I strongly oppose looting, rioting, and vandalizing at protests. I often share the frustration that drives a small minority of protesters to destroy during emotional protests. But I unequivocally oppose it, because it’s illegal, it usually victimizes innocent people, and it hurts the cause.
Because an overwhelming majority of Americans share that sentiment, conservatives work overtime to falsely paint the left as being somehow pro-rioting. The latest example of this can be found throughout social media and political discourse. It goes something like this: “At least the Capitol protesters didn’t burn and loot, like the Black Lives Matters (BLM) and Antifa. Why are you outraged about the Capitol protesters but weren’t outraged about BLM looters?”
Let’s dissect that piece of false equivalency, a logical fallacy where two very unequal things are falsely implied to be the same, or of equal magnitude. What happened at the U.S. Capitol building is qualitatively different than what happened at a relatively small number of the BLM protests.
Trump’s Inciting v. Biden’s Condemning. First, President Trump incited the Capitol assault. That conclusion is shared by both Democrats and Republicans, including members of his Administration. Then, after the violent insurrection happened, and the nation and world were watching in horror, Trump hit the airwaves to say of the Trump-supporting violent rioters:
“We love you. You’re very special… I know how you feel.”
Trump embraced and celebrated his followers’ violent insurrection.
In sharp contrast, President-elect Biden never called for looting. When it happened, he immediately and repeatedly condemned it, and called for protesters committing crimes to be prosecuted.
“Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”
Supporters of Trump have no basis for criticizing supporters of Biden on this issue. None. Biden has clearly denounced violence and destruction at protests, while Trump has cheered it.
Just Cause v. False Cause. It’s also important to recognize that Black Lives Matter looters had true and justifiable reasons to be filled with raged when they took to destruction in the heat of the moment. They had just witnessed a clear video of a black man needlessly and casually murdered slowly by an arrogant white police officer. They had lived their whole lives in a country where people of color are disproportionately victimized by police officers, and where police officers are almost never held accountable for their brutal crimes.
Martin Luther King, Jr. opposed rioting, but he explained it to white people who can’t know what it’s like to be black in America:
“…it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”
In stark contrast, the Capitol insurrectionists had no evidence of election fraud. During dozens of counts, audits, recounts, re-recounts, certification reviews, and lawsuits, often overseen by Republicans or Republican-appointed officials, no evidence of fraud was produced by Trump’s team or found by election officials. Those reviews, conducted over a long 64-day period, corroborated the finding of the Trump-appointed head of election security, who found that the 2020 election was the most secure in history.
Those reviews found that Joe Biden won by 7 million votes and 74 electors, the largest margin for a challenger since 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover.
In other words, the BLM riots were sparked by serial murder and denial of justice, while the Capitol insurrection was driven by a well-proven lie.
Destroying Property v. Destroying Democracy. Finally, looters at BLM marches destroyed property, while Capitol looters were trying to destroy the most meaningful and valuable thing in America — democracy. Ignoring Republican-overseen counts, audits, recounts, re-recounts, certifications, and lawsuits finding the 2020 presidential election to be free and fair, the Capitol insurrectionists were trying to silence the voices of 81 million Americans, and effectively end American democracy. They were attempting a traitorous coup against America.
Again, I strongly denounce looting, rioting and vandalizing at protests. But this must be fully understood: Torching property in the name of a proven injustice is infinitely less harmful to the common good than torching democracy in the name of a proven lie.
The Washington Post’s Sunday magazine yesterday featured a powerful article about our bitterly divided country’s prospects for healing after Tuesday’s election. The author, Gene Weingarten, though he’s a humor columnist by trade, has a hard time keeping his optimism up.
I understand how he feels. So do millions of us.
A dear old friend, a naturalized American citizen who
fled South Africa because of apartheid, told me the other day that despite accusations
from the Right, she doesn’t hate Trump supporters, she simply can’t fathom
their allegiance to such a creepy guy. Another old friend, a former Peace Corps
volunteer no less, has been arguing with me on Facebook, determined to convince
me that Joe Biden is thoroughly corrupt, senile and certain to drag the country
down to socialistic hell.
They’re very civil representatives of the respective
sides. I’ve actually had a gun-loving Facebook acquaintance use the phrase
“Lock and load” during a testy exchange.
I’d say that the prospects of our healing and
reclaiming some common ground are better if Biden wins, if only because he will
at least try. That’s not only his promise, it’s also his history. Don’t forget
he was harangued by his opponents in the Democratic primary for having been too
friendly with Senate Republicans and “blue dog” Southern pols of yore.
President Trump, on the other hand, has demonstrated
little if any interest in mitigating his policies or his behavior to win over
Americans who disagree with him. The
notion that he would suddenly turn magnanimous and conciliatory in a second
term seems pretty farfetched.
Whatever happens Tuesday – or the Tuesday after that
or the Tuesday after that, depending on how the vote count and the likely
challenges go – we’re going to have to make the best of another four years
together.
And because I
would much rather us be singing and dancing in the streets than shooting, here,
respectfully and not at all facetiously submitted, is a little playlist for the
days ahead, a diverse, non-partisan Top 10 of songs that speak to wellness, optimism
and unity:
“Peace in the Valley” – Elvis Presley
And the lion shall lay down by the lamb.
“Medicated Goo” – Traffic
My own home recipe’ll see you through
“Get Together” – The Youngbloods
Come on, people now, smile on your brother
“Coconut” – Harry Nilsson
Add lime, then drink ’em both together
“We Can Work It Out” – The Beatles
Life
is very short and there’s no time.
“A Spoonful of Sugar” – Julie Andrews
Helps the medicine go down
“Why Can’t We Be Friends” – War
The color of your skin don’t matter to me/As long as we can
live in harmony
“Jeremiah Peabody’s Polyunsaturated
Quick-Dissolving Fast-Acting Pleasant-Tasting Green and Purple Pills” –
Ray Stevens
Guaranteed to be just what you need for
quick, fast, speedy relief.
“(What’s So Funny ‘Bout) Peace, Love and
Understanding” – Nick Lowe
Seriously.
“Sexual Healing” – Marvin Gaye
Helps to relieve my mind.
Bonus track for the hopelessly devastated:
“Whiskey River (Take My Mind)” – Willie Nelson.
Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He’s a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (200-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune (1986-2000). He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” by Skyhorse.
Why is Trump obsessed with investing so much time and money in Minnesota?
Last night’s Trump rally in Duluth was old hat for us. The visits from Trump and surrogates are non-stop, and the incendiary attack ads are wall-to-wall.
Yes, I understand that in 2016 Hillary only won Minnesota by 44,593, or 1.5 percent. Yes, I realize that there are “soooo many Trump signs up in rural areas,” where “real Minnesotans” live. Yes, I realize the Iron Range is continuing to evolve into a reliably red East Dakota or North Kentucky, politically speaking.
But still, the data from 2020 just don’t look all that encouraging for Trump, or puppets such as U.S. Senate candidate Jason Lewis. Despite all of those massive Trump signs in rural areas, 55% of Minnesota’s population is in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and Biden is doing well there. Here are the most recent polls, aggregated by fivethirtyeight.com:
(P.S. The Star Tribune/KARE-11/MPR poll published on September 26 had Biden ahead 48 percent to 42 percent, with eight percent undecided. It has Trump’s approval rating at 43 percent. Not sure why fivethirtyeight.com didn’t list that one, but that poll is consistent with the average of these other polls.)
As we all know, the 2016 polls didn’t match up with the 2016 results on Election Day, though for the most part the difference was within the polls’ statistical margins-of-error, or nearly so. It’s important to note that these most recent findings in 2020 are mostly outside the margin-of-error.
To be clear, I’m not saying Minnesota is a sure thing for Biden. The margins shown in these polls are not insurmountable, particularly if Trump continues to dump a disproportionate amount of time, money, lies, and voter suppression efforts here over the next 33 days.
But if these numbers qualify Minnesota as one of the most hopeful swing states in Trumpland, how bad must the other swing states look for Trump?
Trying to pick your least favorite type of Trump supporter is not easy. The competition is stiff, and there are strong arguments for all of them.
Trumpist Typology
Greed Trumpists. There’s the Greed Trumpists, who will put up with any Trump outrage – kids torn from mothers and put in cages, white supremacy encouragement, coordinating with foreign enemies interfering in our democracy — to get a tax cut, even a tax cut that represents relative crumbs compared to the mountains of loaves lavished on billionaires.
Personality Cult Trumpists. There are the Personality Cult Trumpists, many of whom watched far too many episodes of The Apprentice with an uncritical eye. They find Trump entertaining and embrace the myth of Trump’s deal-making skills and “only I can fix it” hucksterism, despite his pandemic response debacle and tax returns that expose Trump as a bumbler of epic proportions.
Bible-Thumpin’ Trumpists. Then there’s the Bible-Thumpin’ Trumpists. They ignore of the dozens of Trump’s extreme anti-Christian actions—serial sexual abuse and infidelity and cutting food subsidies for the poor to name just a couple — that make a mockery of the Golden Rule and the Beatitudes in order to hoard as many Fallwell-endorsed judges as possible.
Tribal Trumpists. Who can forget the Tribal Trumpists, who will let Trump take their loved one’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) health protections and Social Security benefits just to be able to say that their Red Tribe of “real Americans” stuck it to the Blue Tribe of “libtard snowflakes.” Go team!
