TO THE HEROES OF THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN OF 2018

Rose of all Roses, Rose of all the World!
You, too, have come where the dim tides are hurled
Upon the wharves of sorrow, and heard ring
The bell that calls us on; the sweet far thing.-the Rose of Battle, By Wm. B. Yeats

My friends, my fellow democrats, bear up, take heart.   And if this little love letter to the Cast and Crew of Campaign 2018 sounds romantic, don’t be afraid to tug at your heart strings.  Be glad, ye heroes, you live in a time of political romance!

 Last night, as we watched our hopes and hard fought efforts apparently go down the drain in the GA 47 Dawn Johnson for State Senate campaign, dawn gave me a gift with the following quote from JFK:  “Life is never easy, there is work to be done and obligations to be met.  Obligations to truth, to justice, and to liberty.”

We must bear up and soldier on because we are obliged to, by our sacred honor and commitment, and faith to our human family and our world.  That is what we do.  That is what is meant by the word democrat and democracy.   These things are sacred to us, and like our forefathers in World War II and the Civil War, who fought for justice, truth, and the human family, THAT IS WHY WE FIGHT.

We are found on the battleground of a longer struggle than a single election cycle, my friends.   Do not be confused, the troubles we face are the troubles which have formulated over at least the past 30 years in US politics, and they won’t likely be erased in any one election cycle.  This is hard because in my 30 years of political activism, I have never once seen such a lively, progressive, fighting, smart, kind hearted and dedicated bunch of candidates and activists.  I mean, not even close, nothing like it.  It is a bitter pill to see such gifted heroes like Dawn Johnson, Deborah Gonzalez, Josh McCall, Tabitha Johnson Green, Bill Nelson,  and fill in the blank, fine , fine candidates, from left to center right, who , regardless of political differences within our big tent, stood against tyranny and fell after a bracing and spirited fight. 

But we are in the struggle of 20 or 30 years.

That is the battle we must begin to fight, to see that it will take time and dedication, and enduring bitter losses as well as celebrating our heroes and victories.   The GOP crept in like a sneak thief in the night over a long period of time and pierced the soft underbelly of the country and took over the vast majority of state legislatures, and from there they rule the roost.  They control education and environment and police funding .  Possibly worst of all is the decay and lack of progressive vision for education, our criminal justice system, and the ecology.    We are devastated as democrats especially by the decay in our education system because education is a required component for democracy to work.  Our system’s decay from a democracy into an oligarchy dominated by an aristocratic elite is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE LACK OF COMMITMENT OF HANDINGTHE REINS OF GOVERNMENT TO THE YOUNG THROUGH AN EFFECTIVE EDUCATION SYSTEM.   The anarchic and polarizing and class and race-baiting warfare springing from dysfunction in our police and our criminal justice system with generations of poor Americans behind bars is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO A LACK OF VISION FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT LEVEL.   And as we see in this election in Georgia, when the forces of aristocracy and oligarchy dominate the state house and the other levers of government, there is no progress and backwards movement into voter suppression and voter intimidation, and really, just as bad, a lack of VOTER PROMOTION.   PROMOTING VOTING IS NECESSARY FOR DEMOCRACY.  With promoting voting, a democracy decays into an oligarchy, and worse, a stifling aristocracy.

So there is our work.   We must soldier on and continue to devise ways to communicate with greater strength, organize more effectively, and come up with the most effective strategies to win very close elections and overwhelm the party in power with 1000 cuts and fight them on every seat in the state legislature.  We must improve our organization at the county , district, and state level, because as activists, we can have the greatest impact on this level.  The national democratic party still pays very little interest in the minute details that keep us moving forward in our county parties, so it is us who must tend to these details, communicating in all earnestness with our fellow democrats, to prepare for the next election, but not just that one, the next 10 elections.

Because we are in a long, protracted fight, and we must have no illusions about that.

Bear up, ye heroes, bear up and rest.   Dream.   Be among friends.   Get some R&R, and we will come back soon and join together for the next push.  It is an honor to be among heroes like you.

