A Democratic Party Victory in This Midterm Will Not Fix Our Long-Term Problems

At this point, in September of 2026, just two months before the midterm elections, the priority for Democrats is to win as many seats in Congress as possible.  In more than forty years of teaching high school civics, and observing election cycles and American politics, I don't think I've ever seen an election where a majority of voters, according to the polls, are more focused on casting a ballot against a sitting President than for the issues represented by individual candidates.  It seems as if the bottom line for a huge number of voters this time around is the total inept incompetence of Trump.  

I'm a lifelong Democrat, the son of a World War 2 Navy veteran and devoted chemical workers union member who can count on one hand the number of times I've not voted straight ticket Democrat.  I get frustrated when it seems that some of our party leadership still thinks that the old school kind of negotiation, deal-making and compromise with the other side of the aisle is still the way American politics works.  But of course, the other party has never really offered anything that I would consider supporting.  

The Attack on American Democracy Didn't Start With Trump

By comparison, the recent Republican presidencies prior to Trump seem reasonable, and lack the kind of extremist populism that Trump uses to excite his mindless base.  But let's not forget that dividing up the government and selling it off piece by piece to corporate billionaires and wealth re-distribution that landed 99% of the nation's assets and money in the hands of 1% of its population started with Ronald Reagan.  So did the Heritage Foundation's agenda to drive America toward white supremacist Christian nationalism.  Reagan, and both George H. W. and George W. Bush were active in promoting policy and carrying out the duties of the executive office to make this become reality. 

Government has become the only institution in American life still capable of stopping the slide into capitalist oligarchy that will rip any semblance of American idealism and American values out of this nation.  But the balance of power is rapidly tipping in favor of the wealthiest of the wealthy and we may very well be on the brink of a point of no return when it comes to saving our democracy.  This midterm election is an essential step in the process of getting America back, but it will only be a small part of the long term work of restoring American democracy to our government and our society. 

Policies and practices going all the way back to the Reagan administration will have to be undone, repealed or abandoned.  Democrats will need leaders who will kick asses and take no prisoners, not those who will back down or compromise to come out with a few small gains, or nothing, as has been the practice.  That's exactly how the GOP got us to the brink of billionaire oligarchy and we can't get back to the democracy we once had by playing compromise and acting like Merrick Garland. 

Hopefully, the message was received during the primary season, when Progressive Democrats defied the odds, and the pollsters, and won in places where they concentrated their money and their efforts.  This is the main benefit that will come from this midterm election and which will lay the groundwork for the pathway that the Democratic party must take if it is to restore American Democracy. 

So Where Do We Start? 

We start with the courts.  

If Democrats get control of both the house and the Senate, then it will be time to shut down every judicial appointment Trump makes.  Nobody gets through.  Hold those spots open for the next Democratic President to fill.  This is something Democrats can do if we control the Senate, which is why that particular aspect of the mid-term elections is so important.  

And I'm not talking about some mamby-pamby negotiation to let some of the judicial appointments through, or some kind of compromise.  I mean that we need to stop any judicial appointments dead in their tracks, and prevent them from getting onto the bench.  In so far as it is possible, shut down any more Trump influence of the court.  We do not need any more Eileen Cannons. 

Then, in preparation for 2028, finding a line-up of some of the most progressive judges in the federal system, in order to expand the Supreme Court and nullify the corrupt conservatives, and also force them to adopt rules of ethics, such as not allowing them to take bribes like Clarence Thomas, and then to go through the long list of court decisions which helped the Republicans, going back to Reagan, sell the federal government off piece by piece to the one percenters, and in as quick a manner as possible, undo everything right up to Citizens United.  Any decision made by the conservative majority should be up for overturning.  

Does that sound like too much?  Not if there's an interest in the genuine restoration of American Democracy, it's not.  

Leadership Changes

If Hakeem Jeffries is willing to acknowledge that the Democratic party needs to embrace its left wing, and openly takes a position discouraging any indication of a move to the right of the moderate wing of the party, then I think he's put in the work and paid the dues, so to speak, to be Speaker of the House.  But he needs to be consistent and he needs to stop letting big money donors, including AIPAC, influence the party agenda.  If he does that, then I'll support his selection as Speaker of the House.  If not, then I'm in favor of letting the Democrats in the House pick someone else.  My personal favorite would be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, of New York. 

Schumer needs to step down.  I'm not opposed to this being a position from which a Democrat openly campaigns for the 2028 nomination for President, so for that reason, I'd endorse someone like Mark Kelly of Arizona, or Corey Booker of New Jersey.  They are a couple of Senators who can kick ass and take no prisoners.  I'd be OK with either of them seeking the Presidency while serving as majority leader of the Senate.  And Tammy Duckworth would also be on that list. 

That's what this kind of effort will take, because there's a lot of legislation that will need to be re-evaluated and either changed completely or repealed for us to get our democracy back. And we need leaders in Congress who will aggressively pursue investigations into the criminal activity and constitutional violations committed by the Trump administration, and everyone involved, and make sure that the next Democratic attorney general has the mountains of evidence needed to hold this demagogue, and every one of his accomplices, accountable.  

Getting all of that started after the mid-term elections is essential.  Instead of the kind of obfuscation, delay and foot dragging that characterized Merrick Garland's half-hearted pursuit of Trump's criminal and seditious activity, we need bold, aggressive leadership that is willing to apply the necessary level of accountability.  Otherwise, there will be no deterrent to any future potential demagogues who will give this same thing a try.  

And keep remembering, Trump didn't start this.  The Republican party has systematically been allowing corporate big money to buy chunks of government since Reagan was in office.  So it won't be something that gets undone overnight.  