Changeophobe Trumpists. Changeophobe Trumpists are fearful of our fast-changing world and ever-nostalgic about the glories of what they view as the good old days of their childhoods. They are particularly susceptible to Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” by keeping coal dirty, light bulbs inefficient, America white, global competition at bay, and bigotry unchallenged.
Racist Trumpists. The Racist Trumpists are obviously a very strong contender for least favorite. They insist that Trump’s villifying of immigrants and people of color is a “refreshing rejection of political correctness,” instead of a wink and a nod to the full spectrum of racists, from those of us who are sometimes lousy at recognizing systemic racism to full-blown white supremacist activists like the Proud Boys, Aryan Nations, Volksfront, American Freedom Party, Ku Klux Klan, and White Aryan Resistance.
Thug Trumpists. And then there are Thug Trumpists, who can’t recognize the difference between bullying and actual strength, and gravitate towards authoritarian personalities to serve as a binky to make them feel more secure in the face of their overblown fears of our changing and more diverse nation.
False Equivalence Trumpists
But the last month of the election is when we unfortunately have to be hearing a lot from perhaps my least favorite type of Trump supporters — the False Equivalence Trumpists. They continually declare that “both sides do it” to make their vote for the most bigoted, incompetent, and corrupt President in U.S. history seem somehow defensible.
Since last night’s presidential debate, the False Equivalence Trumpists were out in full force, complaining about “both candidates” being equally bad and lamenting that they “once again have to choose the lesser of two evils.”
Though they carry an air of intellectual superiority in their assertions, False Equivalence Trumpists are among the most intellectually lazy of all of the Trumpists types.
Obviously, both candidates have sold out to a special interest, lied, supported an unwise policy, or made a big mistake. Same as it ever was. But from that truth, False Equivalence Trumpists quickly jump to the safety of “both sides do it equally,” instead of digging into the facts to determine which candidate does it more. In a democracy, doing that kind of qualitative differentiation is a voter’s duty, and they consistently shrink from it.
Because False Equivalence Trumpists find it distasteful to be held accountable for supporting an imperfect candidate, they stubbornly cling to the truth of “both sides do it,” but not the whole truth. The whole truth is that any fair-minded analysis comparing Trump and Biden will show that Trump is much more incompetent, much more bigoted, much more dishonest, and much more corrupt.
But this group of Americans lacks either the judgement to see that truth, or the courage to speak it.
The False Equivalence Trumpists are top-of-mind right now because, we are entering the final month of the presidential campaign with about 6 percent of the voters somehow still undecided. Tragically, these pathologically indecisive Americans could be decisive on November 3rd. The fact that the fate of the nation, and maybe even the planet, falls to this group of Americans is crazy making and terrifying.
For good reason, there was a lot of national discussion about the 6,200 Trump supporters who gathered at an indoor rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Americans were understandably concerned that Trump’s selfish rally would be a “super spreader event” that would needlessly cause a spike in COVID 19 infections and role model reckless behavior.
While all of that national discussion was taking place, South Dakota’s ultra-conservative Governor Kristi Noem looked at that Tulsa scene and effectively said “hold my beer, Mr. President.”
In the midwest, you don’t have to be reminded when the ten-day Sturgis Bike Rally begins. Even in my community, which is 600 miles from the Black Hills of South Dakota, and even in the two weeks before and after the ten-day August Rally, motorcycles and trailers towing motorcycles are everywhere on our roads and highways.
The Sturgis Rally is massive. Last year, 490,000 people traveled from around the nation to the Black Hills. That’s equivalent to about 80 Tulsa Trump Rallies. Oh and by the way, unlike the Tulsa event, the Sturgis Rally lasts for weeks, not hours.
That’s a lot of cash for a remote, sparsely populated state like South Dakota. It’s also a lot COVID-19 exposure. Make a list of major COVID-19 exposure risks, and you’ve described the Sturgis Bike Rally: Inability to distance in small indoor spaces? Check. Unwillingness to distance due to libertarian “live free or die” attitudes? Check. Too few masks? Check. Obesity and related comorbidities? Check. Advanced age and related comorbidities? Check. Binge drinking and the associated increase in risk-taking? Check. No small amount of casual sex? Check. Lengthy exposures over multiple days? Check. A merger of exposure pools from around the nation, and lengthy cross-country travel in all directions. Check and check.
Granted, bikers at the Rally are outside a fair amount, riding and camping. But indoor bars, restaurants, hotels, stores, and tourist attractions within a several hundred mile radius of Sturgis also are traditionally packed with strangers in close proximity with each other. When it’s loud in those indoor spaces, visitors are forced to shout at, and expectorate on, each other.
If a super villain were to design a super-spreader event to try to harm their worst enemies, they perhaps couldn’t do much better than the Sturgis Rally.
Without a doubt, Governor Noem out-Trumped Trump by refusing to cancel the Sturgis Bike Rally this August 7-16. From the beginning of the pandemic, Noem has supported basically no public health protections for her citizens. She wants to show corporations that South Dakota is pro-business, tax visitors so she doesn’t have to tax her conservative base, and show her conservative fan base that she is “protecting freedom.” She apparently isn’t interested in protecting the citizens of her state, a state that is disproportionately elderly and therefore particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 deaths.
So, if you’re thinking about summer travel this year, my advice would be to take a lot of masks and sanitizer, and to take an extremely wide berth around Kristi Noem’s COVID-19 mushroom cloud in South Dakota.
We’re all thinking it, but are afraid to say it out loud. If Trump loses the Electoral College in a close race and refuses to leave the White House on January 20, 2021, claiming he actually won but was cheated, what will the guys in and around the White House with the guns do?
It feels paranoid to even discuss this. This is what people living under dictatorships in Moldova, Sri Lanka, the Congo, and Gambia discuss, not citizens of the self-described “greatest democracy on earth.” America has long have been admired for its ability to follow-up bitter political campaigns with the peaceful transition of power. Our ability to consistently do this is arguably our single greatest achievement as a nation.
But with Trump, we can no longer be sure that the peaceful transition of power will be a given. Keep in mind what Trump’s former right hand man Michael Cohen said: “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”
Trump himself, has more than said as much, as documented by The Atlantic:
“In December (2019), Trump told a crowd at a Pennsylvania rally that he will leave office in ‘five years, nine years, 13 years, 17 years, 21 years, 25 years, 29 years …’ He added that he was joking to drive the media ‘totally crazy.’
Just a few days earlier, Trump had alluded to his critics in a speech, ‘A lot of them say, ‘You know he’s not leaving’ … So now we have to start thinking about that because it’s not a bad idea.’
This is how propaganda works. Say something outrageous often enough and soon it no longer sounds shocking.”
One thing is almost certain: Even if Trump suffers a clear defeat in the Electoral College, he will still claim mass cheating. Remember, this is the guy who made the false assertion that “millions” voted illegally in California, and that was after he won the Electoral College.
If he loses the Electoral College, and subsequently faces the prospect of multiple criminal prosecutions as a civilian, his claims of fraud will get even more desperate, expansive, and outrageous. The question is, will armed authorities in and around the White House listen?
(By the way, I’m being vague here, because I’m not sure who would ultimately be responsible for removing the President. Secret Service? U.S. Marshals? The military? We don’t have historical precedence to guide us here. )
Trusted Third Parties Needed
By January 20, 2021 at noon, the Secret Service, U.S. Marshal Service, and U.S. military no longer would be under Trump’s control, unless they decided that Trump’s claims of cheating were correct, and that Trump therefore was reelected and is still their boss.
Will those armed authorities agree with Trump’s claims of election cheating? I’m not sure. “Was Trump cheated in the election or not” is not something that will be easy for armed authorities to judge. After all, they’re not experts in election law or in a position to investigate claims of election fraud.
In trying to sort out the Trump claims of election cheating, I would hope that the guys with the guns will look to third parties who they find credible. The courts obviously will be in play, but that will take quite a bit of time to reach a final decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition to the courts, we need third parties that can act more quickly than the courts, and be credible with the American people and the armed officials who may need to remove Trump on January 20th.
Bipartisan Presidents Weigh In Jointly
Here’s my hope: We need a bipartisan group of former Presidents from the past three decades to unanimously weigh in on this by mid-November.
Specifically, I propose that Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle (the second in command under George H.W. Bush, because he passed away), and Jimmy Carter privately pledge to each other right now that they will stand together to counter any false claims of mass fraud and publicly affirm the presidential election outcome as soon as it becomes apparent.
I understand that it could be that the election outcome won’t be clear enough for the quintet to make a unanimous declaration, and their decision has to be unanimous for it to carry the necessary weight. In that case, all of this is mute. (I also definitely understand that Trump could easily win reelection, and that it might not even be close enough to be contested.)
But if the bipartisan group can agree on the outcome, they should commit to jointly and publicly announcing the outcome in November, before Trump has a chance to send several weeks to sell his conspiracy claims unrebutted.
Why ex-presidents, and a vice president proxy? First, their political careers are effectively over, so they can’t credibly be accused of wanting to further their political careers. Second, they’re bipartisan, so it will be more difficult for Trump and his cult to marginalize them as a “partisan group.” Third, they have knowledge and credibility on the issue of fair elections, because they’ve worked in that world up close for decades. Fourth, ex-Presidents have extra gravitas, so their announcement will feel weighty, newsworthy, and historic. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the Secret Service and Generals are used to following these former Commanders-in-Chief, and likely have residual respect for at least some of them.
If the nightmare scenario I describe here plays out, an early bipartisan declaration of the past three decades’ ex-Presidents won’t guarantee that the guys with the guns will do the right thing and remove Trump. But it’s the best thing I can come up with to try to avoid an event that could mark the end of democracy in America. For something that historically consequential, we need a plan.