THE FINAL DEATH OF DE FACTO JIM CROW AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVISM :

 WHY COMPLETING THE WORK OF THE RECONSTRUCTION IS A RENEWAL OF KING'S VISION FOR ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVISM AND A DEFEAT FOR OLIGARCHY

Jim Crow CSA monument being toppled in
Durham, NC, in the wake of the Nazi-led
death of peaceful protester Heather Heyer

“I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”-Steve Bannon, August 16, the American Prosepect 

The Funeral of Nazi victim Heather Heyer
August 17, 2017

“This past        election, the Democrats used every personal attack, including charges of racism, against President Trump,” Bannon wrote in an email to The Post’s Robert Costa last night. “He then won a landslide victory on a straightforward platform of economic nationalism. As long as the Democrats fail to understand this, they will continue to lose. But leftist elites do not value history, so why would they learn from history?”

John Brown's Confrontation Sparked the Civil War
Movement and led to the Abolition of
Slavery and the Progressive Movement

 The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive for now.

Teddy Roosevelt, the founder
of American Progressivism

At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. -Teddy Roosevelt, "New Nationalism" Speech,Osawatomie, Kansas, 1910 

“I personally feel that we made a mistake in fighting over the Confederate flag here in Georgia. Or that that was an answer to the problem of the death of nine people – to take down the Confederate flag in South Carolina.”-Andrew Young, August 16, 2017

Andrew Young, front and center

The conflict over the civil war Monuments is often cast in terms of a discussion about the Civil War. Former civil rights leader and Atlanta mayor Andrew Young recently spoke against such "confrontation" after Gubanatorial candidate Stacy Abrams proposed the elimination of the Confederate carving monument at Stone Mountain..    He said, “I think it’s too costly to refight the Civil War. We have paid too great a price in trying to bring people together."  In other words, "Confrontation doesn't change  mind(s),Engagement does."

THE OLD CIVIL RIGHTS GUARD AND THE FAILURE TO CONFRONT KING'S ECONOMIC VISION

Ironic words coming from a leader whose acts of civil disobedience, certainly acts of confrontation, once led the way to striking down de Jure Jim Crow laws.   He may be correct in that bit about confrontation not changing people's minds.   

Overall Mayor/Ambassador Young's sentiment reflects the failure of some civil rights leaders to complete the vision of Martin Luther King vis a vis the vision for either full employment or economic relief for those whom employment isn't an option.  

DOG WHISTLE RACISM FROM THE NEOLIBERAL CENTER AND IT'S OBVERSE, DOG WHISTLE CLASSISM

There is no doubt that leaders like Young earned their place as fierce fighters for equality at one point in the civil rights struggle.   But over time, many in the former civil rights leadership abandoned the voice of urgency (or sometimes abandoned the call altogether) for economic struggle, and united themselves with the like of neoliberal white leaders like the Clintons, who themselves showed at best a flimsy commitment to economic justice, and at worse embraced various forms of dog whistle class-race baiting, i.e. Clinton's kickoff of a mounted "get tough on crime campaign" at Stone Mountain, Georgia, a symbol of Jim Crow populism if ever there were one. 

Bill Clinton with fellow dog-whistle Democrats,
Rebel Flag supporter Ben Jones, Zig-Zag Zell,
and former Senator Sam Nunn
Who Supported A GOP Senate candidate in 2016

 Hillary Clinton played the opposite side of this coin of class discrimination when she coined the term "deplorables" for Trumps supporters, playing into Trump's wedge of keeping "rednecks" into his populist camp.    If Bill Clinton brought the white working class into the center-left camp by dog-whistle racism, Hillary put them outside of it by dog-whistle classism, which cemented a the racist-class populism of Trump. Meanwhile, Clinton's moves alienated economic populists (the left wing of the party), and failed to mobilize the minority vote in key areas, relative to the Obama voters.

Stone Mountain was established as a monument
for and by the KKK, in 1915, at the 2nd
birth of the KKK in Jim Crow Georgia
Both Democratic candidates for the Governorship,Stacey Abrams and Stacey Evanshave called for the altering of the memorial asa symbol of Jim Crow oppression.

