. Expertise comes from staff, not seat-warming. George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms, setting a precedent until FDR broke it—prompting the amendment. Oregonians deserve senators who fight for logging reforms, wildfire funding, and affordable healthcare without owing favors to out-of-state donors. A two-term limit ensures fresh perspectives: a farmer from Eastern Oregon today, a tech innovator from Portland tomorrow.As your candidate, I reject careerism. I'll serve two terms max, then return to private life—perhaps teaching at Oregon State or advocating for veterans. No pensions for life, no revolving door to K Street. This pledge isn't just personal; it's a call for congressional term limits via constitutional amendment. Polls show 80% of Americans support this, per Pew Research, crossing party lines because we all see the rot.Oregon, we've sent good people to D.C. before, but too many stay too long.&nbsp; Elect me, Russell McAlmond, and I'll prove one voice can change the system - from the inside, for a limited time. Together, let's end the era of career politicians and reclaim government for the people. Two terms and out: that's my word, and Oregon's future.

Term Limits - Absolutely Needed

In an era of polarized discourse, political extremism—whether from the left or the right—poses a profound threat to stable governance and societal progress. Extremists on both ends of the spectrum often advocate for radical policies that prioritize ideological purity over pragmatic solutions, leading to division, inefficiency, and frequent policy failures. This article argues that extremists are almost always wrong in their opinions and policies due to their inherent extremism, which distorts reality and ignores nuance. In contrast, good governance thrives on moderation, which authentically reflects the preferences of the majority in any democratic body politic. Political extremism manifests as an uncompromising adherence to ideology, often rejecting compromise, evidence, or opposing viewpoints. On the right, this can appear in calls for unchecked deregulation, absolute border closures, or the dismantling of social safety nets in favor of pure market fundamentalism. On the left, it emerges in demands for sweeping wealth redistribution, the abolition of private enterprise, or the imposition of rigid identity-based quotas that override merit. Both sides share a common flaw: they view the world in binary terms—us versus them, revolution versus reaction—leaving no room for the gray areas where most human experiences reside. This black-and-white thinking is not just intellectually lazy; it is empirically disastrous.History is replete with examples of extremist policies failing spectacularly. Far-left experiments, from the Soviet Union's forced collectivization to Mao's Great Leap Forward, aimed to eradicate inequality through radical state control. The result? Tens of millions dead from famine and purges, with economies stagnating for decades. These are not anomalies; they are the predictable outcomes of extremism, where ideology trumps data, and dissent is silenced.Even in modern democracies, extremist influences yield poor results. In the United States, far-right pushes for total abortion bans post-Roe v. Wade (overturned in 2022) have led to public backlash, with referendums in states like Kansas and Ohio rejecting such extremes in favor of moderate protections. Also, on the left, defund-the-police movements following 2020 protests in cities like Minneapolis and Portland resulted in spikes in crime and voter repudiation; moderate reforms, like community policing investments, have proven more effective in reducing violence without dismantling law enforcement. Extremists' all-or-nothing approaches fail because they overestimate public appetite for upheaval and underestimate the complexity of social issues. Why are extremists almost always wrong? Their extremism breeds cognitive biases. Confirmation bias leads them to cherry-pick evidence supporting their views while dismissing contradictions. Left-wing extremists decry all capitalism as exploitative, overlooking how regulated markets have lifted billions out of poverty globally, per World Bank data. Moreover, extremism incentivizes performative outrage over substantive debate, amplified by social media echo chambers. This creates a feedback loop where policies are designed for viral appeal, not viability—think hyperbolic climate demands for immediate fossil fuel bans without transition plans, which ignore energy realities and job losses in affected sectors. In contrast, moderate governance succeeds by embracing compromise and evidence-based policymaking. Moderates recognize that most citizens are not ideologues; surveys like those from Pew Research Center reveal that majorities in the U.S. and Europe cluster around the center, favoring incremental changes such as expanded healthcare access without nationalization, or tax reforms that balance equity and growth. The post-World War II economic boom in Western democracies owed much to centrist policies: Keynesian economics tempered with free markets, welfare states without socialism. Leaders like Germany's Angela Merkel or Canada's Justin Trudeau (in his more pragmatic phases) navigated crises through consensus, not confrontation. Moderation honestly represents the majority because it mirrors the bell curve of public opinion. In any body politic, extremists occupy the tails—perhaps 10-20% on each side—while the bulk seeks practical solutions to everyday problems: affordable housing, quality education, secure jobs. Extreme policies alienate this center, leading to electoral defeats (e.g., the U.K.'s Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn) or policy reversals (e.g., France's yellow vest protests against fuel tax hikes framed as eco-extremism). A moderate or centrist government, by definition, builds broad coalitions, ensuring longevity and adaptability. It avoids the hubris of believing one ideology holds all answers, instead iterating through trial, error, and bipartisan input. The harm of extremism extends beyond policy failures to societal fabric. It fosters tribalism, eroding trust in institutions; Gallup polls show record-low confidence in government amid rising polarization. Violence often follows: January 6, 2021, in the U.S. stemmed from right-wing election denialism, while left-wing riots in 2020 caused billions in damage. Extremists poison discourse, making compromise seem like betrayal.In conclusion, political extremism on the left or right is a recipe for error because it prioritizes dogma over deliberation, leading to policies that are unworkable, unpopular, and ultimately reversed. Good governance is inherently moderate, drawing from diverse inputs to serve the majority's nuanced needs. Societies flourish when centrists lead, marginalizing extremists not through suppression but by demonstrating superior results. To build a functional polity, we must reject the siren call of extremes and embrace the steady path of moderation. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

