Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District is comprised of a variety of political voices and opinions. The 24-county region includes left-leaning Johnson and Lee counties to much more conservative areas such as Washington and Mahaska counties. It is also flush with the type of pragmatism that drives policy discussions in counties like Cedar, Muscatine, Davis, Jasper and Scott. These voters are a large part of what makes the region special, and they deserve representation that can be just as flexible as they are.

This race pits 10-year incumbent Democrat Dave Loebsack against Libertarian-turned-Republican challenger Christopher Peters. Both men are qualified public servants, committed to serving the people of the 2nd District, but we believe Peters holds a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the issues and their impact on state residents.

In the past this editorial board has offered mixed support of Loebsack, endorsing his candidacy in one election and withholding it the next. This has not only stemmed from the practical reality of election year differences, but from the inability of Loebsack to define himself. After a decade, it isn’t unreasonable to expect an admirable and compelling personal history to give way to Congressional consummations. In our view, Loebsack has failed to consistently and effectively deliver those results.

Peters is a relative newcomer to Iowa politics (he had an unsuccessful bid for the Iowa Senate in 2010) with the drive and energy the 2nd District needs at this moment in history. He gives credit to his opponent, as do we, for work on behalf of veterans and the middle class, and then explains how his background will enable him to build on those successes and jump-start conversations on a host of other issues important to Iowans.

Peters has, for instance, served more than nine years as a surgeon in the Army. He attended medical school as part of the Army Health Professions Scholarship Program, and has been practicing as a thoracic surgeon in Iowa since 2004. His volunteer work includes the Iowa City Free Medical Clinic, local schools and youth sports.

There’s no doubt his firsthand experiences as a soldier and member of the medical community will be highly valued when Congress begins discussions on the Affordable Care Act and the Department of Veterans Affairs. We were impressed with his ability to articulate what other nations are doing in terms of health care, and his ability to apply what he’s learned to ongoing discussions here at home.

Peters is not a ideologue, pushing toward a certain health care agenda or married to a singular outcome. He seems truly open to exploring the possibilities and focusing on practical, effective solutions.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

We can think of no other Republican candidate in recent history who has offered measured, thoughtful stances on the hot-button issues of guns, climate change and immigration. While we may not agree with every facet of his proposals, we have no doubt that Peters will be a federal official who does his homework and votes in the best interest of his constituents.

Our respect for Peters was cemented when he became the only Iowa Republican seeking or holding a federal office to publicly disavow the reckless speech and alleged actions of Donald Trump, his party’s presidential nominee.

“Trump’s behavior and temperament are only a part of the problem. He has repeatedly demonstrated a poor grasp of constitutionalism, civil rights, the rule of law, the role of diplomacy versus military interventionism, and even fundamental economics. I should have spoken out against him much earlier, and regret that I failed to do so,” Peters wrote, adding he would not support Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Peters is pledging to work on reforms that could make it easier for third-party candidates to compete and restrict the influence of money in politics. We have no doubt that his tenure in Congress, like his campaign, will be marked by this level of civility and thoughtfulness.

By our estimation, that’s exactly what the people of the 2nd District need, and no less than they deserve.

l Comments: (319) 398-8469; editorial@thegazette.com