RACIAL-CLASS CONFRONTATION:  THE KEY TO THE REVIVAL OF CENTER-LEFT ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVISM

So how are these developments and attitudes relevant to the Monument issue?  The key can be found when one examines the historical era which is actually being revisited now, and it isn't really a "refight of the civil war", as Mayor Young cast the issue, but rather, the beginning of the Progressive era, and a re-fight of the Jim Crow era in the South.  In other words, it is a re-fight of the Reconstruction, which I would argue was the beginning of Progressivism, including Economic Progressivism, which was crystallized in the 2nd Progressive era in the economic philosophy of T. Roosevelt, and advanced further in the New Deal and the Great Society, only to be abandoned by neoliberal policies of the New Democrats, aka the Clintons and their followers.   The Monument issue and it's renewal of the core issues of the Progressive era indicate a shift leftward in economic attitudes, a willingness to confront the past, and an opportunity for the left wing of the party to continue to press forward on King's economic visions.

The tendency of center left leaders like Bill Clinton to use dog whistle racism, and Hillary Clinton to use dog whistle classism, and the tendency of people of color to align themselves with such leaders and tactics, is a sign of a progressive train that has jumped off the tracks of the vision of a Martin Luther King, or even of a Teddy Roosevelt.   

The failure to confront economic inequality and economic nationalism is the kind of wedge that Bannon and the Trumpies can exploit.   The symbolism of confrontation of Jim Crow works against them in the opposite way and encourages economic equality by eliminating the political object of the race class wedge as a decisive political factor:  the working class white voter.  It also mobilizes all left wing activists on behalf of historical justice.

Takyia Thompson, 22, arrested
and charged with the destruction of the
CSA Monument in Durham, August 16, 2017

By pushing the democratic party away from passive dog-whistle support of patronizing the white working class with visions of class superiority (white power), the center left only leaves open two political routes for electoral victory:  demonizing the working white voter , as Hillary did with her "deplorables" dog whistle classism, or moving towards economic justice (King's vision) as a way of an opening towards all working class voters, including the white working class.   

Dog-whistle Classism, the flip side of dog-whistle racism

ROOSEVELT'S ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVISM AS A CENTER LEFT  LABOR PARTY APPROACH TO COUNTER BANNON'S FAR RIGHT ECONOMIC NATIONALISM

 This was largely the approach at the beginning of the 2nd Progressivism, found in Roosevelt's "Square Deal" rhetoric in his "New Nationalism" Speech.   The thrust of this progressivism was to fight with the confrontational spirit of a John Brown on behalf of economic justice, or inother words to support a kind of Labor party.  He opened it by chastising the lack of vision of those who didn't connect the two:

I do not speak of this struggle of the past merely from the historic standpoint. Our interest is primarily in the application to-day of the lessons taught by the contest a half a century ago. It is of little use for us to pay lip-loyalty to the mighty men of the past unless we sincerely endeavor to apply to the problems of the present precisely the qualities which in other crises enabled the men of that day to meet those crises. It is half melancholy and half amusing to see the way in which well-meaning people gather to do honor to the men who, in company with John Brown, and under the lead of Abraham Lincoln, faced and solved the great problems of the nineteenth century, while, at the same time, these same good people nervously shrink from, or frantically denounce, those who are trying to meet the problems of the twentieth century in the spirit which was accountable for the successful solution of the problems of Lincoln’s 

He followed this by opening the way for a Labor party, that is a party that advocates for the cause of Laborers being superior to the cause of Capitalism, and that it was the just requirement of political leadership that they advocate on behalf of this progressivism. Quoting Lincoln's famous elevation of the cause of Labor over the cause of Capitol:

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."

And again:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

He then clarifies that he is not a Marxist, as he is not anti capitalist, but rather a Labor-Progressive, seeing the two ideas (Labor and Capital) as simultaneously in competition with each other as well as complimentary:

If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a Communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln’s. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the working man hear his side.

"Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. . . . Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor; . . . property is desirable; is a positive good in the world."

And then comes a thoroughly Lincoln-like sentence:

"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."

It seems to me that, in these words, Lincoln took substantially the attitude that we ought to take; he showed the proper sense of proportion in his relative estimates of capital and labor, of human rights and property rights.

 Above all, in this speech, as in many others, he taught a lesson in wise kindliness and charity; an indispensable lesson to us of today.