Work Toward the Big Priorities

A big part of what the American people want out of this midterm election is for politicians to handle the affordability crisis.  That will almost certainly be resolved by simply ending the Iran war,  on the best terms now possible, which are not great for the United States.  And as always, the resistance to lowering prices inflated artificially by political circumstances will keep going until someone does something about it.  Now I know that's socialism, by its real definition, but capitalist principle combined with tax breaks for the rich are counterproductive to reducing inflation.  Once a gallon of milk costs $5.00, no dairy producer or grocery store chain will drop the price.  It will have to be forced down. 

And I'm going to close with the admonition to Democrats who get elected to Congress this midterm, that the pressing need in this country now is for affordable health care, and our current, corporate-dictated, for-profit health insurance and care system is totally and completely out of control.  I'll say it so it can be understood, we need a single-payer, government controlled health care finance and provider system, "socialized medicine" if you will.  Where will the money come from?  Well, reducing the profit margin on insurance coverage and health care provision will be a good place to start.  Eliminating it altogether, and reducing administrative costs to put the bulk of what people pay into their health care will solve the problem.  

Of course, Trump will veto everything that benefits the people, and fairly evens the playing field with big corporate insurance and medicine, but his efforts to protect their profiteering need to be squelched.  People need a break, now, not down the road, and this would be something that Democrats could ride to victory in a series of elections if they get this right.  

For a party that has always had trouble with staying on the narrative, this is a remarkable opportunity.  Don't blow it.  

  

The Theology of the Texas Senate Race Between Talarico and Paxton

The attacks being levelled against Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico are sending a couple of loud and clear messages from Paxton and his supporters.  One, they know that they cannot campaign on Paxton's record, or on his character.  Those are both losing propositions.  And the other message?  They see the numbers and they know that Talarico is poised to win.  In the past couple of weeks, his polling averages in several of the more reliable national polls with a reputation for accuracy has slipped above the 50% threshold.  He's picking up the lion's share of undecided, independent voters. 

Paxton is desperate.  So instead of campaigning on the issues, none of which go in Paxton's favor, they are attacking Talarico's character, his masculinity, and more specifically, his Christian faith.  None of those are things which have anything to do with what kind of Senator he will be and how he will represent Texas.  But they focus attention away from Paxton's moral bankruptcy and corruption, which led his own fellow Republicans in the state legislature to impeach him and attempt to remove him from office.  He survived the removal attempt because of the partisan makeup of the Texas legislature, though there were Republicans who voted in favor of his removal as Texas Attorney General.  

It's somewhat hypocritical to me for a man with the baggage of corruption that Paxton carries, including having had at least one well publicized affair, which a divorce court labelled adultery and considered as legitimate grounds for his divorce, to be championed by the majority of church members as qualified for any kind of public office.  Men getting away with adulterous affairs, and being warmly welcomed in Evangelical congregations, and sometimes treated as heroes as a result, is common, especially among Southern Baptists, one of whose churches Paxton attends regularly and holds membership. 

[Paxton Lets Sexual Abuser Adam Hoffman Off the Hook]

[Evangelical Church Elder and Youth Leader Arrested on Allegations of Sexual Assault of a Foster Daughter]

So when Talarico is attacked, mostly in social media, for making statements which are reflective of his theology and personal convictions as a clergyman in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), known as the more liberal branch of Presbyterianism, it reflects a disgraceful and dishonest hypocrisy on the part of conservatives.  Clearly, this is getting a significant amount of backlash as the same polling data that shows Talarico trending toward the 50% threshold also shows that voters disapprove of this particular tactic of Paxton, by more than a 2 to 1 margin.  The criticism of Talarico's theology and faith by the Paxton campaign is hurting his chances with voters.   

The Theological Battle at the Core of This Campaign, Liberal vs. Conservative Christian

For those outside the very confusing tangle of what lies behind the high, thick walls American Protestants have built around a patchwork of unbiblical denominations build on specific doctrines of reformation-era theology, Conservative Evangelicalism is a Johnny-come-lately splattering of doctrine based on faulty theories of the inspiration of the Biblical text, and on a very distorted and falsely skewed literal interpretation and application of the text.  

American Evangelicals are split between the Fundamentalists, who are hard liners when it comes to being anti-education and separatist when it comes to their attitude toward anyone claiming to be Christian who doesn't believe exactly what they believe,  Charismatics and Pentecostals, who have added emotionalist and spiritualist error to the practice of the Christian gospel, and the Restorationists, who focus on "getting back to the original interpretation of the text," and take a literalist interpretation of the Bible to extremes.  

All three of these Evangelical traditions are relatively new on the scene when it comes to the history of the Christian church and they have several things in common.  They emerged from the anti-intellectual, anti-educational bias of the frontier revivals of the Second Great Awakening, when churches did not have access to very many educated pastors and ministers, and developed beliefs influenced by superstition and fear of the unknown.  Their lack of education prevented them from knowing or understanding the whole context of the history of the Christian church, its origins, and the language, history and cultural influences, the understanding of which is absolutely essential to a correct interpretation of the scripture.  

The primary error in interpretation that American Evangelicals make is found in their theories of the inspiration of scripture.  Evangelicals claim to believe that, because of God's presence in inspiring the writing of every word of the scripture, the whole 66 book Protestant Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts, and infallible in practice.  The terms "verbal and plenary," applied to the expression of this belief, mean that every word of the Bible is inspired, and the whole of the text of the 66 books in the Protestant Bible is equally inspired.  

This is false doctrine, and a grievous error leading to all kinds of misinterpretations and faith practice that is essentially meaningless.  And it is diametrically opposed to the core doctrine of the Christian faith, which is the divinity, humanity and supremacy of Jesus the Christ.  

