Priority For Democrats Down the Road, In 2028 is Expanding the Supreme Court

The Washington Post reported today that Democrats have at least five different plans for a future overhaul of the Supreme Court, including expanding the number of justices from nine to thirteen, cutting lifetime terms to 18 years at the most, creating and enforcing an ethics code, and placing standards on how the court rules from its "shadow docket."  [WP, August 16, 2026]

[The story, by Julian Mark, appears in today's Post.  I an citing it for reference, rather than providing a link to a story which is behind a paywall.] 

According to the Post, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said, "There's constant and building dismay about the increasingly appalling record of the court.  And I think the continuing interest in reform springs from continued dismay and concern about the court's misbehavior." [WP, August 16, 2026] 

Such moves are considered to be turning the court "political," according to many Republicans.  What they fail to see is that the court they've created is very political and partisan, and Senator Mitch McConnell used some very disgusting and dishonest statements to justify unethical, if not illegal, acts in which he manipulated the judicial approval process to the benefit of the GOP.  And the justices who benefitted from it have amply rewarded both him and his party.  

And what has happened as a result is that the Republican Presidents who have had the ability to appoint justices, namely Trump, and his GOP predecessor, Dubya, have pointed political idealogues, rather than actual judges, to the vacancies they've been able to fill.  So they are the ones who are responsible for turning the court into a political body, rather than a judicial one.  And since they are willing to live with that, and benefit from it as well, then I think going to 13 seats when Democrats have the power to do it after 2028 is just fine.  I hope whichever Democrat wins that Presidential race will find the four most liberal jurists in the country, all under 40 years of age, and appoint them to the court.  Then start overturning prior decisions until the Republican-appointed justices damage is eliminated. 

We Had the Power to Do This During the First Two Years of Biden's Term

The Democratic party theme during the entire 2020 election campaign was the very real threat that Trump posed to American Democracy.  And as the expression goes, "we had him, dead to rights."  When the Supreme Court moved to protect him from prosecution by their very unconstitutional and unAmerican immunity ruling, that should have been the signal for Democrats to get started on amending the judiciary act to give President Biden four new seats to fill with left wing judges.  

There were several Democrats who were on board with that and said so, among them Senator Bernie Sanders, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, among others.  And while it certainly was a theme for the progressive side of the party, it was an idea which, matched with the federal indictments he received, would have brought the criminal to justice and knocked down the barricades of delays he used to get out of it.  

While the current conservative-biased court rules against the spirit of the law, a court more constitutionally centered, which means it would be made up of a majority of liberal justices, would have knocked down the immunity ruling, overturned Citizens United, and eliminated the Dobbs decision in one short session.  That would have opened the door to Trump's "speedy" prosecution on the criminal charges for which he was indicted, and landed him in prison where he belongs.  

The congressional investigation into Trump's seditious attempt to overturn the 2020 election, and subsequently, his theft of classified documents, discovered at Mar-a-Lago, would have then moved forward, especially if Biden had appointed a more aggressive and savvy attorney general.  It's even likely that the case in the hands of Aileen Cannon would have been removed and given to someone who could be more fair in judgment.  

But apparently, there are a lot of Democrats who don't really see Trump as the threat to American Democracy that he is.  Even after an almost year-long investigation into the January 6th sedition laid down a mountain of evidence of his tampering with and involvement in election results, there was fear that any further push might "look political."  There were an awful lot of frustrated Democratic voters, myself included, with the failure to prosecute that will be a black mark on the Biden Administration's legacy.  We would not now have to endure what we are enduring if the effort had been made to add those four seats in 2021 or 2022.

So This Topic, Which Isn't New, Is Now Finally Getting Some Traction

Two years into the second term of America's most inept, incompetent, and absolutely worst President, we are now finally seeing a movement among Democrats to, as the saying goes, "pack the court."  It's as if no one remembers that this came up in 2020, and no one wants to acknowledge that it was an idea that got floated around, and shelved.  But now, the process is made much more difficult by the fact that we no longer have a majority in Congress, nor the White House, and therefore have to wait, and hope and dream that we will be in charge following the election of 2028, so we can get this done.  

Not surprisingly, it is the more progressive wing of the party who is now picking up this theme and waiving the banner.  This can't be done in time to save us from Trump, though I hope the Congress we elect in 2026 puts an end to his ability to do much more than be ceremonial, if that.  But the immediate effect of a liberal court would be getting corporate money out of elections and returing that power to the people.  It would also restore the rule of law, to which the President would be subject equally, and make him an ordinary citizen when it comes to his desires to commit criminal acts.  

We need this.  

The other ideas put forth should all be added to the Judiciary Act.  Ethics rules should be in writing, reflecting the consensus of the will of the people when it comes to the behavior of members of the nation's highest court.  And that includes the kind of behavior that slipped by Congress when Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed.  Justices who say one thing during their confirmation, but rule another way when on the bench should be subject to review, probation or removal from the bench for lying and misrepresenting their position.   