He concluded this comparison with another urgent appeal for economic intervention, in the form of confrontation, in the form of a warning:

 But this wise kindliness and charity never weakened his arm or numbed his heart. We cannot afford weakly to blind ourselves to the actual conflict which faces us today. The issue is joined, and we must fight or fail.

.   Roosevelt's Progressivism stands in stark contrast to Democrat Wilson's revaunchist and reactionary racial policies, as well as his resistance to women's voting rights (he signed off on this after a long struggle against it).   I cite this difference to frame the following point:   having a "D" in front of a politician's name does not signify whether or not they support Progressivism as an ideology, especially not economic progressivism, or economic justice.   The Clintons would be more in the camp of Taft and his voters, who used dog whistle racism or racial platitudes combined with a mostly neoliberal approach to economics, which led the way to a greater distance from the once Progressive economics which followed out of the support for interventionism in economics the GOP began to embrace after the Civil War.     Trump, in this paradigm, is Woodrow Wilson, who managed to convince various groups, including African American voters, that he was friendly to their cause.   

CONFRONTATIONAL ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVISM VS. THE ZIG ZAG OF CLINTONIAN TRIANGULATION OR "RECONCILIATION"

And so re fighting the effects of Jim Crow has the potential effect of wedging the Democrats in the following way:  it places the old lions of the civil rights era, like Andrew Young, who long ago gave up on the economic vision of King and replaced with an alliance with dog-whistle neoliberal Democrats, "mentored"  (according to the Clintons)by old dog whistle racists like Fullbright and former Klansmen like Robert Byrd,  into the policy of "triangulation" with right wing economic and class issues.  The result of this embrace of old school Southern Strategy politics has devastated the democratic party at the poll booth.   This is essentially the politics of "reconciliation" the same kind of tone that Obama sought with the GOP.   It essentially was giving red meat to the far right wing of the GOP and wedging the working class white voter out of the Democratic party by patronizing them, and the applied demagoguery aimed at voters of color had a similar appeal:  not much.

But Trump/Bannon's movement to the right has provided the center left in general, and the economic progressive left in specific a target of opportunity to unite the center left under the banner of class progressivism.

A SYMBOLIC ANALYSIS OF THE FAILURE OF BANNON'S WEDGE

Here's a symboicl-analysis of why Bannon is wrong about the Monument issue being a wedge. Summary-in short it is because RACE is used as an aspect of class warfare by the oligarchy.

Wedge effects vs. "diversion" effects. A. Wedge: I SHORT TERM EFFECTS: 1. It doesn't effect his core voters. That is, it doesn't increase them but it doesn't decrease them. 2. It doesn't effect non-Trump supporters, except to strengthen the resolve of non-Trump Republicans to avoid working with Trumpies. II. LONG TERM EFFECTS: The gradual elimination of racist appeals by Democrats and Republicans alike.

It is a historic shift, like the Dixiecrats leaving the Dem. party. Ultimately the effect will be economic. That is, the oligarchic leaders of the old south and their apologists elsewhere have long preyed upon class sensitivity of the working class euro male (and even some African Americans caught up in this kind of class division) by keeping a class of people at the bottom of the pyramid via the use of "race",a totally false construct.

As Trump and Bannon are forced to the right by their own wedge, they reduce the chances that oligarchs can successfully use this class wedge in the future. While the long term failure of this political wedge is far from certain, it doesn't matter in the short run, because it doesn't work on the left. On the left, those who are sympathetic to the monuments as "heritage" are highly unlikely to shift into the Trump camp over this.

B. DIVERSIONARY TACTIC; I think the unifying effect this issue has on the center left outweighs the temporary effect on the other issues. It has the potential of healing the center left by providing a lens for both centrists and leftists to see the political utility in working together.

It doesn't increase the chance that the moderates in the GOP will work effectively with the Tea Party GOP.

It doesn't increase the chance that Centrist democrats will be able to continue neoliberal policies begun in the 90s.

The shift among the Democrats is important: it eliminates dog whistle racism among the Democrats as well as a potential way the neoliberals might shift to the right. It brings back the historical memory that the Clintons, the main, most successful proponents of neoliberalism in the Dem party, have been complicit in dog whistle racism, and undermines the neoliberals in doing so. Fighting racism is fighting class warfare against the oligarchy, so winning this battle is an important economic objective.

