One of my least favorite acts in political commentary is when someone tries to solve Washington State’s politics by invoking Dan Evans.
Pollster Stuart Elway’s numbers give that nostalgia something to point to: forty years of unbroken Democratic control over the governor’s office, and voters who feel less represented in state government with every passing cycle. The fix, we’re told, is a return to the “Evans moderate middle,” a lost bipartisan sweet spot the state misplaced sometime after Dixy Lee Ray.
The trouble is that Dan Evans was never a moderate. To lean on another hackneyed cliché about Evans: he trained as a civil engineer before running for office, and it showed. Moderates manage what already exists. Engineers build what doesn’t.
I want to acknowledge that taking on Stuart Elway is a steep climb. He has forgotten more about state government than most of us will ever know. But when commentators cleave too tightly to a common-sense understanding of the past, we are led deeply astray about our current situation.
Evans governed from 1965 to 1977, a Republican in the Bull Moose tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, closer in temperament to Nelson Rockefeller than to anyone currently running under that party’s banner.
He didn’t administer the state so much as reconstruct it in ways that mayors like Katy Wilson or Zohran Mamdani, or other Democratic Socialists of America, could only dream of.
His greatest achievements resemble a Beatles catalog more than the modest but snappy Cars discography his reputation suggests today.
In 1970, before the federal EPA existed, his administration stood up the nation’s first state-level Department of Ecology. In 1967, he took a loose patchwork of junior colleges and welded it into a single, state-funded community college system, then built Evergreen State College out of nothing as an experiment in public liberal arts education. That same year, even before the Boldt Decision or co-management was a twinkle in the state’s eye, he created the State Indian Affairs Commission by executive order. In 1971, he did the same for the State Women’s Council. In 1975, over real regional hostility, he sent state officials to Camp Pendleton to welcome Southeast Asian refugees into Washington. In 1972, he pushed through the Washington Futures bond measures, a statewide investment in water systems, parkland, and pollution control that people now mostly take for granted, the way you take for granted a bridge you’ve never thought about falling down.
None of that reads like the record of a man who split differences.
Then come today’s actual battles. This fall’s election is shaping up to be an OK Corral over the idea of a state income tax. Even in what passed for Republicanism in the 1960s and 1970s, expanding the tax base was not a mainstream idea.
Twice, in 1969 and again in 1973, Evans spent real political capital trying to replace the state’s sales-tax-dependent revenue system with a state income tax. He lost both times. The attempt was a bid to rip out the foundation of how Washington funds itself and pour a new one, which is as far from splitting the difference as a governor can get.
I’m going to pause here to reflect on why I think Evans’ legacy is so misunderstood. Brent Walth’s “Fire at Eden’s Gate” is a definitive, third-party biography of Tom McCall, who in many ways was Oregon’s splashier counterpart to Dan Evans. Both governed as progressive Republicans during the 1960s and 1970s, and both harbored national political aspirations. McCall died in 1983, but both men were ultimately stymied because being a progressive in Republican politics left them without a clear lane. Crucially, “Fire at Eden’s Gate” (unlike McCall’s own autobiography, “Tom McCall: Maverick”) offers a clear-eyed explanation not only of who McCall was, but of how he developed and where he fit into Oregon’s trajectory. Rather than depending on short, 500-word spurts of political commentary, we have a 500-page literary history of the politician and the state to learn from.
Evans’ own autobiography, disappointingly released four years ago by the Legacy Washington Project, is a mishmash of personal reflections, low-density insights, and oral histories. To say it fails to meet the moment is a drastic understatement. I can imagine a Brent Walth version of Evans’ life written in the 1980s or 1990s, offering Washington State historians and commentators a far clearer view of our political history through his career. Instead, we are left with a gauzy view of a moderate who never existed.
So why does “moderate” stick to him anyway? Part of it is an optical illusion created by distance.
Washington’s two parties no longer share any real ideological overlap. So any Republican who governed before that gap opened reads, in hindsight, as a centrist by default. If we cared about all three-term Republican governors equally, Art Langlie might equally be cited as Evans as our uber-moderate.
Another part of it is a category error, the assumption that “worked with Democrats” must mean “wanted less” Republican things. The real story is that Democrats held the legislature through nearly all of Evans’s tenure, and working with them was the only way anything got done. He was simply doing what a governor does when he is looking for a win.
It’s also worth asking who actually killed the income tax, because it wasn’t a mythical moderate middle failing to show up. Evans purged the John Birch Society from the state GOP in 1965 and took fire from his own party’s right flank for years afterward.
His tax package died ironically at the hands of the Washington State Labor Council, working alongside conservative Democrats who didn’t trust that sales tax cuts would stay cut, that corporate loopholes would actually close, or that a Republican governor’s hand on an income tax lever wouldn’t eventually fall heavily on working people. That was an entrenched coalition choosing a flawed status quo over structural risk, which are two very different political afflictions.
This is where Elway’s historic framing, for all its useful polling, points in the wrong direction. His numbers are accurate: voter optimism has fallen steadily since 2000, the sense of being represented in the state legislature has eroded just as steadily, and Gary Locke, Chris Gregoire, Jay Inslee, and Bob Ferguson have each posted negative job-performance ratings despite Democrats holding an eighteen-point (and growing) identification advantage and solid legislative majorities.
But Elway’s frame treats the loss of two-party equilibrium as the cause, as if the discontent would ease the moment Republicans could compete again. It wouldn’t, because competition was never what people were actually missing.
What voters are reacting to is that they keep electing candidates who run on structural change, and they keep getting careful administrators running Evans’s institutions on autopilot.
Locke and Gregoire inherited the Department of Ecology, the community college system, Evergreen, the whole architecture Evans built, and they governed it defensively, protecting what already existed instead of building what didn’t. That approach stops holding up when housing costs triple in a generation, when transit can’t come close to keeping pace with growth, when the state still runs on the most regressive tax structure in the country. Running 1970s machinery with real competence starts to look, after enough years, less like governance and more like curating a museum.
The actual disease is what one-party rule lets a party get away with: governing cautiously out of fear of a Republican challenger who, across most of Washington, doesn’t meaningfully exist.
The cost of caution compounds. When a technocratic government stops asking why the road is falling apart and gets really good at patching the potholes, it opens a gap between what the government does and what people need it to do.
That gap doesn’t stay empty for long. It’s exactly the space anti-institutionalism moves into, whether that takes the shape of a tax-slashing ballot initiative, a fringe candidate, or plain contempt for the idea that institutions can still accomplish anything. You don’t argue your way out of that kind of contempt with tighter management. You build your way out of it, the way Evans did, by giving people new institutions worth believing in.
Evans was never the patron saint of restraint we keep invoking when they get tired of our government. He was the last governor in Washington State willing to treat the state itself as something you build. The moderate middle everyone’s nostalgic for never existed. What existed was a governor who thought building government was the job.