Term limits should also be imposed, and while 18 years was mentioned, I'm in favor of limiting justices to 10 year terms, all up and down and through the federal court system.  That's staggered enough to give Presidents an equal number of justices to replace during any four year term.  

Justices should have to divest their investments, and their business holdings before they can be nominated.  If they are not willing to do that, then it is time to move on to the next candidate.  

I'd also be in favor of establishing a citizens review board, empowered to recommend justices for impeachment, in the event that decisions start getting out of line.  Having to answer directly to American citizens and voters might cause some real reform to break out spontaneously.  

If Any Politician Wants to Earn My Vote...

Then support for judicial reform should be part of the Democratic party platform.  If the belief that Trump is an existential threat to Democracy is as much a democratic party ideal as anything, then this should become a campaign theme, and voters need to hold the politicians accountable for their level of support.  

No excuses.  If we gain the majority and have a Democratic House and Senate, and White House following 2028, the prospects of which look absolutely rosey right now, there will be no reason not to do this, except for those Democrats who still dip their hand in the corporate cookie jar and let them finance their campaigns.  The first two years should be a rush to get all kinds of anti-Trump legislation passed, and figure out how to make most of it stick.  

When It Becomes Real For Me, Personally

We paid for Medicare benefits all of our working lives.  The deductions started from my paycheck when I was sixteen years old, working at Bowlin's, a chain of tourist stores along the interstates in Arizona and New Mexico, and they came out of every single paycheck I ever received, a lifetime of spreading out payments for health insurance coverage during my senior years.  Over the years, it was a political football, with benefits waning and then increasing, depending on which party was in power.  The Republicans always had an angle on trying to figure out how to put mechanisms in  place so that a good chunk of the benefits, and some of the premiums, would go to pay profits.  To their credit, most of the time the Democrats are in power they spend looking for ways to strengthen and sustain what some claim is unsustainable, and to make sure that collections and distributions are fair. 

But when the Republicans are in power, watch out!  It may appear, on the surface, that not much is going on.  Don't kid yourself.  When they cut the budget, there are those who feel it, and I happen to be one of those.  

Actually, it's my wife who is feeling it.  

She fell in the bathroom, due to leg weakness caused by spinal stenosis.  That was the diagnosis, and the remedy, after five days in the hospital, was physical and occupational therapy in a skilled nursing facility, covered by Medicare.  Actually, Medicare provides full coverage for 20 days, and then 80% coverage for 80 more days, but we were prepared when the time came to go on Medicare, and we purchased the "gap" policy that covers the 20% Medicare doesn't cover.  We're caught up, deductible-wise, and so the transition from hospital to rehab facility went smoothly, at least at first. 

The physical and occupational therapy has turned out to be less than satisfactory.  The understaffed facility provides just one hour, combining both.  Looking into moving to a facility that might be better, I couldn't find one that either had better reviews or ratings.  When I asked the doctor who is in charge of her therapy routine, I got the standard, corporate-owned facility song and dance, that there was never a guarantee of more than she is getting (even though their representative told us she would get an hour a day each of OT and PT) and that her therapy is based on her own response to the treatment.  

Now it's been more than a month, there has been what I would call little improvement and the main goal, of her returning to being able to walk again, hasn't been met.  But they are telling us she is on the verge of discharge.  There is no way she could function at home without more assistance than is available, at least, not without looming danger of a fall.  

"It's the insurance," we're told.  They are the ones who are making all of the medical decisions, not the doctors and nurses who have this expertise. 

Just to make sure, I looked it up from two different sources.  She's entitled to 100 days, with an hour a day each for OT and PT, but it appears budget cuts have rolled back the number of hours of therapy patients on Medicare can get.  

So, after all of the caterwauling and whining that Republicans did when President Obama first proposed major health care reform, we still don't have it, but all of the problems and issues that the Republicans claimed would come from "socialized medicine" are materializing in our capitalist-driven health care system.  We are at this point in the first place because we were unable to get an appointment with a specialist in this specific field for more than three months.  Three months.  

When a major medical care corporation bought out the small, Catholic hospital system where we go to see the doctor, about a third of the doctors on their medical staff decided it was time to retire.  This created a shortage of doctors, especially those in general practice.  Those positions have not been replaced, and that has caused lines to back up go get in to see doctors.  So my wife had to endure her increasing pain, and run the risk of a fall, until she could see someone.  Unfortunately, the fall came first and she remains confined to a wheel chair, facing being relegated to home health care that won't provide anywhere near the level of help she needs. 

And did I mention, the home health agency has had to lay off staff, including some of the professionals like nurses and nurse practitioners, because of budget cuts in their Medicare allocation.  

I just don't understand why Americans are incapable of looking at what other countries, who have considered health care as a basic human right, have done for their people.  We've had this informal discussion on more than one occasion with neighbors in our building who are citizens of countries that have socialized medicine, and they can't fathom how, in this country, half of the revenue that is paid for health care by its citizens goes to pay stock dividents and profits, not medical care.  That explains, they say, why care is so difficult to come by in this country, and why we face situations like ours.  