When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, a loud minority of Americans are over it. They’re moving on, man. They’re shrugging off the 56,752 COVID-19 deaths American have experienced over the past 9 weeks.
After all, they’re not dying. And as a meme shared by a conservative friend recently cheerfully noted, the “Current Survival Rate for COVID19 in the US is 98.54%. Let’s share this story. Positive vs. Panic.”
Come on, man, we want to do stuff! Sports watching! Road tripping! Beer drinking! Freedom, mofos! I mean, the fucking glass is 98.54% full! LIBERATE!
Think about that. Really think about it.
This COVID-19 pandemic, which is still very much raging, has already killed the equivalent of the much-mourned 9-11 attacks (3,000 deaths). That is, if the 9-11 attacks occurred again and again and again, for 19 days in a row. Is that really something we should shrug off?
The nine-week old pandemic has already killed as many Americans we lost in the Afghanistan War (2,440), which is in its 19th year. Twenty-three times as many, to be precise. No big deal?
In just nine weeks, COVID-19 has quickly killed far more Americans than are lost in a typical year to opioid overdoses (46,000), traffic deaths (36,500), and gun violence (40,000).
In the next day or so, the pandemic will have killed more Americans than we lost in the decade-long Vietnam (58,220), by a far the bloodiest war of my generation. And that’s a big “meh” too?
Oh and by the way, COVID-19 seems to be just warming up. Many states still haven’t hit their peaks. Most experts believe a second deadly spike is coming next fall, sooner if more states go all Georgia or South Dakota on social distancing roll-backs. COVID-19 still has a lot of room to spread in rural America and much of the rest of the world. And most believe a vaccine is likely more than a year away.
What a perfect time to go back to the bar!
As this excellent one-minute ad brought you by prominent Republicans involved in The Lincoln Project notes, during the pandemic we are seeing “two types of Americans — those who sacrifice and those who demand:”
“Two types of Americans have emerged during this pandemic — those who sacrifice and those who demand.
Those who sacrifice, they’re the leaders working tirelessly to save American lives. The millions of Americans who have chosen to stay home, despite the hardships. The first responders, the nurses, the doctors. People who put themselves in harms way to help others, no matter the cost to themselves.
Those who demand, they protest. Threaten. Scream, with words of selfish entitlement. They fight, but only for themselves, for their interest, their desires. Putting their wants ahead of what’s right, no matter the cost to anyone else.
Yes, there are two kinds of Americans. We already know which kind of American Trump is. The same one he’s always been. The important question is, which one are you?”
The question of whether to end most social distancing protocols at this stage is not a close call. Beyond lives, research is even showing that social distancing is saving the nation money.
“A new study by researchers at the University of Wyoming finds that the essential shutdown of the US economy to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 can be justified economically.
A team led by economics professor Linda Thunstrom crunched some numbers and found the lives saved through social distancing and shelter-in-place orders around the country far outweigh the expected cost to the economy, dollar-to-dollar.
‘Our benefit-cost analysis shows that the extensive social distancing measures being adopted in the US likely do not constitute an overreaction,’ Thunstrom says. ‘Social distancing saves lives but comes at large costs to society due to reduced economic activity. Still, based on our benchmark assumptions, the economic benefits of lives saved substantially outweigh the value of the projected losses to the US economy.’
‘Our analysis suggests that the aggressive social distancing policies currently promoted in the US probably are justified, given that no good contingency plans were in place for an epidemic of this magnitude,’ the University of Wyoming researchers wrote.”
Still, many of the same people who can’t seem to stop sharing flag-waving memes about how they’re honoring the sacrifice of American soldiers, first responders, and health care providers can’t be bothered to sacrifice any more time away from bars, restaurants, and stadia to save their neighbors and front-line workers from arguably the worst clear and present danger of their lifetimes. But actions speak louder than memes.
It’s not an exaggeration to say our election system is seriously ill. Hurdle after hurdle exist on the path to voting, and millions regularly choose to sit out the chaos. Layered on top of all of that, we now have a lethal pandemic that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), predicts will make an encore appearance in the fall, precisely when we’re holding one of the most consequential elections in our history.
All in all, it’s not great a look for the self-proclaimed “greatest democracy on earth.”
But suppose someone told us they had developed a magical elixir for our election problems. I’m talking even better than Trump Water™ and hydroxychloroquine. Something to eliminate the most significant hurdles, such as the significant time and timing issues. Something to end waiting in long lines. Something to allow the “new normal” Stay At Home sensibilities to safely coexist with Election Day.
People with an even passing familiarity with this issue understand that we have that magical elixir right under our noses – vote-by-mail, or vote-at-home. Under such a model, voters are sent their ballots in the mail. They don’t have to go to polling places to obtain them. Then, they can return them in person or via mail.
That’s it. No traveling to polling places. No lines. No work schedule conflicts. No child care barriers. No discriminating election judges. No tight time constraints. No requirement to enter a potentially dangerous COVID hot spot. It’s not a panacea, but it would be a significant improvement.
Yeah But
Untested, you say? We have already been doing vote-by-mail successfully for decades. We’ve offered vote-by-mail to millions of soldiers, absentee voters in all 50 states, many voters in California, and all voters in Oregon, Colorado, Utah, and Hawaii.
Vote-by-mail is old news. It is tried-and-true. In places where vote-by-mail is used, there is no great movement to go back to a polling place-centric model, because vote-by-mail works better.
Expensive, you say? Without the need for expensive polling place staffing, machines, and infrastructure, vote-by-mail saves between $2-$5 per voter, according to research out of Colorado. Cost considerations shouldn’t be the primary reason we implement vote-by-mail, but they also shouldn’t be a reason that we don’t.
Fraudulent, you say? In the wide swath of America that is already voting by mail, there is no evidence of fraud, and bar code and automated record-matching technology continue to make it more secure than ever. The non-partisan Politifact finds that Trump’s frequent claims of fraud are, well, fraudulent.
This lack of widespread fraud shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, who wants to risk a $25,000 fine, as they have in Oregon, over gaining a single vote, or a few votes, in a pool of millions? As it turns out, almost no one.
Democratic plot, you say? The non-partisan do-gooders at Vote At Home explain this one well:
Utah, the 4th full Vote at Home state, is decidedly “red.” Republicans also dominate Montana and Arizona, where 70% of voters automatically are mailed their ballots as “permanent absentee” voters. Nebraska and North Dakota, also Republican dominated states, have also expanded the use of vote at home options. While Oregon and Washington, the first two states where VAH initially took hold, are today more “blue than red,” both states have elected Secretaries of State who are Republicans – and big fans of this system.
On a more tactical level, the Republican party, whose base is disproportionately elderly, should probably reevaluate this issue in the pandemic era. If I were a Republican turnout strategist, I would worry about depending on their huge block of frightened elderly Americans being willing to bring their over-flowing basket of comorbidities into crowded polling venues during a pandemic.
But you know what? As a Democrat, I want those elderly MAGA-hat wearing seniors to have easy, safe access to voting. I want as many people voting as possible. If my party can’t win a majority of the votes in an election where everyone has an equal opportunity to safely and fairly participate, then my party needs to get it’s ass back to the drawing board to come up with better policy ideas.
Other questions, you say? Read this well-sourced document produced by Vote At Home. Spoiler alert: None of the other excuses hold up to reason or research either.
Don’t Get Your Hopes Up, Yet
The reasons to adopt universal vote-by-mail are patently obvious, and an overwhelming majority of Americans of all political stripes agree. A recent Reuters/Ipsos survey found that nearly three-fourths (72%) of Americans, including about two-thirds (65%) of Republicans, support mail-in ballots to protect voters from respiratory disease.
The experts at the Centers for Disease Control agree:
Encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations. * Encourage mail-in methods of voting if allowed in the jurisdiction.
But as with so many issues with overwhelming majority support – such as expanding access to Medicare, higher taxes for the wealthiest 1% and corporations, background checks for gun purchasers, marijuana prohibition, helping Dreamers become citizens, cutting Social Security and Medicare, higher minimum wage, paid maternity leave, and more – Trump, McConnell and their supporting cast in the U.S. Senate are the barrier. Cue David Byrne: “Same as it ever was.”
None of those things will happen until Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate Majority are removed in the fall. None. In Minnesota, Senate Republicans are similarly promising to block a wise vote-by-mail proposal recently floated by Secretary of State Steve Simon.
So while many people around the world are required to put their lives at risk in armed conflicts to establish or preserve their democracy, millions of Americans in 2020 likewise could be required by Republicans to put their lives at risk in deadly germ-infested schools, churches, community centers, and fire stations to preserve their democracy.
Give me democracy, or give me death? In a vast sea of Trump-McConnell era outrages, forcing Americans into this life-and-death choice on November 3rd may be the most outrageous development of all.
Sometimes, even the great Washington Post buries the lede. Disguised in a terrific story with a bland headline that only a supply chain manager could love (“Desperate for medical equipment, states encounter a beleaguered national stockpile”) was this disturbing and fascinating pandemic response story: “Florida Is Only State to Receive Everything It Asked For”
That’s the salient nugget Political Wire chose to highlight from the Post story, even though it was buried in paragraph twelve of the Post’s 2,500 word tome. Political wire got the headline prioritization right.