The life examples and teachings of Jesus, recorded in the four gospel accounts in the New Testament, form the criterion by which all other scripture is to be interpreted.  The person of Jesus as the son of God, one of three persons of the trinitarian view of God, is, in Christian doctrine, the only perfect revelation of the Christian gospel.  Any theories of interpreting scripture which lead to stand-alone interpretations of statements without filtering them through the thoughts and ideas of Jesus is contrary to true Christianity and to the gospel message of Jesus Christ. 

Nor can the words of any of the Bible's authors be equated in their inspiration or truth with those of Jesus Christ.  In Christian doctrine, Jesus was God, and the gospel he revealed, perfect.  And while it is legitimate to consider the other authors, such as Paul, John, Peter, and whoever wrote Hebrews, as being inspired by God, their words are subject to interpretation that filters them through the gospel of Jesus Christ before determining what they mean.  They do not stand alone in their interpretation, which produces obvious conflicts when they are incorrectly interpreted in the literal context used by most Evangelicals. 

No Christian denomination or church has a corner on correct doctrine and theology.  However, those who have been labelled as "liberal" for not accepting the literalist premises of conservative Evangelicals actually have a much better handle on the kind of faith practice that the gospel of Jesus Christ establishes.  What Evangelicals practice is salvation by works, which include making wise decision and following the rules, while abstaining and avoiding things that have been judged to be breaking them.  The Christian faith begins with the ten commandments, in their view, obedience is the key to true faith according to their doctrine and theology.  So if you do enough good works and you properly judge and condemn evil, you can add up enough points for God to let you into heaven.  This is exactly what their theology teaches, in spite of protests to the contrary. 

For the so-called "Liberal" Christians, like the PCUSA, to which James Talarico belongs, the Christian gospel begins with the Beatitudes, and it carries through the theme of forgiveness and restoration, according to scripture.  Following the example of Jesus and correct interpretation and practice of the principles he taught and modelled leads to salvation that comes from God's grace, and the serving of his creation, in the "liberal" view. The emphasis on the human end is the receiving of grace and living in gratitude as a result, with judgment and condemnation left up to God.  Jesus focused the core principle of the Christian gospel on loving God with all one's heart, soul, strength and mind, and loving one's neighbor.  The outcome and practice of the Christian gospel is quite different from the Evangelical Fundamentalist perspective. 

 Texas Has a Large Number of Moderate to Liberal Christians

Talarico has an M.A. in theological studies from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.  There's a reason why the Presbyterian Church USA, which is the largest and most liberal branch of the Presbyterian church, has a theological seminary in Austin, Texas.  That's because there are a large number of members of the Presbyterian Church USA in Texas.  The seminary is  known for social justice-oriented curriculum which is drawn directly from the Christian gospel.  The membership of the Synod of the Sun, which includes Texas, dwarfs the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America membership in the state.  

Texas also has the largest number of the very progressive Episcopal Church among its population, as well as the largest number of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is its most progressive branch.  And after the great schism among the Methodists, the more progressive United Methodist Church also has its largest number of adherents in Texas, with more than three times as many members as those who left to form more conservative churches.   

Then there are the Southern Baptists.  Yes, the Southern Baptists. 

Following the Fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, which started in 1979, the majority of its churches and members across the country supported the ultra-conservative domination of the national body.  But the exact opposite happened in Texas.  

The state convention affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention in Texas, known as the Baptist General Convention of Texas, also split with conservatives forming the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBCT) and the more moderate to liberal members retaining control of the BGCT.  The majority of churches and members in the 2.3 million member body have remained in the more progressive group, which has also affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the more progressive group which formed on the national level.  

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and the Baptist General Convention of Texas, are both very active when it comes to social justice, and they both reject the literalist interpretations of the Bible that ignore or downplay the principles of the Christian gospel.  And while that might not mean they will vote for Talarico, it certainly means that they do not disagree with his theology and doctrine, which is being attacked by conservatives.  In spite of the split, the more progressive Baptist General Convention of Texas remains the state's single largest religious group.  

Take These Attacks for What They Are:  Republican Desperation

We wouldn't see these attacks on Christian theology and doctrine happening if Talarico were not a serious threat to the Republican retention of this Texas senate seat.  It's pretty desperate that a morally bankrupt politician, who attends church only when it suits his public image, and whose lifestyle reflects the exact kind of worldliness that conservatives and fundamentalists reject, would attack some of the terminology and concepts of an ordained minister who demonstrates a thorough grasp of biblical theology.  

Paxton hangs around with Evangelicals enough to know that many of them are theologically and doctrinally ignorant of their Christian faith, and he knows the buzz words and superstitions and where the lines are drawn in the sand.  So he's got people who are trying to distract voters from his record, on which he cannot win, so he has to scare voters into thinking that the evil bugaboo that conservative Evangelicals must rely on to set up their straw man arguments has infected Talarico, too.  

But there might just be enough Christians in Texas who have already been through the battle over the hearts and souls of their church members to know that Talarico speaks truth when he talks Christian faith and that it's the Evangelicals and Paxton who are the liars.  That. and the sinking popularity of an incompetent boob of a President are making Talarico's chances at winning this election excellent.

In a Trade War With Canada, Trump Loses His Ever-Loving Mind

He's gone over Niagara Falls in a barrel. 

The President of the United States lost his mind and his composure, and threw a tantrum when the Canadian prime minister, who understands exactly what kind of absolute craziness and insanity he is dealing with in Trump, dared fight back after his senseless, pointless and ridiculous tariffs on Canada exacerbated the growing trade war between the two closest allies in the world.  