CONCLUSION

In the final analysis, sometimes leaders wear out their welcome and place as leaders because they lose the vision which once made them vital. Andrew Young is an example of a one time lion whose desire for a peaceful retirement from politics has perhaps shielded him from the terror and ugliness which can accompany political battles which still need to be fought. King's legacy is still incomplete, as he sought economic change which has not yet come to pass.

Young said that change of minds doesn't come from confrontation, but at the end of the day the Progressive movement which Teddy Roosevelt began wasn't about changing minds, it was about changing the political landscape. It was about uniting the heretofore passive with the activists in the name of economic change and equality. It was about justice.

Roosevelt's anti Jim Crow Progressivism was rooted in a benign attitude, but not a passive one, as he said: "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."... in these words, Lincoln took substantially the attitude that we ought to take; he showed the proper sense of proportion in his relative estimates of capital and labor, of human rights and property rights. Above all, in this speech, as in many others, he taught a lesson in wise kindliness and charity; an indispensable lesson to us of today. But this wise kindliness and charity never weakened his arm or numbed his heart. We cannot afford weakly to blind ourselves to the actual conflict which faces us today. The issue is joined, and we must fight or fail.

Roosevelt's Progressivism, the answer to Jim Crow populism, was essentially about confrontation, and while confrontation may not necessarily lead to reconciliation in the minds of those on the side of injustice, it was a kind of conversation about the past, present, and future. The Monuments issue is a moment of unity connecting us though a moment of "fight or fail", and wedging out the failed leadership of the Democrats who no longer or long ago gave up the will to fight.

Chalis Pomeroy Montgomery's Call to Arms on Bastille Day and a Renewal of Progressivism in Georgia Politics

Chalis Pomeroy Montgomery
Democratic Party Candidate
for the GA 10th Congressional
Seat

CHALIS MONTGOMERY’S CALL TO ARMS

Chalis Montgomery is going to kick off her campaign for the 10^th Congressional Seat of Georgia on the theme of Bastille Day, (July 14-though her campaign won’t officially begin until July 14).   The French Revolution began in part over riots around the high cost of bread and Louis XVI’s incompetence and “let them eat cake” attitude springing from his distance, well kept from the plight of the common people.

This revolution for the common people is a fitting theme for her candidacy often opens her stump speech with an anecdote about one of her feisty Pomeroy ancestors, be it a revolutionary figure at Lexington, Massachusetts,  or an English squire fighting for dispossessed sharecroppers. 

For her this history isn’t academic, it seems more akin to a muse for her, her ancestors watching over her like the figure of Clio, the muse of history, overseeing the acts of congress.   There is in her a passion for justice in this time of reckless robber barony we live in.  She calls the people to arms to address the injustice, in the tradition of Martin Luther King.    A call to peaceful arms, if you will.  And resistance, yes, but better, for real progress, for instance, in the form of universal health care and a living wage, as well as support for small businesses with corporate tax relief while asking the large corporations to pay their fair share. For her, it’s no academic case, since her daughter’s health care is at stake.

Marianne, a symbol of the French 
Revolution, with Phrygian Cap,

Called the "Liberty Cap" 

during the American 

Revolution,
the Symbol of the Voter.
Chalis embraces the kind
of populism that calls
for more power for
the voters and less
for the very wealthy

 If this all sounds a bit dear or overly poetic for politics, I blame Chalis.  With her background in music, business, and ministry, she brings not just the usual competency you’d expect one  must have to make a go of Congressional politics, she has the subtle fire of southern backwoods preaching, and the pleasant harmony of music to accompany  it.   Chalis Montgomery reaches deep into an old loving tradition of American Progressive Populism-that strain of appeal to the needs of the common people, the good, hard working citizens of this country not looking for an entitlement, but rather a just society where a rising tide lifts all boats. 