While the Post’s headline and lede didn’t promote the most ethically troubling part of its reporting, the three reporters who worked on the article, Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sen, and Beth Reinhard, certainly did great reporting about the differences in how various states say they are being treated by Team Trump during the pandemic response.
Beyond the widely publicized problems that hotspot states like New York and Washington have been having with the Trump Administration’s response, the Post piece documented how other states also are struggling due to lack of adequate federal help:
Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, which has had a serious outbreak in Boston, has received 17 percent of the protective gear it requested, according to state leaders. Maine requested a half-million N95 specialized protective masks and received 25,558 — about 5 percent of what it sought. The shipment delivered to Colorado — 49,000 N95 masks, 115,000 surgical masks and other supplies — would be “enough for only one full day of statewide operations,” Rep. Scott R. Tipton (R-Colo.) told the White House in a letter several days ago.
Florida has been an exception in its dealings with the stockpile: The state submitted a request on March 11 for 430,000 surgical masks, 180,000 N95 respirators, 82,000 face shields and 238,000 gloves, among other supplies — and received a shipment with everything three days later, according to figures from the state’s Division of Emergency Management. It received an identical shipment on March 23, according to the division, and is awaiting a third.
“The governor has spoken to the president daily, and the entire congressional delegation has been working as one for the betterment of the state of Florida,” said Jared Moskowitz, the emergency management division’s director.”
“Florida has been an exception.” While my jaw dropped when I got to that part of the article, the Post shrugged it off: “Anecdotally, there are wide differences, and they do not appear to follow discernible political or geographic lines.”
How about this for a potential “political line?” Unlike the underserved New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Maine, the fully served Florida is one of the six states widely considered a “battleground state” that will determine the outcome of Trump’s 2020 reelection bid.
“Those will be the six most critical states (Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin),” Paul Maslin, a longtime Democratic pollster who worked on the presidential campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Howard Dean, told Newsweek.
“There will be others that’ll be important in varying degrees,” he said, “but those will be ones we’ll ultimately look back on and say, ‘How many of them did Democrats win back and were they able to win enough to win the presidency?'”
Given Florida’s undeniable status as a crucial swing state in Trump’s 2020 Electoral College calculus, it’s critically important for any news publication to pose this very legitimate question: Is lifesaving equipment being distributed based on patients’ needs or political needs?
I’m open to the possibility that there is an epidemiologically sound explanation for why Florida has been at the head of Team Trump’s pandemic response line, while bright blue hot-spot cities like Boston and New York City are not. Skeptical, but open. But to ignore the obvious political angle, not pose that legitimate question to Trump officials, and bury the Florida exception in paragraph twelve is baffling.
What’s even more puzzling to me is why people like Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi apparently aren’t raising the same legitimate question. Because the reckless game Trump seems to be playing here is not just ethically untenable, it’s also politically perilous.
The 2020 elections are the most important elections of my lifetime, and potentially the most important in American history. Will we replace the most corrupt, bigoted, and incompetent President of our times, and his shameless congressional enablers, or will we go further down the road to authoritarianism and corporatism? That sounds melodramatic, but given what we’ve learned about Trump over the last three years, it’s not an exaggeration.
The stakes are high, so liberals need to step up their game.
This isn’t about trashing liberals. Liberals have done a lot of great things for America. At a time when all of these things were quite unpopular, liberals had enough vision, courage, and commitment to pass Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, marriage equality, civil rights, voting rights, environmental protections, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
But we grassroots liberals also can be also our own worst enemies. To win in 2020, we need to make five New Years resolutions to do better than we did in 2016.
STOP THE PETTY, PERSONAL ATTACKS. With hundreds of substantive reasons to criticize Trump and his lackeys, there is no reason to stoop to snotty attacks about personal issues like the President’s complexion, hair, waistline, hand size, penis size, verbal slips, and misspellings. The same goes for personally insulting his supporters.
Among the moderate swing voters who will decide the outcome of this election, those kinds of personal shots inadvertently create sympathy for Trump and others who don’t deserve swing voters’ sympathy. I get that they are cathartic, and sometimes tongue-in-cheek. But they’re also and self-defeating in the end, and therefore self-indulgent, so liberals need to get better at taking a pass on the personal shots.
STOP THE CANNABILISM.
Liberals also need to be mindful of Ronald Reagan’s 11th
Commandment, “thou shall not speak ill of other Republicans.”
I understand the temptation to wage civil war. My top presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, has already dropped out of the race, and my second choice, Cory Booker, doesn’t look like he will last much beyond Iowa. Having to go to Plan C is deeply disappointing to me. Having to go to Plan D, E, F, G, H, I, J, or K, a distinct possibility in a field this large, likely will be even more disappointing to me.
In the end, I realize that I am unlikely to be in love with my Democratic Party nominee. But if I can’t be with the one I love, honey, I’ll love the one I’m with. Unless we learn something dramatically scandalous about one of the Democratic candidates in the coming months, I’m pledging to myself that I won’t trash other Democratic candidates, vote for a third party candidate, or sit out the election. For a long time, I’ve even been making monthly donations to the eventual nominee, whomever that ends up being, via the Unify or Die fund.
All liberals should make a resolution to forgo intra-party cannibalism, because it greatly increases the chances that we have four even more catastrophic years with the most corrupt, bigoted, and incompetent President of our times. That can’t happen, so we all have to suck it up and pledge to support the candidate that prevails in the nominating process.
STOP THE SHINY OBJECT CHASING. We all know that President Trump is going to do and say hundreds of things before the election that are mock-worthy and outrageous, but probably are not issues that are going to sway swing voters or motivate non-voters. Every moment we spend talking about those side issues –say, a funny golf story, a boneheaded gaffe, a stupid joke at a rally, a silly exchange with an athlete or celebrity–is a moment we’re not talking about issue differentiators that are more likely to influence voting decisions.
What Trump actions are more deserving of our focus? His giving lavish, deficit-spiking tax cuts to the wealthy. His separating young children from parents and caging them. His taking birth control and other types of reproductive health care away from women. His blocking legislation to control pharmaceutical prices. His cowardly refusal to cross the NRA to support common sense gun safety laws. His erratic Russian-friendly foreign policy decisions in dangerous places like Iran, Syria, the Ukraine, and North Korea. His repeated attempts to repeal Affordable Care Act protections, such as preexisting condition protections for 133 million Americans.
Polls show those kinds of issues work against Trump with swing voters and non-voters, so those kinds of issues should be the primary focus of conversations at the break room, bar, barbeque, or online chat.
With such a steady stream of Trump’s outrages, it’s difficult to not take the bait from the ever-outrageous tweet stream. I’m far from perfect on this front. But we liberals have to get better about focusing on the issues that matter the most to swing voters and non-voters, and that means shrugging off a lot of the side issues.
FOCUS ON ROOT CAUSES. When deciding how to spend time and resources, liberals should also consider focusing on the root causes of Trump’s electoral success. For instance, rather than only supporting individual candidates, consider supporting groups like Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight 2020 and the ACLU. Those groups are battling Republicans’ relentless voter suppression efforts aimed at people of color, which threaten to swing close elections to Trump and his political toadies now and for decades to come.
Ensuring that every vote counts and voting is easier will help progressive local, state and federal candidates up and down the ballot. It will help preserve our representative democracy for future generations. Supporting those groups isn’t as obvious to most of us as supporting parties and candidates, but it’s every bit as important.
SPEAK OUT EARLY AND OFTEN. Speaking out against Trump and Republicans in person and on social media is frowned upon by Americans who are “non-political,” ignorant, and/or in denial about what is happening to America. That can make speaking out about Trump unpleasant and exhausting. Goodness knows, no one relishes being called, gasp, “political,” and being accosted by trolls.
But in America today, we have politicians who are all too willing to separate brown-skinned kids from their parents and put them cages indefinitely. We have politicians trying to repeal health protections for 133 million Americans. We have a party that gave a massive, deficit-ballooning tax gift to the wealthiest 1% at a time when we have the worst income inequality since 1928 and record deficits. We have a President taking birth control and other reproductive rights away from women. If we don’t vote out this crew, we could easily have much worse developments on the horizon in a second, even more unhinged Trump term.
All of which is to say one person’s “politics” is another person’s life, livelihood, and rights. A while back, writer Naomi Shulman helped put this issue in proper perspective for me:
“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mother was born in Munich in 1934, and spent her childhood in Nazi Germany surrounded by nice people who refused to make waves. When things got ugly, the people my mother lived alongside chose not to focus on “politics,” instead busying themselves with happier things. They were lovely, kind people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away.”
I’m not saying liberals have be jerks and nags to their friends and relatives. We don’t have to be the turd in the punch bowl. In most cases, we should be calm, respectful, factual and measured when we speak out, even when the respect isn’t deserved and returned, because that’s usually the best way to win hearts, minds, and votes.
But we do have to speak out, because silence implies consent. As Martin Luther King famously said of another movement in another time:
“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”
The same is true of the movement to save America from Donald Trump and his Republican enablers. I’m about as conflict averse as they come, but unfortunately that excuse just is not going to cut it with so many lives hanging in the balance.
So my fellow liberals, this New Years Eve raise a glass of your favorite truth serum, and make some challenging resolutions that nudge you outside of your comfort zone. Your country needs you now more than ever.
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.” – Walter Scott
And so it goes with congressional Republicans defending President Trump’s indefensible arms-for-dirt bribery scheme.
They can’t possibly defend it on the substance, because the substance doesn’t pass the smell test with 70 percent of Americans. At the same time, they can’t fathom not defending Trump, because they live in fear that he might mean-tweet and primary them back to, gasp, civilian life.