--And I'm going to interrupt my own train of thought here to point out to the mindless and stupid conservatives who can't explain or define either socialism or communism, that their inamorata in the White House is trashing US relationships to other free, democratic allies in exchange for friendships with communists like Kim Jong Un or fascists like Vladimir Putin, and therefore are hypocrites--

That being said, this President's gross unfitness for office is on display in his use of an executive order to throw a genuine child's tantrum.  The executive branch of this nation is behaving like a spoiled child, demonstrating his unfitness for this office and his total lack of real leadership ability by issuing an executive order renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America.  

That's going to solve all of our economic problems, isn't it?  It not only fixes the economic problems, but in one fell swoop it has prospered the middle class and made the working class happy.  

There are some benefits to this embarrassing and ridiculously stupid tantrum result.  In any conversation referencing Lake Ontario, when someone refers to it as "Lake America," knowing looks will be exchanged and stupid people can identify other stupid people.  

What's next?  What will we tolerate and how long will we put up with it?  

"Blue Tsunami" is the Correct Term to Describe How the Mid-Term Elections Seem to be Shaping Up

Watching political poll numbers in the United States can be a full time occupation.  There are now a plethora of polls, covering every possible angle and opinion in politics.  It's still true that it takes four or five different polling averages on the same question to get a solid read on public opinion but there is now enough data being recorded to the point where it is possible to determine, down to the precinct level--almost--how an election is going to turn out.  

There is a lot of polling data out there on this coming mid-term election at every level.  Taken as a whole, the predicted result is that the Democratic party is very likely to gain control of the House, and less likely to gain control of the senate.  That's because polls are still based on the outcomes and turnouts of the 2024 election which are used as part of the way raw data is factored.  Predictions take into consideration how voters cast their ballots previously, and then factor in things like the typical lower turnout in a mid-term, and how shifts and swings in previous elections have gone to determine their guess.  

What seems to be happening in the current set of polling data is that information being gathered and sorted isn't always matching up with the level of voter enthusiasm for a particular candidate, or the actual outcome of the election.  The primaries have been particularly difficult to pick with some surprise results going well outside the margin of error of the polling data.  Angie Nixon's win over Alexander Vindman in Florida was, perhaps, the biggest shock.  Not only did he outspend her 20 to 1, she focused on progressive issues normally not a popular position to take in Florida, and had endorsements from the far left wing of the party.  But she focused on the issues that the polling data shows are big in people's minds, namely affordability, health care, housing and food assistance, and she pulled some publicity stunts which got a lot of media attention.  

She won big.  And she is the favorite in the general election.  

Her win mirrors other similar victories for candidates from the left side of the Democratic party who have, for the most part, been at the forefront of the "No Kings!" rallies, marches and protests.  This is a very large and very active and enthusiastic group of potential voters who are committing to turning out at the polls, and following through.  Their presence, which is starting to show up in polling data everywhere, is going to be a major influence in which Democrats get into which office.  And it is a big factor, not only in the fact that Democrats are favored to win control of the House, but in getting enough voters to the polls everywhere to also gain a Senate majority for the party.  

It's Looking More and More Like Democrats Will Take Control of the Senate

As things have turned out, the "most vulnerable Democrat" in the Senate seems to be becoming the most likely Democrat to get re-elected.  Jon Ossoff is running away with his race in Georgia, which Republicans once thought of as the best place to flip a seat.  That possibility has travelled north to Michigan, where Gary Peters is stepping down, but following their late-in-the-season, highly contested primary, as that race shapes up, Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee, is edging out Mike Rogers, the MAGA backed candidate.  It looks to be close, but it is interesting to note that since the primary, El-Sayed's support is inching forward, while Rogers is slowly losing points.  

As far as potential flips go, no one could have predicted that Texas and Iowa would be Senate battlegrounds with Republicans clinging on for dear life to try and hold seats.  James Talarico, the Democratic nominee in Texas, has held a slight one to two percentage point lead ever since he won the nomination, in spite of polling stalwarts like Cook Political not changing their factoring based on previous outcomes.  And as more recent polling data piles up, we are now seeing several polls where Talarico is crossing the 50% threshold, which is a milestone in a race as close, and as ugly, as this one.  

Trump unpopularity is definitely a factor in this one, while Paxton carries baggage of his own, including a highly publicized affair and divorce.  The liberal religious perspective of Talarico, who is a United Presbyterian clergyman, has been used to attack him, even though the religious points have nothing to do with the issues.  But even that seems to favor Talarico, who responds by simply asserting his beliefs, not by backing down.  

In fact, over the past couple of weeks, it is starting to look like the Democrats may actually flip all of the Republican seats where they were considered legitimate challengers, including Maine, Ohio, Iowa, Texas, Alaska, North Carolina and Michigan.  Mary Peltola, the Democratic party nominee in Alaska, won a straight up primary against her Republican opponent a couple of weeks ago, causing many pollsters to name Alaska as the Democratic tipping point.  North Carolina looks like a sure thing for Roy Cooper, and Maine is starting to look that way as well.  Sherrod Brown is pulling ahead in Ohio.  

It might be a bold prediction, but I think Democrats may actually take all seven of those states, and get control of the Senate.  As we get closer to the election, the vast majority of polling data coming in reflects mostly declining numbers, especially for MAGA Republicans, and growing support for Democrats.  

Trump-Instigated Redistricting Has Lost It's Punch

The gains that Republicans hoped to make in states where they redrew district lines last spring have faded and dissipated in the most recent polling data.  Hoping to save up to as many as 17 seats, not enough to stop a Democratic majority from winning, but enough to mute the overall effect of a blue tsunami, the redistricting Republicans tried in several states has fallen kind of flat.  I've seen three recent polls, including an Emerson, which indicate the possibility that Republicans may not actually win any of those seats.  Well, the drop in support and approval of Trump has been staggering and none of the districts they redrew gave them a significant enough majority to overcome a 10 point drop in support.  And the drop for most MAGA candidates across the board has been about 14%.  