The Harm of Political Extremism

In the arena of American politics, where candidates vie for the trust of a diverse electorate, philosophical underpinnings can profoundly shape not only policy proposals but also the interpersonal dynamics that underpin effective governance. Human relations—forged through empathy, dialogue, and mutual respect—are the lifeblood of legislation, coalition-building, and constituent service. A senator's ability to navigate these relations determines whether laws bridge divides or exacerbate them. This article argues that a candidate guided by the principles of ethical individualism, as articulated by Rabbi Russell McAlmond, emerges as a markedly superior choice over one who champions Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Rabbi McAlmond's framework, rooted in universal Jewish values and practical human-centered ethics, prioritizes the inherent dignity and uniqueness of the individual while fostering inclusive communities through voluntary bonds of respect. In contrast, DEI often imposes group-based quotas and identity-driven mandates that can erode personal accountability and genuine human connection. By examining these philosophies through the lens of political efficacy and relational impact, we see why ethical individualism equips a Senate candidate to lead with integrity and effectiveness. Ethical individualism celebrates the singular worth of every person, rejecting "group judgmentalism" and collectivist pressures that subordinate the self to group identities. It echoes the Jewish pursuit of tikkun olam (repairing the world) not through enforced uniformity, but through personal ethical striving that naturally builds harmonious relations. DEI, by contrast, represents a modern progressive orthodoxy that, while well-intentioned in addressing historical injustices, often prioritizes group affiliations—race, gender, ethnicity—over individual merit. Originating in corporate and academic settings, DEI frameworks mandate proportional representation, bias training, and equity audits to "correct" systemic disparities. In politics, a DEI-promoting candidate might advocate for legislation like expanded affirmative action in federal contracting or judicial appointments based on demographic balances. Yet this approach risks viewing people as avatars of their identity groups, fostering resentment when merit is sidelined for quotas. Critics, including legal scholars like Richard Sander, argue that such policies can perpetuate division by implying inherent group deficiencies, undermining trust in institutions. In human relations, DEI's emphasis on "lived experience" tied to identity can stifle open dialogue, as dissenting views are labeled as "microaggressions" or privilege-blindness, creating echo chambers rather than bridges.The divergence between these philosophies manifests starkly in the realm of politics and legislation, where human relations are not abstract ideals but practical necessities. A Senate candidate embodying McAlmond's ethical individualism approaches constituents as unique individuals, listening to their personal stories before crafting policy. Consider immigration reform: such a candidate might draw from McAlmond's method by invoking the rabbinic call to respect the stranger while grounding solutions in the realities of families at the border—perhaps proposing pathways to citizenship that reward personal initiative, like entrepreneurship or community service, rather than blanket amnesties based on group status. This builds relational capital: voters feel seen as moral equals, not statistical categories, leading to broader coalitions. In committee negotiations, the individualist senator fosters trust by appealing to shared ethical principles—fairness, compassion—allowing diverse voices to converge on pragmatic compromises. Historical precedents abound; leaders like Abraham Lincoln, who valued individual liberty amid national fracture, navigated crises through empathetic dialogues that honored personal agency, averting deeper schisms. McAlmond's own advocacy, such as coaching people to "view others as unique individuals deserving of respect and equal fair treatment" in local Oregon politics, exemplifies how this philosophy translates to real-world relational healing. A DEI-oriented candidate, however, might frame the same issue through intersectional lenses, prioritizing "equity" for marginalized groups via race-based allocations of resources. While this signals virtue to certain bases, it alienates others by implying that individual effort is secondary to group victimhood. In legislative horse-trading, such a stance can rigidify positions: concessions become "betrayals" of equity goals, eroding the relational flexibility needed for bills to pass. Real-world impacts are evident in polarized Congresses, where identity-focused rhetoric—exemplified by debates over the 2021 American Rescue Plan's equity provisions—has deepened partisan rifts, stalling progress on bipartisan issues like infrastructure. Human relations suffer as colleagues are reduced to oppressors or oppressed, fostering suspicion over solidarity. Data from Pew Research underscores this: trust in government plummets when policies emphasize group divisions, with 2024 surveys showing only 22% of Americans believing DEI enhances fairness, versus 41% viewing it as divisive.The relational superiority of McAlmond's ethical individualism lies in its capacity to humanize politics, transforming legislation from zero-sum battles into collaborative endeavors. This philosophy aligns with America's founding ethos—Emerson's self-reliance wedded to Tocqueville's voluntary associations—where individuals, empowered by ethical autonomy, form bonds based on mutual respect rather than mandated inclusion. A candidate like this would excel in town halls, not by checking diversity boxes, but by engaging personal narratives, much as McAlmond does in his rabbinic and advocacy work: deriving wisdom from universal values to illuminate individual paths, opposing "the fallacy of collective guilt" and promoting equality without favoritism. This yields durable alliances; think of senators like Kyrsten Sinema, whose independent streak prioritizes personal conviction over party-line identity politics, enabling cross-aisle deals.DEI's group-centric model, while addressing real inequities, often incentivizes performative allyship over substantive connection, weakening the interpersonal fabric of governance. In a Senate where filibusters demand 60 votes, relational acumen is paramount; a philosophy that views opponents as systemic threats hampers the empathy required for persuasion. Ethical individualism, conversely, equips candidates to legislate with a moral compass attuned to the human soul—diverse yet unified in ethical potential.In conclusion, Rabbi Russell McAlmond's ethical individualism renders a U.S. Senate candidate not merely competent, but transformative: a leader who honors the individual's unique journey while weaving inclusive tapestries of relation. In an era of fracturing trust, this philosophy outshines DEI's collectivist prescriptions, promising legislation born of genuine human encounter. Voters seeking senators who mend rather than moralize should champion the individualist—for in politics, as in life, true progress blooms from the soil of personal dignity.&nbsp;