Therefore, they use a constantly changing array of truly preposterous defenses to get through the humiliating interviews they’re forced to do. The defenses are maddening and highly entertaining, and these are a few of my favorites:
Top 10 Worst Defenses
Transparency! Righteous congressional Republicans stormed a secure committee room and dramatically demanded public hearings!
But when televised public hearings were launched a few days later, the same Republicans suddenly switched to demanding “an end to the media circus!”
Hearsay! This one was very hot this week. Trump defenders demanded that they hear from someone who directly saw the bribery. “Hearsay,” they say.
Of course, there are several problems with that. First, the White House-verified call record clearly documents the bribery, directly in the President’s own words. It’s not hearsay, it’s Trumpsay.
Second, nonpartisan, decorated combat war veteran Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was on the infamous call, and he’ll be testifying soon.
Finally, Trump apologists also say it’s perfectly fine for Trump, Mulvaney, Bolton, and others, who do have firsthand knowledge of the bribery, to refuse to testify about what they observed. You can’t try to have it both ways and be expected to be taken seriously.
Whistleblower! They’re outraged that someone blew the whistle on the bribery, and demand that he be publicly pilloried, even when the law says he is guaranteed anonymity and protection, and even after a long list of named, credible, nonpartisan officials are publicly confirming everything about which the whistleblower was whistling.
This initially might have had some political traction when the whistleblower was standing alone, but after all of this corroborating testimony, it makes no sense.
Incompetence! This one is especially delicious. Lindsey Graham and others have continually asserted that Trump and his team couldn’t possibly have committed bribery, because, well, they’re obviously far too inept to commit bribery.
“What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward the Ukraine, it was incoherent … They seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo.”
While incompetence is always a plausible theory when it comes to Trump and his team, corruption is actually the one skill Trump that very clearly has mastered throughout his life.
Also, the White House’s own call record plainly shows Trump’s bribery: After the military aid is mentioned, Trump immediately followed up with “I would like you to do us a favor, though.”
Failed Crime=No Crime! Media darling Nikki Haley is among those who have said Trump is innocent of bribery because his bribery efforts failed after the bribery scheme exposed.
Thousands of prisoners whose criminal endeavors were unsuccessful wish mightily that this was somehow a legitimate defense. It is not.
Impeachment=SERIOUS! Many say that impeachment is only for serious offenses and this clearly isn’t a serious offense.
I’m not sure I can think of a more serious example of presidential abuse of power than this: Illegally redirecting hundreds of millions of congressionally dedicated U.S. tax dollars to bribe a desperate foreign leader — who is under attack by Russia, a sworn enemy of the U.S., and has thousands of his troops’ lives and his nation’s existence on the line — to dig up political dirt on his opponent and interfere in an American election.
That’s pretty much a greatest hits of impeachable offenses in that run-on sentence, and it doesn’t even mention the cover-up — altering and burying records, witness tampering, and refusing to honor subpoenas. Anyone who thinks that isn’t serious isn’t a serious person.
Tradeoffs=Normal Foreign Policy. White House Chief of Staff Mick “Get Over It, He Did It!” Mulvaney is among many Republicans who shrug this off by noting that trade-offs are proposed all the time in the course of foreign policy.
The problem, of course, is that when Trump said “I would like you to do us a favor, though” the rest of his White House-verified call record made it clear that the “us” in that sentence was actually “me.” That is, the bribed “favor” wasn’t for America as a whole, it was for Trump’s personal political gain.
That’s foreign bribery, not foreign policy.
Corruption-Fighting! While Trump has never shown any interest whatsoever in rooting out corruption in corrupt nations like Russia, North Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or others that he regularly praises, his apologists swear that he is absolutely passionate about rooting out Ukranian corruption. Right.
The White House’s call record showed that the only alleged “corruption” Trump mentioned was something that just happened to benefit him personally, not corruption broadly.
But Biden! In a reprise of “but her emails,” this may be the Republicans’ favorite defense. When their interviews are melting down, they spew unsubstantiated Biden corruption conspiracy theories.
First, Biden’s effort to remove a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor was not corrupt. It was official U.S. foreign policy that was done in broad daylight, and was supported by allies around the world.
Second, if an American feels a fellow American has broken the law, the only acceptable response is to report it to American law enforcement officials, not to illegally redirect tax dollars to bribe a foreign leader to effectively play the role the FBI and/or CIA should be playing.
Democracy! Many claim that impeachment is anti-democratic, since Trump was elected in 2016 and is up before the voters again in just one year.
The obvious problem with that defense is that Trump is using tax dollars to bribe foreign officials to rig said election. With foreign interference potentially rigging the election in favor Trump, stopping him through impeachment could be the only real option for Americans to hold him accountable.
Bonus Round
Oh wait, that’s ten? Already? I can only have ten? Well, if I could have more, I’d add this one to the list.
Less Outlandish! The Republicans’ lawyer Steve Castor half-heartedly tried this breathtakingly moronic defense:
“This irregular channel of diplomacy (conducted by non-government official Rudy Giuliani), it’s not as outlandish as it could be, is that correct?”
Well, yes, Mr. Castor, I guess it might have been slightly more outlandish if the bribery had been carried out by a nude Roger Stone sporting a Carmen Miranda-style fruit hat, but…
Good grief. When “not as outlandish as it could be” is the best your high-priced lawyer has, it’s pretty safe to say you’re in deep doo-doo.
In Their Partial Defense
Probably the most political palatable defense would be “bad, but not quite impeachable.” That defense is not the least bit substantively defensible, but it at least has a little political traction. After all, the matter of what is considered impeachable can be a bit murky and saying “bad, but…” at least shows Republicans are not shrugging off the whole thing.
But the thin-skinned authoritarian won’t allow his toadies to utter the “bad, but” part, so they are left to humiliate themselves for our entertainment. Pass the popcorn, please.
Throughout her career, Senator Amy Klobuchar has always stuck to political “small ball,” refusing to use her carefully hoarded political capital to fight for the proposals that will take patience to enact, but will make the biggest difference for struggling Americans. The Star Tribune explains:
But as Klobuchar pursues the pragmatic politics of constituent service and bipartisan dealmaking, she faces some frustration on the left, particularly among gay activists and environmentalists who see her playing it safe in the middle of the road.
“There are big, fundamental system change issues we have to address,” said Steve Morse of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, which has battled Klobuchar over climate change legislation and her support for a new Stillwater bridge over the St. Croix River. “Dealing with swimming pools is good and important to families, but it doesn’t change the big drivers of our society.”
So, last night it was hardly surprising to see Klobuchar taking cheap shots at Senator Elizabeth Warren over Warren’s championing of for Medicare for All, which will obviously be challenging to pass in the near term.
“The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is whether it can actually get done.”
Bam! Klobuchar is likely high-fiving her (ducking) staffers this morning. She’s in the news! She’s finally relevant!
But from a progressive standpoint, here’s the fatal flaw with Klobuchar’s lifelong approach to leadership. Once upon a time, the following things were all considered by moderates like Klobuchar to be “pipe dreams not plans,” or things that Klobuchar would not deem worthy of a fight because, in their day, they didn’t immediately have the votes to pass: Medicare, civil rights, voting rights, minimum wage increases, and marriage equality, to name just a few.
Those things just happen to be some of the crowning policy achievements of the modern Democratic Party, and they never would have been enacted if progressives with political courage hadn’t fought for them at a stage when the votes weren’t there.
Senator Klobuchar’s biggest problem isn’t that she has a sordid record of being immature and cruel to staff, as disturbing as that is to those of us who believe that character is revealed by how you act when no one is watching. Klobuchar’s even bigger problem is that she will never be the kind of courageous leader who fights the most consequential fights for ordinary families, when the fight is not yet politically advantageous to her in the short-term.
As for Medicare-for-All, 247 independent economists recently are on the record countering Klobuchar’s criticism that Senator Warren’s approach will cost too much. Those economists find that Medicare-for-All will cost Americans less than the current corporate-driven system protected by Klobuchar, not more.
In the letter, the economists underline the savings of the multi-payer insurance system in the United States, especially compared to other countries. “Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for health care,” the letter states, “but of reducing total health care outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently.”
Economic analyses by the Mercatus Center and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, for example, have projected the Medicare for All would reduce total national health care costs by hundreds of billions of dollars each year while simultaneously guaranteeing safe, therapeutic health care for every person in the United States.
Senator Klobuchar is smart and does her homework, so she understands this truth. She also understands that if the votes aren’t immediately there for Medicare-for-All, Democrats will adjust, and try to enact Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It or Obamacare improvements until the votes for Medicare-for-All do exist. She knows that’s how legislative strategy works.
But Klobuchar, hovering at just 2% in an average of national polls, is obviously desperate. So last evening, she went with a self-serving cheap shot over the truth, and advocated the easy policy path over the more impactful policy path. To Minnesota progressives, that sure sounds familiar, which may explain why she is running in fourth place in her home state.
Democratic presidential candidates have been having a white hot debate about whether to support Medicare-for-All, which would move people onto Medicare and eliminate private health insurance plans, or a Medicare buy-in option, which would allow Americans to choose between government-run Medicare and corporate-run health plans.
Substantively, Medicare-For-All is Best
Substantively, Medicare-for-All makes more sense. Going to a government-run single payer system would be the fastest and most effective way to cover all Americans, reduce administrative overhead, stop excessive profiteering, reduce medical costs, make the American economy more competitive, incentivize better health care best practices, and produce better outcomes.