So it does indeed look like we are going to see an even more overwhelming blue tsunami than we did in 2018.  History does have a tendency to repeat itself, and it seems that we needed a reminder of just how bad Trump has been as President, and how bad Republican leadership has failed, to get to this point.  All that corporate money has been matched on the Democratic side by individual contributions, in spite of some whining and complaining.  And the advantage Progressive Democrats are giving the party is a clear and concise message that is well delivered.  That goes a lot further than slick advertising does.

This wave will surprise most of the pundits.

Some Bold Speculation About the Coming Blue Tsunami 

240.  

Keep your eyes on that number, because I think that's how many Democrats will find themselves elected to the House after November.  That's ten more than the pollsters are cautiously predicting now, using their 2024 voter data.  But it looks like the progressive side of the Democratic party is going to produce the most enthusiastic voters this time around, along with the almost 70% of independents who are fed up with Trump.  So I think that's going to be bigger than the pundits and pollsters are predicting.  

I am also going out on a limb and saying that the seven current GOP held seats that are considered the challenges--Maine, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, North Carolina, Alaska and Iowa, will all fall to the Democratic party.  That's how it's trending now, and I think it will be a close, but firm win for the Democrats come November, when things "tighten up."  And I think there might be a "pick one off" among what the GOP has left.  Darlene Graham was just nominated by the South Carolina GOP, and I think that's not going to turn out too well.  She's even more loony toons than her brother was, and that can be an appeal in a state like South Carolina, but I think there's going to be enough of a fall off in support to allow a Democrat to slip in.  

I also wish the Democrats had taken a closer look at West Virginia, and put some money behind Rachel Fetty Anderson. They might have made their "do nothing for decades" Senator Shelly Moore Capito get out and try and run on a record of having done nothing for the people of West Virginia for 12 years in the Senate.  I'm not sure they could have won the seat, but the Republicans there weren't all that excited about Capito this time around.  No wonder.  The sheet listing her accomplishments and benefits for her state as a senator is blank.  

I'm usually pretty good at this.  I underestimated the Democrats in 2018, and overestimated Trump.  Everything this guy touches eventually rusts and crumbles, including his political support.  And I think the second term, for Republicans, will be a disaster that will be hard from which to recover.  

Old School Politics Must Go! That Doesn't Work Any More

Personally, I like Hakeem Jeffries.  I thought his management of the Trump impeachment trial was impeccable and professional.  It is unfortunate that partisan loyalty prevented justice from being done, but that wasn't Jeffries fault.  

But I'm having trouble with his position on some issues, and I'm baffled by this recent meeting he took with Jared Kushner, "to determine where there can be cooperation between the two parties."  

I'm sorry, Congressman Jeffries, but that ship sailed a long time ago.  Rush Limbaugh helped the GOP weigh anchor and it's only been made worse under Trump.  There can't be any meaningful cooperation with a political party that has enabled the destruction of American Democracy.  

It Might Be a Good Idea For Democratic Establishment Leadership to Pay Attention to Their Constituency

Defeating Trumpism and removing any vestige of its influence or existence from American government is the priority of the Trump opposition.  You know, this massive group of Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans who have marched and rallied and pointed to the grievous mistake this country made when it elected Donald Trump, worse the second time than the first.  These are the same people who have energized the candidacies of dozens of Democrats running for current Republican-held seats in Congress and in the Senate, and in state legislatures and for governorships and have flipped the polling data on its ears in the past eight or nine months.  They are the reason why Democrats are going to win the midterms, not some long narrative on political reform.  

They are the reason why the polls have been virtually stymied and stunned when primary elections have gone fifteen points outside the Emerson or Quinnipiac or ABC prediction in favor of some of the younger, progressive candidates over establishment Democrats.  It hasn't caught on everywhere, but it is clearly the definition of a movement that so many progressive, Democratic Socialists are the party's nominees for seats in Congress.  And in most cases, the enthusiasm they carried into their primary election is going to win them the seat, because their message is on target with a mass of voters who are just finally and gloriously fed up with the orange headed buffoon in the White House.  

I'm a lifelong Democrat, the son of a Union member, who can count on one hand the times I haven't voted straight ticket.  I'll be less than a year away from starting my seventh decade on this planet on election day.  What do I want to see?  Well, the last thing I want to see is a meeting between the House Minority Leader, soon to be Speaker, and of all people Jared Kushner.  If that's the guy the Republicans have representing some kind of deal to find places where the two parties can cooperate, then there isn't anything good that I see coming out of that for Democrats.  The fact that Jeffries could even sit in the same room without vomiting is concerning.  

This is NOT what we want.  So remember that, because we're going to be voting soon.  And this isn't "bashing" or attacking or discrediting a Democrat.  It's expressing a legitimate disagreement in the hopes that the leader is mature and open minded enough to accept it and be open to debate and discussion.

It's Legitimate to Question This

We will not fix or repair what is wrong with the nation at this point by negotiating and cooperating with the very people who are bent on destroying it.  What will be the basis of cooperation?  Will they trash the hateful, arrogant, misguided Heritage Foundation?  That would have to happen for any meaningful cooperation to come from Democrats.  Will they force Trump to resign and then back off as he is brought to trial for his crimes in office and sent to prison, which is, as far as I am concerned, a non-negotiable position for Democrats after the mid-terms?  