She’s a new breed of Progressive Southern Democrat, who supports a Universal Health Care program and isn’t afraid to stand up for it.  She shares her progressive spirit with other progressive fighters for improvements and expansions in democracy like Josh McCall (Georgia 9th Congressional Seat) and RJ Hadley, for Secretary of State.  With a background in small business, she’s aware of the impact of Federal policies on them, and realizes that Universal Health Care will ease the burden of health insurance on small business people.  Likewise, while she seeks to increase corporate taxes for the larger corporations, she looks to ease rates for small businesses. 

Chalis, along with other Progressive Georgia

Candidates like Josh McCall and RJ Hadley

recall a time of more outspoken champions of

a "Square Deal" for the Common Person, with

the Fighting Spirit of a Great Progressive

Like Teddy Roosevelt

Conservative politicians, such as her opponent Jody Hice fantasize making the size of government small enough to “drown in a bathtub”, and take part in tax schemes which create huge payouts for the very wealthy.  Meanwhile, Chalis, like Progressive President Teddy Roosevelt, realizes that the federal government has an important role to play as a servant of the common people rather than the corporate lobbyists in Washington who call the shots and hire politicians like Hice in a never ending revolving door.   Chalis Pomeroy Montgomery, like her ancestors, knows when it is time to fight.  As she says, “It is time to hear the call to arms to stand up for what we believe in this country.”  She plans to stand up for the common folk of Georgia and seek to place their interest above the very wealthy who take an ever increasing share of the wealth of this nation.

  

Links: Chalis Montgomery's website:https://www.montgomery2018.com/

Her Evite Appeal:  https://www.evite.com/event/00F4277EHOTHMINFSEPHMVZND32PQ4/rsvp?utm_campaign=send_sharable_link&utm_medium=sharable_invite&utm_source=www.facebook.com

Her Appearance at the Columbia County Democratic Party:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL2KotIbgY8&feature=youtu.be

Josh McCall for All (for the 9th Congressional Seat:https://mccallforall.com/   Supports Universal Health Care

RJ Hadley (Progressive for Secretary of State): http://rjhadley.com/  Supports Automatic Voter Registration and replacing the vulnerable electronic voting system.

LOSING your entitled upper CLASS OFF! Unapologetic Neoliberal Boy Wonder explains how his near win kept the Suburbs safe from Working Class values.

Techno-enthusiast Jon Ossoff focusing on Working Class
Centered Campaign.  JK!  He said f*** those guys
that work at the BK lounge, I'm bringing tech jobs
to rich suburbanites that can afford college!

Running a campaign in the time honored tradition established by the Clintons and other “3^rd Way” neoliberal democrats in the 1990s, boy genius Jon Ossoff led the democratic party to a soaring almost-win  in the Northern Suburbs of Atlanta in a special election on June 20^th.   

Noting that"a lack of citizen engagement allowed darkness to creep in and gain a foothold in our democracy," Ossoff, like his proud neoliberal role models, refused to shoulder absolutely any responsibility for the lack of citizen engagement (in the form of working class votes) which might have translated into a actual victory.  

Ironically, Ossoff ran in the same party which once so dominated the political scene through it’s democratic socialist policies known as the New Deal, that an opposition party President, Ike Eisenhower, said that only idiots were opposed to these policies!   And all this during the greatest period of Economic Growth the US has ever known! 

Teddy Roosevelt and FDR , actual Progressives, who supported high taxes on the wealthy
wondered what the hell Ossoff meant when he said he "struck a blow in this
new era for progress."   "He doesn't even support raising taxes on the rich, like
I did, and I was a wealthy Republican, said TR.  "He's a total poser said FDR, but he sure is cute."

Observers were amazed with Jon Ossoff’s obvious dark sense of humor as he laughingly ruled out raising taxes on the wealthiest in our society and then claimed he promoted “fiscal responsibility”, claiming to support Medicare and Medicaid as he likewise ruled out any talk of a single payer health care system which might take care of all people. 

President LB Johnson, who actually created Medicaid and
Medicare was totally shocked that Ossoff refused to try
to do any better than resting on the laurels of the
programs he created over 50 years ago, saying,
"that dog won't hunt Jon.  You gotta aim
higher than that unless you are just a neoliberal
putz."