Compared to health systems used by other developed nations that are to varying degrees more like Medicare-for-all would be, the current U.S. system is worst.
Yes, a large tax increase would be needed to finance Medicare-for-All, and Democrats should be honest about that. At the same time, Americans would no longer be paying premiums, deductibles and copays. Many Americans who have subsidized employer-based coverage should see higher pay as employers are freed of that enormous expense. Because of these kinds of issues, 200 independent economists recently signed a letter stating that Americans would be paying less overall with a single government-run system than they pay under the current system, not more.
Politically, Medicare Buy-In Option Is Best
Politically, however, a Medicare buy-in option makes much more sense. Because many Americans get extremely nervous about not having the option to stick with their familiar private health plan, about 75% of Americans support a Medicare buy-in option compared to about 56% who support Medicare-for-All. Given how difficult it will be to defeat Trump in 2020 and pass something in the Senate in 2021 and beyond, political marketability and sustainability is no small consideration.
Harris’s Hybrid
After initially indicating support for Medicare-for-All, Senator Kamala Harris yesterday proposed a thoughtful hybrid approach. While Harris still calls her proposal “Medicare-for-All,” it’s more accurate to call it “Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It,” since it allows Americans to choose private plans that are required to have the same benefits as Medicare. After a 10-year phase-in to limit transition-related bumps, all Americans would have the kind of coverage Medicare currently offers, with some coverage upgrades.
This approach would achieve much, but not all, of the substantive benefit of Medicare-for-All, and it has enormous political advantages over Medicare-for-All. Importantly, when Trump and the corporate insurance interests attack “government-run health care that takes away your insurance coverage,” those critics can be disarmed with very simple and compelling rebuttals: “If you don’t like it, you don’t have to choose it.” “If it’s as bad as they claim, no one will choose it.”
Those simple, powerful rebuttals, which can only be used with a buy-in option, de-fang the “they’re taking away your health insurance” bite.
Progressive critics like Sanders are criticizing the Harris plan as too “moderate.” It certainly is moderate compared to the Sanders Medicare-for-All plan. But when compared to ACA repeal/Trumpcare, where 20 million lose their coverage and all Americans would lose popular and effective ACA protections, the Harris proposal represents huge progress. Also, the Harris plan offers an important quantum leap forward from the current ACA-driven system.
Importantly, the Harris proposal offers Americans a consumer-driven path to the future. When given a choice, it’s very likely that most Americans will choose the cheaper and better Medicare option over corporate care. Corporate care won’t be competitive with Medicare, because of its higher overhead and the need to make profits. But giving all Americans the ability to comparison shop and vote with their feet is key, so that Medicare-for-All eventually comes to American by popular mandate, rather than government mandate. Taking that consumer-driven approach ultimately will make Medicare-for-All more politically durable.
Though I don’t know all the details yet, I like the general balance Senator Harris has struck. Obama’s former chief Medicare/Medicaid administrator Andy Slavitt said it well:
“Sen. Harris’s plan balances idealism and pragmatism. It says in effect: We have a mandate to get everyone affordable health care and put people over profits — but we don’t need to tear down the things people have and they like in order to do it.”
That’s what Democrats need: Idealism to stay true to their progressive values and excite lightly voting Democratic constituencies such as young people and people of color and pragmatism to smooth over political and logistical challenges and win over critically important moderate swing voters.
On the first night of the first round of
debates among Democratic presidential aspirants, Julián Castro, who was
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration, had a
spotlight-grabbing moment when he upbraided fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke for not
supporting his plan to end criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants
crossing our southern border from Mexico.
On the second night, when a different 10 hopefuls
fanned across NBC’s Wheel of Fortune stage, the impact of Castro’s
attack was obvious. Aked if they backed Castro’s plan, nine candidates raised
their hands. All 10 said they would back federal health subsidies for
undocumented immigrants, an idea President Barack Obama nixed a decade earlier.
The candidates’ stampede to out “left” each
other reached its most bizarre point when Castro volunteered that his universal
healthcare plan would cover abortions, including abortions for trans women. At
least this would not be a benefit that would significantly affect the deficit.
Since those nights, one of the hottest topics
among the commentariat has been whether Democrats are going to blow their
opportunity to dethrone President Trump by catering to their most progressive
constituents.
Writing in The Atlantic, Peter Beinart asked, “Will the Democratic Party go too far?”
“I’ll vote for almost any Democrat, but lurching left won’t beat Trump,” read the headline on a USA Today editorial by Tom Nichols, a national security professor at the Naval War College and a self-identified “Never Trump”-er.
“Democratic candidates veer left, leaving
behind successful midterm strategy,” read the headline on a Washington Post analysis
piece by Michael Scherer, one of its national correspondents.
Hogwash, say others,
among them Keith A. Spencer, writing in Salon.com about “hard evidence” that supposedly
proves a centrist Democrat will belly flop in 2020.
Other op-ed’s have warned
Democrats to beware of Republican trolls trying to trick them into pursuing
foolish moderation.
So, what are Democrats to
do?
Well, what if they
borrowed a phrase from “A Clockwork Chartreuse,” Loudon Wainwright III’s
tongue-in-cheek paean to an anarchist: “Let’s burn down McDonald’s/Let’s go
whole hog.”
Here are few things Democratic candidates can advocate at the next round of debates – July 30 and 31, CNN — if they really, really want to test the notion that the way to deny Donald Trump a second term is not moderation but a triple jump to the left. In no particular order:
Claiming “originalist” interpretation, ban private
ownership of all firearms designed after 1789, the year the U.S. Constitution
was ratified.
Ban bacon and big-ass pick-up trucks.
Remove slave owners’ heads from Mt. Rushmore.
Outlaw Mountain Dew.
Expand national park acreage to include Texas.
Along with abolishing private health insurance and
replacing it with Medicare for All, reimburse patients for parking at hospital
ramps.
Mandatory kale consumption.
Stop construction of Trump’s wall; commence
construction of automated “people mover” walkways.
Change national anthem to Neil Diamond’s
immigrant-friendly “(Coming to) America.”
Abolish apple pie as the national dessert. I’m thinking rhubarb.
Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He’s a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (200-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune (1986-2000). He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” which is scheduled for publication fall of 2019 by Skyhorse.
Among political reporters and pundits, the fashionable take on Democratic presidential candidates is that they’re recklessly veering too far to the left, consequently putting their chances of defeating Donald Trump at risk. That critique is all the rage.
“But the Democrats are in danger of marching so far left that they go over a cliff. That’s not just my view. Mainstream reporters, who tend to be less sensitive to liberal positions that match their personal views, are openly acknowledging and debating the dramatic shift. It was even on the front page of The New York Times.”
“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing sweeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of political backlash. But with moderate Democrats repeatedly drowned out or on the defensive in the debates, the sprint to the left has deeply unnerved establishment Democrats, who have largely picked the party nominees in recent decades.”
“That sound you heard in Miami on Wednesday evening? El partido demócrata dando un fuerte giro a la izquierda. The screech of a Democratic Party swerving hard to the left. As the first 2020 Democratic debate wrapped here, there was a palpable sense that the 10 contenders on stage were reflecting the sentiments of the most liberal corners of the party.”
Yes, Democrats are more liberal than they have been in my lifetime. Yes, it’s possible that they could eventually go too far. But I disagree with the punditosphere that Democrats have hit that point.
Why Moving Left?
The explanation of aghast pundits has been that Democrats are supporting progressive policies for two primary reasons:
Echo Chamber Parrots. First, they argue that Democrats are more liberal because they spend too much time in self-reinforcing “echo chambers” — social media and cable news channels where like-minded ideologues radicalize each other and get isolated from opposing viewpoints. Pundits say candidates spend too little time in the habitat of “real people,” which they usually identify as Mayberry-esque Main Street cafes.
Liberal Bidding War. Also, pundits explain that Democrats are now more liberal because they’re desperately trying to out-liberal each other to court ultra-liberal primary and caucus voters.
These are both very real occupational hazards for politicians, and valid contributory factors for the shift to the left. I don’t disagree with them, but they’re not the only explanations.
Democrats Are Listening To Americans
Many reporters and pundits are missing or under-emphasizing another explanation that is at least as important,:
Listening To Americans. Democrats are moving left because they are actually listening to Americans.
Democrats are not just marching in lockstep with Rachel Maddow, Moveon.org, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, and Bernie Sanders. They’re not just trying to one-up each other. They’re also reading the survey research.
The American Prospect recently compiled a long list of recent survey polls showing overwhelming majorities of Americans embracing a broad range of progressive attitudes and policies, excerpted below. Remember, the following is dozens of independent statistically significant surveys speaking, not the liberal American Prospect magazine speaking:
The Economy
82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.
Inequality
82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.
72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty.
59 percent of registered voters—and 51 percent of Republicans—favor raising the maximum amount that low-wage workers can make and still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, from $14,820 to $18,000.
Taxes
76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.
60 percent of registered voters believe corporations pay too little in taxes.
87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.
Minimum Wage
54 percent of registered voters favored a $15 minimum wage.
63 percent of registered voters think the minimum wage should be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.
Workers’ Rights
74 percent of registered voters—including 71 percent of Republicans—support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.
78 percent of likely voters favor establishing a national fund that offers all workers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.
Health Care
60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
60 percent of registered voters favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”
64 percent of registered voters favor their state accepting the Obamacare plan for expanding Medicaid in their state.