Those would be the starting points for any kind of cooperative attitude or position from Democrats as far as I am concerned.  

And ultimately, then, if this is how Jeffries feels, who else is involved in this move?  Schumer? And do I want them to be in the leadership of the Democratic party at this point?  I've expressed it before, and I think the terms are accurate.  I want leadership that will kick ass and take no prisoners.  That is the only acceptable position for the Democratic party now, after more than thirty years of any kind of cooperation between parties being trashed and abandoned by the GOP.  And that makes me think that someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez needs to be speaker, and someone like Jon Ossoff needs to be Senate Majority Leader.  

Which Matters to the Democratic Party Leadership?  Corporate Influence or Voters?  

I don't want to fill this whole piece with cliches, but I certainly do smell a rat here.  It has all of the characteristics of big corporate PAC money buying influence.  It's an attempt to sabotage what has shaped up to be a massive blue tsunami that is even flooding the shores of places like Texas, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Maine, and apparently is reaching into South Carolina.  The GOP hasn't even tried to hide its fear, and its open plans to try and steal as much of this election as they can in whatever way they can.  

Democrats do not need to appear to be "cooperative" to try and pick up votes from some wavering conservatives.  For one thing, we're not going to get those votes anyway and for another, there aren't enough of them to make a difference at this point.  Democrats are going to win based on the turnout and energy of the party's left, which has combined with the almost 70% of independent voters who are sick of Trump and done with MAGA.  So looking "cooperative" is not only not necessary, but it can be interpreted as a sign of weakness.  

Democrats who are interested in holding on to their leadership positions on committees and in Congress when the tsunami rolls over the GOP had better take notice and get out of the failure of the old school practices of the past, or they will drown in the blue wave too.  

Issues of Importance to Progressive Democrats

The most important political issue in America at this moment is finding a way to neutralize Trump's political power and for Congress to be made up of enough patriotic Americans to shut down his agenda and remove his political power and influence.  The possibility of getting enough Democrats elected to the Senate to follow through by removing him from office following an impeachment is a remote one, not impossible, but not likely either.  But a Congress in which both houses are controlled by Democrats would be able to effectively end the madness and significantly limit his power.  

And that is the most important thing I believe the new Congress in 2027 will have on their agenda.  Democrats have said repeatedly that Trump is the greatest threat to American Democracy since World War 2, and I agree.  Now I'm going to expect them to live up to their statements.  I want to see visible results of Democrats leading the effor to do all that is constitutionally possible, with a majority in both houses, to end MAGA Trumpism and bring the man to justice.  

I've supported the more progressive wing of the Democratic party since George H. W. Bush was President.  I've listened to the lengthy political agenda that Democrats claim is important to the safety, welfare and prosperity of the United States.  I've been disappointed when that agenda wasn't enacted when Democrats had the power to do so, or when it was put on the back burner by Republicans.  The time is coming when the votes of those who are all united on the side against Trump need to start counting for more than just temporary shifts in who controls Congress.  

They need to start achieving the goals they set out for the benefit of the average, working class, paycheck to paycheck American, the people on whose back the prosperity and security of this country now rests. 

Agenda Item No. 1:  Repudiation of MAGA Trumpism and Restoration of Justice

Restoring the trust that was once part of what made the American Republic work will require more than just defeating Trump and then putting a different agenda in place.  Our values have been challenged, opposed and trashed.  Justice has been mocked and ridiculed, abused and distorted.  Repairing the damage from eight years of MAGA Trumpism will require repudiation of it, not merely winning over it at the polls.  

Trump committed crimes against the American people for which he must be brought to justice, he and everyone who enabled him.  There must be consequences for threatening our democracy and damaging the public trust in government.  In order to put up a defense against this kind of abberation ever happening again, and to discourage anyone who thinks they can try and get away with it because Trump did, justice needs to make sure that Trump gets away with nothing.  

This is an absolutely necessary step in restoring this country and repairing the damage.  Trump incited a seditious insurrection against the United States government and that must not be overlooked, and he must be brought to justice.  Evidence needs to be laid out which shows Trump has been lying through his teeth about election fraud.  This is a completely made up lie and whatever it takes to communicate this to the American people, like another highly publicized Congressional investigation, needs to take place.  People make up their own minds, but flooding the media with factual information about these crimes committed against the American people goes on the record, and consequences need to follow.

Constitutional free speech protects even the most anti-American ideology, but committing crimes to remain in power is a much different matter, and the American people need to see the difference, and they need to see that a nation of laws doesn't tolerate lawlessness.  The rest of the world needs to see this as well.  Every constitutional violation needs to be brought to justice, and if that means the Supreme Court needs to be packed with justices who will rule according to the law, then the list of qualified jurists who know, understand and respect the Constitution and who can overturn the injustices of the current court needs to be compiled.

The Democratic Party Needs to Become the Party of Working Class Americans Again

Where do we start with getting this done, noting that these are long term progressive goals, not necessarily what we will be able to accomplish over the next two years with a lame duck Republican still in the White House, and a highly corrupt and partisan Supreme Court.  Ultimately, taking back the White House and then neutralizing the massive corruption on the court are two long term goals.

The first thing will be to get corporate money out of elections.  Getting the Citizens United decision overturned in the Supreme Court will be a very tough proposition, but that needs to be the focus, and that means that the filibuster must be done away with in order to give a Democratic senate majority the ability to amend the judiciary act to add seats to the Supreme Court.  Then, the Democratic President who is elected in 2028 can make getting this done his or her priority.  

Using wealth to influence politics needs to be turned into a criminal act and enforced.  These are long term goals, since as long as there is a Republican in the White House, there will be limits on what can be done. 