 Like a perfect neoliberal, he ran an “economy” first campaign, again pointing out the irony of being on a party ticket with the likes of Franklin Roosevelt who clearly ran a “working people  first” kind of campaign and won 4 consecutive elections!   This guy was hilarious!  And he touted his “enormous turnout” that utterly failed to mobilize working class voters, which was a big surprise to everyone since his “message” was utterly devoid of any issues that might attract them to vote for a so-called Democrat!    Noting that he was totally committed to values which all social liberals were committed to, he happily overlooked any kind of economic values that might have won him the election and his supporters were overjoyed that he’s staying in the fight and staying on the message that has brought the neoliberal Democrats to the point they are at now.   It might be a long way from the era where the economic progress of the US for the working class was on the rise, such as in the progressive gains from the 1890s-1920s or the late 1930s-1960s, but this good old fashioned 1990s  neoliberal message of values that appeal to the well heeled upper class suburbanites is a message that he’s “not done fighting for.”

"Radicals" vs.the Fearful Center: the California Neoliberal Democrats Block Single Payer

California-Rejected "Radical" health care for all.

WHAT IS RADICAL NOW WILL SEEM INEVITABLE AND REASONABLE IN HINDSIGHT
During the passage of the 13th , 14th and 15th Amendments to the US, which sought the freedom and further, the equality of African Americans, those who stood most solidly in the corner of this progress were termed "Radical" Republicans.   After the civil war, the political establishment gradually moved towards settling the issues of equality behind doors instead of out in the open, but from 1863-1877, the "Radicals" had their way of fighting for equality for freed slaves, and thus for the equality of all people in the United States.  This was the beginning of the Progressive movement, the end of slavery and equality for all.  The earliest progressives, like Thaddeus Stevens, weren't afraid of the "term" radical.   As Barry Goldwater said, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.  Those who would value their political power, the centrist democrats who stand in opposition of a health care for all system, risk the danger of being on the wrong side of history, like those who opposed the "radical" vision of equality for all after the civil war.

Leaders Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren stand up
for the "Radical" idea of Health Care for All

THE RADICAL VISION OF HEALTH CARE FOR ALL VS. OBAMACARE
 I would argue now that the Conservatives in the GOP have impaled themselves on their Pickett's Charge of their failing ACHA bill , the time is to move beyond the moderate reforms of Obamacare towards a more radical vision of equality:  real health care for all.  Call it single payer, Medicare for all, Canadian style system, it doesn't matter.   The fact of the matter is this about the status quo of health care and our political tug-of-war with the defenders of our grossly inadequate health care system:
1.  Obamacare didn't go far enough:   even it's (More honest) defenders admit it doesn't cover millions of people.  Millions still are priced out of the system all together.
2.  Obamacare didn't deal enough with costs.   As many experts on the costs in the current system will tell you, the pay-per-service system winds up adding huge expenses that wouldn't be necessary in a system where costs are abated universally.
3.  Millions of people have health care they can't afford:  millions of people are still priced out of getting good care because of copays and deductibles.
Progressives like Bernie Sanders  have long stood up for moving forward on a comprehensive Health-Care-For All system (like Canada's) that would reduce the overall costs that puts our market based system at the bottom of the advanced economies of the world.   Today, Elizabeth Warren has made what should be the obvious point that if Democrats made a more progressive platform, they might perform better in 2018 and 2020 then they have, now, at their lowest point of political power since the 1920s.  “President Obama tried to move us forward with health-care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts,” Warren told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

“Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single payer," she added.

Democratic Leader Pelosi is Obstructing
 Health Care for All

WHY DOES THE DEMOCRATIC CENTER OPPOSE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL?
So why does the Obstructionist center of the democratic party refuse to discuss these issues?   Why would they prefer to keep the discussion about the incompetent GOP plans to move backwards?