Education
63 percent of registered voters—including 47 percent of Republicans—of Americans favor making four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free.
59 percent of Americans favor free early-childhood education.
Climate Change and the Environment
76 percent of voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about climate change.
68 percent of voters think it is possible to protect the environment and protect jobs.
59 percent of voters say more needs to be done to address climate change.
Gun Safety
84 percent of Americans support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
77 percent of gun owners support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
Criminal Justice
60 percent of Americans believe the recent killings of black men by police are part of a broader pattern of how police treat black Americans (compared with 39 percent who believe they are isolated incidents).
Immigration
68 percent of Americans—including 48 percent of Republicans—believe the country’s openness to people from around the world “is essential to who we are as a nation.” Just 29 percent say that “if America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation.”
65 percent of Americans—including 42 percent of Republicans—say immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents.” Just 26 percent say immigrants are a burden “because they take our jobs, housing and health care.”
64 percent of Americans think an increasing number of people from different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities makes the country a better place to live. Only 5 percent say it makes the United States a worse place to live, and 29 percent say it makes no difference.
76 percent of registered voters—including 69 percent of Republicans—support allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children (Dreamers) to stay in the country. Only 15 percent think they should be removed or deported from the country.
Abortion and Women’s Health
58 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
68 percent of Americans—including 54 percent of Republicans—support the requirement for private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control.
Same-Sex Marriage
62 percent of Americans—including 70 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans—support same-sex marriage.
For people who suffered through eras when the NRA, the Catholic Church, the health insurance lobby, the Moral Majority, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and trickle downers like Reagan, Gingrich and Bush dominated politics and policymaking, these findings are pretty stunning.
Make no mistake, America has changed. A solid majority of Americans now are supportive of left-leaning policies, whether or not they self-identify as “liberal.” In a representative democracy, public opinion is supposed to have a powerful impact on candidates and policymakers, and it is.
“Scaring the Independents”
“Harumph,” say the grizzled veteran pundits and reporters. Hubris-laden Democrats are going to scare away the Independent voters and be responsible for four more years of Trump.
That’s certainly a danger, and an important thing to monitor in coming months. But remember, all of those polls listed above have a representative number of Independent voters in their samples, and breakouts show that on most issues a solid majority of Independents also are backing very progressive policy positions.
In addition, when you look at how Independent voters are currently leaning, they are leaning in the Democrat’s direction by a net nine-point margin.
Obviously, these polls are just a snapshot in time, so Democrats could still lose Independent voters after they are exposed to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of attacks. However, it’s worth noting that, after watching Democrats being lambasted for embracing progressive positions in recent years, Independents are still leaning fairly decisively blue.
Expanding the Electorate
Finally, let’s not forget that it will be easier for Democratic candidates to win if they can expand the electorate. That is, Democrats need to make the overall size of their electorate larger than it has been in past presidential election by motivating and activating the parts of their coalition that have traditionally voted in relatively low numbers, such as low-income people, people of color and young people. Even just a few percentage points improvement with those groups could impact the outcome of the 2020 elections up and down the ballot.
Positions in the “mushy middle” — ACA stabilization tweaks, incremental tax reform, inflation adjustments only to the minimum wage, semi-punitive immigration law changes, Pell Grant adjustments, etc. — probably won’t particularly motivate and activate these important voters.
Bolder progressive policies — Medicare-for All, Medicare buy-in option, repealing Bush and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy to fund help for struggling families, increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour, family medical leave benefits, bold immigration law changes, higher education loan forgiveness — might.
Short-term Needs. So even if supporting progressive policies were causing Democrats to lose amongst Independent voters — and remember, so far the data seems to indicate that they aren’t — there is an argument for Democratic candidates to take those progressive stands anyway, in order to keep young people, poor people, and people of color from sitting out election day in large numbers, or backing a left-leaning third party candidate.
Long-term Needs. Appealing to those lightly voting groups with progressive policies is also important for the long-term future of the Democratic Party, not just the 2020 election. That’s because people of color are the fastest growing portions of the population, and today’s young people obviously will be voting for many years. Making those groups into committed members of the Democratic coalition would pay long-term dividends.
More Room To Grow. Still, some maintain that voter turnout is going to be so large in 2020, due to the polarizing nature of President Trump, that the size of the electorate will be maxed out without having to motivate lightly voting groups with progressive policies.
But when you look at the dramatically lower than average turnout figures for loyal Democratic constituencies in 2018, when their turnout levels were actually very high compared to 2014, it’s clear there is still much room for growth with these groups. For instance, 36% of young people voted in 2018, compared to 53% of the total population. Again, even an increase of a point or two in some of these categories could be decisive.
Who’s Out of Touch?
So yes, Democrats have indeed moved left in recent years. That much is obvious. But given this consistent stream of survey research from a wide variety of sources, I can’t agree with those who conclude that Democratic candidates are the ones who are “out of touch” with the pulse of the American people.
If you want to defeat Trump in 2020, I’d argue one of the worst things you can do right now is donate to Democratic presidential candidates. I’m serious.
Bear with me.
Last time I checked, Democrats have something like two dozen candidates in the race. That means any given donor’s chances of picking the winning candidate who ultimately runs against Trump are poor. Therefore, the contribution you give today could be, for the purposes of defeating Trump, pretty much wasted.
But what if you really feel strongly about a candidate?
Look, the policy differences between most of the candidates are not very significant. The differences get artificially magnified in heated primaries, but let’s keep things in the proper perspective. If you feel strongly about Issue X, the odds are very good that you are going to have several candidates in the race who agree with you, if not all of them.
So, donating now won’t particularly help promote Issue X. That’s why it’s very difficult to pick a Democratic candidate deserving of your donation.
Finally, making a contribution to an individual candidate now could inadvertently prolong the portion of the campaign season where Democrats have so many candidates in the race that their message is pretty much incoherent. Candidate winnowing is particularly needed with a field of 24, because a crowded, contentious field muddles the eventual nominee’s message and probably muddies the nominee’s reputation.
Candidates typically leave the race when they run out of money to pay for staff and ads, so giving to candidates now could simply delay the badly needed winnowing phase of the campaign.
So, which candidate or candidates should get your contributions? None of them.
Instead of contributing to one of the Democratic presidential candidates at a stage of the process when the race is essentially a roulette wheel, direct your contributions to Unify, Or Die.
Unify, Or Die was started by the hosts of the excellent podcast Pod Save America, in partnership with Swing Left. The idea simple and brilliant. People who want to defeat Trump can Donate to the Unify, Or Die Fund now, and the minute there is a Democratic Party nominee, all of the accumulated funding immediately will go to the Democratic nominee, so they can hit the ground running post-Democratic Convention against Trump and his massive war chest
So before you write that next big Hickenlooper check, stop, think big picture strategy, and redirect your money to a unified movement to remove the most corrupt, incompetent, and bigoted President of our times.
Joe Biden is stuck in a bygone era where Democrats were desperate to be accepted by wealthy donors. That’s at the root of his recent comments that he opposed “demonizing” the wealthy.
“’Remember, I got in trouble with some of the people on my team, on the Democratic side, because I said, you know, what I’ve found is rich people are just as patriotic as poor people. Not a joke. I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who’s made money,’ Biden told about 100 well-dressed donors at the Carlyle Hotel on New York’s Upper East Side, where the hors d’oeuvres included lobster, chicken satay and crudites.
‘Truth of the matter is, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done,’ Biden said. ‘We can disagree in the margins. But the truth of the matter is, it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living would change. Nothing would fundamentally change,’ he said.”
Just to clarify, contemporary Democrats are mostly talking about restoring tax levels for the wealthy to, at most, something like the Clinton-era levels, a time when the wealthy still were getting plenty rich. That’s hardly “demonizing.” If Joe doesn’t understand that, he doesn’t belong in the race.
Moreover, restoring tax fairness through progressive tax reform is the only real way to responsibly finance badly needed help for families, children, students, patients, workers and the environment. Democrats can’t live up to their progressive values if they don’t make those investments. If Joe doesn’t understand that, he doesn’t belong in the race.
Policy substance aside, this episode reveals a dangerous political blindspot, and/or insufficient awareness that everything you say anywhere in 2019 is very much “on the record.” Characterizing core progressive ideas as somehow “demonizing” the wealthy is spectacularly dumb primary politics. It also forfeits perhaps the strongest issue Democrats have for running against a corrupt billionaire and his congressional apologists, whose entire agenda has been designed to further enrich billionaires at the expense of the middle class and future generations of Americans.
If Joe doesn’t understand that, he especially doesn’t belong in the race.
And you know what? After reading Biden’s remarks, I’m pretty concerned that the 76-year old, who has been an elected official for 48-years, during political eras that were very different from the current era, doesn’t sufficiently understand any of those 2019 realities.
President Donald Trump is coming to Minnesota today. That means we’ll be treated to lots of bullying of Representative Ilhan Omar, crowing about the “exoneration” that the Special Counsel specifically has said was not an exoneration, and vilifying of families fleeing desperate conditions for a better life in America.
And you thought there was a cold wind blowing into Minnesota last week?
Since it’s Tax Day, we’ll also be hearing lots of bragging from the President about his tax cut law. But you probably won’t hear him mention that his tax law, which was dutifully supported by every Republican in the Minnesota congressional delegation, led to twice as many corporations paying $0 in taxes compared to the period before the Trump tax cuts. Here is an excerpt from an NBC analysis.