In the meantime, on top of the mid-term victory that Democrats seem to be headed for in 2026, popular opinion has already made affordability the top issue for the next two years.  And there are a lot of things that Democrats can do to improve the current situation for middle class Americans, starting with ending the Iran War, and restoring the nuclear deal that was in place under President Obama.  

It's time for a Franklin D. Roosevelt kind of New Deal.  

Democrats need to be seen as actively pursuing the kind of reform that will benefit the working class.  There is a lot that can be achieved by simply blocking everything that Trump wants to do, and that's going to be how the next two years will go, unless the Democratic senate majority gets to the 60 vote margin, or Democrats decide to blow up the filibuster.  But the eighties are over, and so is the age of compromise and negotiation with the Republicans.  They have refused to cooperate, and so it is long past time for Democrats to adopt the same kick ass, take no prisoners kind of approach to their politics.  

Socialized Health Care

This is a big one.  

We've been talking about this for decades, but the fact of the matter is the current corporate dominated system of health care cartels and insurance monopolies in the practice of American medicine must be completely dismantled and rebuilt into a single payer, Medicare-for-all kind of system.  I don't think that private ownership or involvement in either health care provision or insurance must be completely eliminated, but it must be heavily regulated in order to prevent the massive overcharging and profiteering that costs Americans more than any other country in the world.  

There are multiple sources and studies which show that half of every dollar Americans spend on health insurance or health care goes to profit, and not to the actual services they receive.  The amount that would be required to make Medicare for all work would be a far smaller payroll deduction than current monthly insurance premiums, and it would benefit everyone involved by providing more resources for health care professionals and institutions, top to bottom, while saving patients money.  The only ones who wouldn't benefit are the one percenters who provide no services but only collect dividends.  

Think about it.  Instead of an individual or their employer paying a $595 a month insurance premium, the monthly payment for Medicare for all would be about $280, a savings of $315 a month, $3780 a year instead of over $7,000. As far as medical services to be received, nothing would change.  There would be a $500 annual deductible, and co-pays for some services, under the current Medicare configuration, with an additional amount for prescription drug coverage and perhaps, for what is currently referred to as "medigap." And these are just general figures, drawn from various proposals.  There's a lot more that could be done with some creative thinking. 

If Democrats could succeed in doing this, and there is absolutely no reason for this not to work, considering the multiple models for socialized medicine that exist in Europe, Canada, and other parts of the world, it might bring about an era of political success that would open the door to decades of political dominance and economic prosperity.  

In the Words of Senator Bernie Sanders, "Corporations and Billionaires Need to Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes

The tax burden on the middle class is unacceptable.  

Closing loopholes and favor granting needs to end.  I've read various proposals for what would be fair, and of course, I have my own idea.  "Fair" is that corporations and billionaires pay a percentage of the tax burden proportionate to the overall benefit that they receive.  All of what government has provided for them to make it possible to earn a profit costs something.  Transportation infrastructure, military protection and security, especially for those who operate internationally, local police and fire protection, all of that is paid for by tax dollars.  And in most cases, the lion's share of the expense is borne by the working class, the paycheck to paycheck people who are also, in many cases, underpaid and lack acceptable benefits. 

The difficulty here is that Democrats have had tax proposals on the floor before, and couldn't get them passed.  That's because not everyone is on board with this, and they haven't felt the pressure to get it done.  Senator Sanders has been talking about this ever since he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2016.  It hasn't been done yet.  It's a political win for Democrats, because this is something that, if it is done right, will be immediately felt and appreciated by the working class.  

That's Not All

The recognition of organized labor as a political force and as agents of change needs to be legislated back to effectiveness.  American business is among the most profitable and prosperous in the world, and those benefits need to do more than trickle down to the employees who make it possible for executives to become billionaires off of their labor.  This is one of the keys to Democrats becoming the party of the working class again.  

The question is, will the support exist among the party members who find their way into Congress after the mid-terms, and beyond, to get this done?  Among everything that was accomplished during the Biden administration, and during the two years when we had control of both houses and the White House, the party didn't really move in this direction.  But the primaries, especially this election season, have changed the narrative quite a bit.  Will those who return catch that message, and stop the bickering and infighting to bring Democrats back to their roots?  

I certainly hope so.  

 

My Hometown is An Example of How Democratic Socialism Works

So-cial-ism [soSHElizem] noun  A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  

So, if we add the term "Democratic" to this word, we are putting a double emphasis on the involvement and responsibility of the community in whatever business is being owned and regulated.  Let me share some examples from the community in which I grew up that were of benefit to its members in providing services that would be difficult to acquire in the community if profit were the sole motivation behind the operation of the business.  That's because in the small Arizona town where I grew up, there would not have been enough business to make a profit if that were the motivation behind providing some of the services.  

The Hospital District

The local hospital, an essential part of health care in this community, because it had a large retired population, and was located next to a busy interstate, was especially necessary because it provided an emergency room and a level 4 trauma center, operated the local general practice clinic with three physicians and a couple of NP's, and provided acute inpatient services and care.  It's a 26 bed facility that basically follows up on patients who enter through the ER.  

It started out as a private hospital, operated by the local medical clinic doctors, but when a new facility was needed in the late 1960's, a hospital district was formed that included the city limits and a radius of about ten miles into the surrounding rural area, a total population of about 10,000. The hospital district's income comes from property taxes that are assessed within the boundaries of the district and it covers everything related to the operation of the building, maintenance, custodial service, utilities, purchase of equipment and any staff other than medical personnel, so that these operational costs do not have to come from income derived from patient care.  