UNKNOWNS AND PROBLEMS WITH SINGLE PAYER NEED TO BE WORKED OUT AND DISCUSSED, NOT PUT ASIDE AND BURIED


Who knows for sure?  One can only speculate, really.  In California the center of the Democratic Party just blocked further discussion of Single Payer(SB 562), in spite of it having passed the house.    Perhaps it has something to do  money going to the likes of Democratic Speaker of the CA House Rendon from the Insurance industry.   Why is Nancy Pelosi against it?  Why are countless centrist democrats against even a discussion of it? Planned Parenthood helped block debate and discussion by having it tabled in California, arguing that in California, " under the structure of a totally state-funded health care system, the only way women could obtain an abortion is if they paid out of pocket. "    This certainly is an important consideration that must be worked around, a lot more so than Rendon's argument that there was no indication of how the measure would be funded.   The abortion issue must find a solution, as I'm sure the vast majority of the advocates of radical equality in health care would agree:  no progressive would want to see poor women lose access to abortion or other reproductive services.  We are all fighting for access to those services!   So why would Planned Parenthood simply block debate and movement of a bill from ultimate passage without such a discussion?  PP, Rendon, and the LA Times (subtle subtext) all make a false argument that this discussion is still ongoing.  Rendon pleads, "I didn't kill the bill."    Obama might have said he too didn't "kill" discussion of single payer.  But advocates of single payer know this:  it won't go anywhere if there isn't some legislative movement. Rendon, Planned Parenthood's, and the LA Times slash piece on Single Payer notwithstanding, the centrists tabling of SB 562 is just like the many sandbags that opponents of a good Civil Rights bill did for years, including lots of people of otherwise good will who ultimately supported the Civil Rights Bill of 1965.  Why?

HEEL DRAGGING BY THE POLITICAL CENTER
If it didn't make one sick, it might make one nostalgic for the heel dragging of another era in American politics, when the recidivists in the Democratic party dragged their heels and through legislative procedure dodged debate and discussion of Civil Rights.  One of the greatest advocates for civil rights, LBJ, dragged his heels with the best of them for years until events and pressure from Civil Rights groups forced his hand, and he acted progressively with aplomb.

FEAR OF LOSING POLITICAL FOOTING GUIDES THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE CENTRISTS
 Politicians hate to relinquish power, and LBJ was no exception.  After passing the Civil Rights Act of 1965, he famously groaned that the Democrats would lose power for a generation.

The Centrists in the Democratic party have held power since the 1990s, when they chased away the vestiges of the New Deal with the new "3rd Way" political philosophy, now known better as "neoliberal" economics.   The centrists are afraid of anything which suggests even the mildest forms of socialism, unless these programs are already part of the political bedrock of US politics, to the point where even the GOP avoids the appearance of grabbing too tightly to a 3rd rail.

OBAMA AND THE CENTRISTS BLOCKED DISCUSSION OF SINGLE PAYER 
But this hovering around a political base centered on treasured chestnuts instead of a vision for how to progress further, has led to fraying around the edges.   Obama famously squelched discussion of Single Payer, arguing instead for some kind of compromise position that the GOP might support, which never materialized.  Instead he compromised without need, and avoided the "radical" label which frightened him.  He compromised on Social Security, allowing the COLA adjustments to be watered down as well.  At the end of the day, Lincoln like, he did support some progress on health care, albeit in a cautious way designed to avoid the wroth of the right wing.    Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has solidly blocked discussion of Single Payer, fighting against it being in the Democratic Party Platform, in spite of a 2016 Gallup Poll showing 58% public support for replacing Obamacare with a comprehensive federally funded health care system.    Likewise polls this year in the Washington Post and Politico have indicated a majority of Americans support such a system. 

THE LAST HURRAH OF THE GREATEST OBSTACLE TO HEALTH CARE FOR ALL:  THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND THEIR ALLIES
This misplaced coddling only emboldened the right wing  and empowered the Insurance industry to hang on for this, another round where their influence can be keenly felt to be restraining a "radical" solution:  health care for all people, where costs are controlled by eliminating the "need" for profit and recoupment by a health care system which is still being inadequately funded.  The problems and shortcomings, including the abortion issue with Single Payer  and other details still need to be worked out.  They can't be worked out without discussion and debate, especially one that would naturally follow if the legislative process had been allowed to be continued in California by debating the issue in the house.  Of course, keeping this debate allows craven democratic  politicians to avoid having their name attached to any particular position.  For those who support the "radical" idea that all US citizens, including the middle class, should have access to health care they can afford without ridiculous copays, premiums, and deductibles, will have to fight the "well meaning" obstructionists in the center who are afraid of the political fallout which might ensue from such a discussion.  

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’-Bob Dylan