At least 60 companies reported that their 2018 federal tax rates amounted to effectively zero, or even less than zero…according to an analysis released today by the Washington, D.C.-based think tank, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). The number is more than twice as many as ITEP found roughly, per year, on average in an earlier, multi-year analysis before the new tax law went into effect.
Among them are household names like technology giant Amazon.com Inc. and entertainment streaming service Netflix Inc., in addition to global oil giant Chevron Corp., pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly and Co., and farming and commercial equipment manufacturer Deere & Co.
“Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year.”
“The specter of big corporations avoiding all income taxes on billions in profits sends a strong and corrosive signal to Americans: that the tax system is stacked against them, in favor of corporations and the wealthiest Americans,” Gardner wrote in the report.”
The next time you hear Trump or other Republicans say there isn’t enough money to help seniors, children, disaster victims, patients, farmers, disabled people, veterans, students, parents, and dislocated workers, remember this report and these lavish corporate handouts that are blowing an enormous hole in the federal budget.
I’m pretty sure “and we doubled the number of corporations paying zero taxes” is not likely to be an applause line that we will hear from President Trump at today’s Minnesota Tax Day rally. So I thought I’d do the President a favor and promote that particular accomplishment here.
Democratic presidential candidates are lining up in support of Medicare-for-All, and I’m glad they’re making that case to Americans. Around the world, single payer systems like Medicare-for-All are delivering better and cheaper health care than Americans are getting, and we need to adopt such a system as soon as possible. As William Hsiao, Ph.D., professor of economics at the Harvard School of Public Health puts it:
“You can have universal coverage and good quality health care, while still managing to control costs. But you have to have a single-payer system to do it.”
But for reasons I’ll explain below, I don’t believe Medicare-for-All can pass in 2020, even if Democrats control Congress and the White House. So, we need to extend a meaningful bridge to Medicare-for-All.
So what could Democrats pass to make Medicare-for-All possible in the relatively near future?
The 74-Year Battle
Before we get to that, let’s back up to reflect on how we got here. In 1945, Harry Truman wanted what we today would call Medicare-for-All. For 20 years, it went nowhere. What was dubbed “socialized medicine” by Ronald Reagan and other Republicans just didn’t prove to be politically feasible.
In 1965, Lyndon Johnson had a partial breakthrough. He passed Medicare for 65 and older, but it wasn’t as comprehensive as today’s Medicare. As support for Medicare grew, improvements were made. In 1972, Republican Richard Nixon agreed to expand coverage. In the Reagan years, home health care, hospice services, and a limited prescription drug benefit were added. In the George H.W. Bush era, the prescription drug benefit was expanded.
The historical lesson: Health care reform in a nation dominated by powerful private health insurance companies has been supremely arduous, and therefore incremental. This is true even though Medicare has proven popular and efficient.
Medicare-for-All Next?
Unfortunately, three-quarters of a century after Truman started advocating for Medicare for All, the debate still is treacherous. In 2019, the Medicare expansion debate boils down to essentially this: Should progressives push for 1) publicly financed, mandated Medicare-for-All; 2) voluntary, consumer-financed Medicare buy-in option; or 3) a publicly financed, mandated “Medicare at 50.”
Many progressives, myself included, point to the polls showing strong support for Medicare-for-All, and say now is the time to push for it.
Indeed, progressives should continue to make the case for making Medicare-for-All the goal. At the same time, we have to recognize that in the current political environment, Medicare-for-All has much less popular support than a Medicare buy-in option. A January 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll finds that 56% of Americans support Medicare-for-All, while 77% support a Medicare buy-in option. So when conservatives and insurance companies start attacking, the buy-in option would be much more politically bullet-proof than Medicare-for-All.
Moreover, as the debate heats up Medicare-for-All and Medicare-at-50 will be vulnerable to two of the most deadly attacks in all of American politics. First, opponents will say they’re “massively expensive.” Second, they will say consumers would be “forced to give up your current coverage.”
We shouldn’t discount the political power of those two critiques. When it comes to taxpayer expense and mandated change, American voters have historically been very easily spooked. Those two attacks, which would be greatly amplified via hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the most intensive political and special interest propaganda the nation has ever seen, will be very effective at eroding support.
Therefore, today’s poll numbers for Medicare-for-All and Medicare-at-50 will not hold up, and when they shrink, congressional votes will disappear.
Advantages Of A Medicare Buy-In Bridge
A Medicare buy-in option, however, is much more politically durable, and not just because it has 21 points more support in the KFF survey than Medicare-for-All.
Not Expensive. First, a Medicare buy-in option wouldn’t have a big taxpayer price tag like Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50, because consumers under age 65 would be paying premiums, not taxpayers.
Not A Mandate. Second, a buy-in option wouldn’t force any consumer to give up their current coverage, which they would need to do with either Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50. Under the buy-in option, consumers who want to continue to pay more to keep their private coverage could still choose to do so.
The fact that a Medicare buy-in option is voluntary and self-financing would largely disarm the most potent political attacks that have been working since 1945.
A Bridge To Medicare-for-All. But make no mistake, passing a Medicare buy-in option would constitute dramatic progress that would make Medicare for All much more likely in the future. Let me count the ways:
More Affordable for Millions. Because Medicare has much lower overhead than private health insurance, it would give millions of Americans more affordable coverage than they have today. By the way, if private insurance somehow turns out to be cheaper and/or better than the Medicare option, as conservatives have long claimed, consumers obviously will choose it. If that happens, Republicans will be proven correct. So let patients decide, not politicians. Conservatives should have nothing to fear from giving this option to consumers.
Aid Cost Control. A Medicare buy-in option would give Medicare a bigger pool of consumers, which would give Medicare officials much more leverage to negotiate cost control with hospitals, doctors, device makers and pharmaceutical companies. “Medicare-for-more” would not be as effective at leveraging lower costs as “Medicare-for-All” will be, but it will bring important progress.
Deepen Medicare Support. As more Americans voluntarily switch from private insurance to the cheaper Medicare buy-in option without experiencing worse service and coverage, it will show Americans that this “government-run health care” is not the horrific bogeyman Republicans have made it out to be.
Broaden Generational Support. Finally, while Medicare currently mostly only has senior citizen champions, newly converted believers in Medicare would be in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and early 60s. This would dramatically strengthen the Medicare-for-All base of support.
So, a Medicare buy-in option would be much more politically feasible than Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50, and it is the next logical span of the bridge to Medicare-for-All to add. Progressives shouldn’t be hesitant to build it.
Arguably Senator John McCain’s finest moment came in Minnesota, when he corrected a Minnesota woman who called Barack Obama an Arab, a shockingly widespread belief at the time among Republicans. With the audience chuckling, and an easy cheap-shot applause line tempting the candidate, McCain showed political discipline, courage and integrity when he famously corrected her. “No ma’am, he’s a decent family man and citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with…”
(By the way, it would have been much more admirable had Senator McCain added something like: “And ‘Arab’ should never be used as a criticism or slur, because most people of Arabic descent are decent family men and women, and many are American citizens who love this country every bit as much as we do.” That would have been even more courageous and constructive. But I digress.)
Very soon, I suspect Democratic presidential candidates will have their own McCain moment in front of them. For instance, eye-for-an-eye Democratic activists at rallies will surely echo and mock Trump supporters by chanting “lock him up.” Though that chant isn’t as racist or removed from reality as the “Arab” remark, it’s also ugly in its own way.
In that same moment, Trump shamelessly promoted ignorance, disinformation, and mob rule by leading the chant, because he is a petty, short-sighted and dishonest authoritarian. But Democrats should show swing voters that they are better than Trump and his sycophantic Trumpublicans, and should not further normalize Trump’s abhorrent behavior by aping it.
A primary problem with the Trump supporters’ “lock her up” chants was not just that Secretary Clinton hadn’t been found guilty of any jailable offense, or even charged with one. It also was that politicians should never be making incarceration decisions and declarations about political opponents, Putin-style. In our American democracy, those are decisions that should be reserved for the independent judicial branch of government, after due process has been completed.
So when the “lock him up” chants inevitably start at Democratic rallies, Democratic candidates and party leaders should immediately stop their crowds and gently but firmly say something like this:
“No my friends, that’s them. That’s not us. That’s not how it works in this great democracy of ours. Incarceration is for the judges and juries in the judicial branch to decide, not for us. But here is something that we can do, and must do. Vote them out! Vote them out! Vote them out!”
That will show swing voters — Independents, moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans — that Democrats are the adults in the room. It will show them that it’s not true that “both sides do it,” as moderates frequently assert. It will show them that Democrats are focused on democracy and not being an authoritarian lynch mob. It show them that Democrats are leaders not demagogues.
For a country suffering extreme Trump fatigue, those things will matter a great deal in the 2020 elections.
Barack Obama showed Democrats the way. At campaign rallies, his fired up supporters often started booing their opponents. But Obama firmly redirected his supporters in a more constructive democratic direction. “Don’t boo. Vote.”
In other words, Obama was a moral leader, not a demagogue. His wannabe successors will have a similar moral test in front of them in the upcoming campaign. They need to follow President Obama’s lead.
President Donald Trump is coming to Minnesota today. That means we’ll be treated to lots of bullying of Representative Ilhan Omar, crowing about the “exoneration” that the Special Counsel specifically has said was not an exoneration, and vilifying of families fleeing desperate conditions for a better life in America.
Democratic presidential candidates are lining up in support of Medicare-for-All, and I’m glad they’re making that case to Americans. Around the 
Before we get to that, let’s back up to reflect on how we 