Medical services are provided on a contract basis with a non-profit, rural health care organization that provides nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, certified nursing assistants, doctors and clerical personnel.  The same organization also has contracts with two other small town hospitals in the same county, and some of the personnel, mainly the doctors who are specialists, are shared with the other two.  Because the tax dollars cover the other expenses, the prices of medical services are much lower than they are in a private, corporate owned hospital.  And there is a big advantage in being able to provide specialists available in the community instead of patients having to drive 50 miles or more to see one.  

This fits the definition of socialism.  It is a government operated business which takes tax dollars and spreads out the cost of operation to provide a full service, rural hospital that would not exist if the hospital district and tax dollars were not available.  

The Electric Cooperative

The electricity provider to this community, as well as to several other nearby towns and rural areas, is a rural electric cooperative.  Everyone who gets their electric power from the cooperative is considered a member of the cooperative, and have the privilege of attending an annual meeting and voting for the board of directors, and the budget.  There are about 70,000 total customers, representing about 21,000 electrical hook ups in the area served by the cooperative.  

The cooperative collectively owns the infrastructure needed to distribute electricity.  It employs about a half dozen dispatchers who sit in their computer room and purchase electricity off the grid at the best prices they can negotiate.  The power is generated and distributed by a cooperative which owns its own generating plant and distributes what it produces on the grid.  So the rate that the cooperative's customers pay is the rate that it has negotiated with the provider, plus its operating cost.  Any amount over and above the budgeted cost of operation is divided up and credited to every member's January electric bill.  

What makes this socialism is that the customers own the cooperative, and determine its business operation by electing the board that runs it.  Because of operational costs and the fact that this mostly rural area doesn't have a large number of customers, the member-owned cooperative provides electricity at relatively low cost.  Had it not been for the cooperative, there would be areas of the county where development would not be possible because electric service would not be available. 

Of course, within the area of the cooperative's operation, there is no other choice of electricity providers.  But, the average electric bill in the cooperative area is 10% less than what customers of the private, for-profit electric providers in other parts of the state charge, since the cooperative does not make a profit or pay stockholder dividends.  And I've seen bonus credits on those January bills add up to as much as $150 at times.  

The Farmer's and Rancher's Cooperative

The rural area around the community where I grew up is primarily agricultural in nature.  It is a big beef, poultry and pork producing area, with a lot of traditional ranches, and there are a lot of family-owned dairies in the area, along with several big hydroponic tomato farms and poultry farms with egg production.  Back in the 1970's, as big corporations began buying up these kinds of family owned businesses, and then cutting their prices to undercut the family owners and force them to sell out at a lower price, the farmers and ranchers in the area formed a cooperative for the purpose of pooling their resources and then being able to sell their products in higher volume to compete with the corporate food producers.  

The cooperative members elect a board of directors to represent them and the board then calculates the amount of produce or milk or eggs that are potentially being produced and then sets a competitive wholesale price which it uses to negotiate contracts directly with the major grocery store chains.  This eliminates the "middle man," and increases the profits to the farmers and ranchers who are the producers.  

There are those who would say that this isn't socialism, because participation is voluntary, but the fact of the matter is that virtually all of the private farm and ranch owners in the area are members of the coop because they get more money for their products than they would if they sold to a middle man distributor.  But it fits the definition of business owned and regulated by the community as a whole.  And one of the benefits of the cooperative to the people in the community that are not in the agriculture business is that surplus goods are sold directly to the public through a coop-owned store, eliminating much of the cost of distribution.  The selection is limited, but the price is very reasonable.  

Most People Wouldn't Think of This as Socialism 

But, it is socialism.  By definition, in its purest form. 

If not for socialism, this community would probably not have a hospital, not even an emergency room, and perhaps one or two general practice doctors, if they had some kind of loyalty to the community.  And while it would have electric service without the cooperative, the cost of providing it to the area would make the electric bills of residents much higher.  The family-owned dairies and farms are slowly being bought out, or disappearing, as each succeeding generation is able to go off to college and they frequently don't take over the family business, so the culture there is changing as it is all over the country.  But it provided some cost effective alternatives for the entire community for decades.  

It's a conservative community.  It has, in the past, seen vote totals in elections for Republicans go as high as 55%, though in 2020 and 2024 those totals were slightly lower.  They just see this as the way to have necessary services, but they wouldn't call it or identify it as socialism.  But it is.  It is socialism, brought about by the will of the people.  Democratic socialism, if you will. 

This is how Democratic Socialism works.  It requires looking at the humanity that is involved, rather than simply relying on a profit motive, understanding that some human values cannot be measured by monetary value.  What does it say about people, and their patriotism and pride, when they are willing to let a rural hospital close, not because there is no longer a need for it, but because it can no longer generate a profit?  

Democratic Socialism is about placing the higher value of our society and our country and its communities on its people, rather than on profit.  It's not about eliminating private enterprise, it is about stepping in where private enterprise is not willing to invest, and providing for what we, as Americans, believe are basic human rights.  

We, as Americans, believe in some fundamental rights and core values that transcend a transactional existence.  Our founders believed that government was created to protect the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It is not to guarantee that everyone who invests in society will profit from it.  

Are there Democratic Socialists who would like to see a much larger segment of our culture become socialist?  Of course.  But I think the basic values and principles here are to ensure that those who have benefitted from the collective labor and effort of the nation's people and have become wealthy from profit that they earned because of the security and the opportunity that everyone contributes to providing should contribute in proportion to how much they have benefitted from it.  And that does require some redistribution of the wealth, via a fair and equitable taxation.  

It would not be accurate, or fair, to call these folks in rural Arizona, who are using socialist principles to provide for needs in their community, communists.  Nor is it accurate or fair to call those members of the Democratic party who are progressives advocating for Democratic Socialism communists, either.