So for any politicians who may be reading this, and I know there are several who do, health care reform now tops the list of my voting priorities, along with getting rid of Trump and bringing him to justice.  And I am not alone in this, there are millions who are having these same experiences.  

So are you listening?

 

A Feeling That I'm Having Trouble Shaking

The issue that is facing the American people at the ballot box in November is the existential threat posed to American Democracy by the criminal Trump.  That, and the fact that the man is an adjudicated felon, a mysogynistic rapist, alleged pedophile with plenty of evidence to prove it, and a mentally crippled egomaniac, and American voters put him in the White House, and now must correct their mistake, is the pressing issue of the mid-term elections. 

His own policies have created the issues that have plunged his poll numbers into depths never before achieved by a sitting President.  We voted him out in 2020, and that opened the door to several opportunities for Democrats to step up and protect the country from ever having to deal with the man  again.  There were indictments for crimes accompanied by a full Congressional investigation and mountains of evidence.  But prosecuting him was not a priority of the justice department, which was slow walking any potential action against him.  And no one wanted to talk about the bold risk that would have to be taken to neutralize the Supreme Court's ridiculous presidential immunity ruling by packing it with liberal justices, something that was within the realm of possibilities up to 2022. 

Yeah, I've heard all of the excuses about why that couldn't be done.  But if the man is the threat to democracy that he has proven himself to be, the risks would have been worth it to make sure that he couldn't ever get back in the White House.  We now see how seriously that threat was taken and how well the Democratic party establishment's plan worked.  It was, frankly, a huge disappointment and must be considered a political failure.

And now, as the economy tanks and prices soar and we are in a seemingly endless and unwinnable war, and the country is going to hell in a handbasket, the Democrats are apparently being given another chance.  The polling data, which skews heavily conservative, especially since Trump has a lot of influence over the corporate media that owns the polling services, is showing a blue tsunami forming up.  The primary elections have provided hints that the polls are probably underestimating the size of the blue tsunami, and from my perspective, I think we'll see Democrats take both houses of Congress this November.  And it won't really be all that close, though some of the races might be tight.  But when it's all counted, I fully expect to see Abdul El-Sayed, James Talarico and Troy Jackson in the Senate, along with Roy Cooper, Sherrod Brown, Josh Turek and Mary Peltola joining Jon Ossoff, who is going to win easily.  

That is, if the party can calm itself down, get focused on the real issue and stop fighting over who is and isn't a Democrat, and what are they going to do, and who is going to call the shots, and who is next in line for the handing out of privilege and prestige.  

Here we go again.  

This has some unpleasant resemblances to what started happening prior to the 2024 Presidential election, when Biden's debate performance sent the party into a frenzy that led to trying to replace him as the nominee just a hundred days before the election.  Yeah, that's the feeling that is creeping back in, as Democrats snipe and spat at each other over how much influence the left side of the party should have, as it wins primaries and displaces the centrists, moderates and slight to the right candidates that represent the Democratic party establishment.  

Yes, the same establishment that lost the 2024 election to the man who is arguably the worst President in American history.  The party fell victim, once again, to allowing the GOP to determine the narrative and create controversy.  The same party establishment that frittered away every single opportunity to stop Trump from being the greatest existential threat to American Democracy since the British sacked Washington in the War of 1812 lost the 2024 election because it panicked, spent too many weeks running around like headless chickens and then, tried to make up for it when it was way too late to make much of a difference. 

The Democrats are not going to win the midterms on the merits of their political perspectives or plans, they are going to win it because Trump has done such a poor job as President, and the Republicans in Congress have been his willing sycophants right down into the abyss.  The Democrats are also not going to win this on their own strength, within the moderate to centrist part of the party.  They are going to need the support of a wide variety of independent voters, and they are going to need every vote from the progressive wing of the party.  If they want the Presidency back in 2028, then after the midterms are over, they will need to come up with something to keep the younger voters, progressive voters and working class voters engaged and interested.  

And they must bring Trump to justice. 

I get it.  I understand when someone who thought that a particular senate or house nomination was their personal entitlement got swallowed up in the energy of that woke left side of the party, and lost a primary they thought they were entitled to win to a young, aggressive progressive pushing a Democratic Socialist agenda.  Well, Democrats have been warned for years now that they need to figure out how to get the votes of the working class back, and frankly, it's difficult for me to sympathize with candidates who lost in a primary when they thought they were entitled to the nomintation because of who they were or whose influence on which they depended.  This is about putting forth the best candidate who can win in the general election and the progressive Democrats focusing on affordability, jobs, a thriving economy and best use of resources are winning primaries and leading polls for the general election. 

And of course, that makes some establishment Democrats angry.  But if the establishment had acted with the kind of bold risk taking that would have kept Trump out of the White House, then they might not be having such a hard time convincing primary voters to support them.  

And if the party's leadership is not careful, they will once again fritter away the political opportunity of the century, that is within their grasp right now.  

A Lesson in Civics and Economics For Uninformed Republicans

Socialism isn't taking over the Democratic party.  And Socialism, especially the Democratic Socialism that exists in the United States, isn't communism.  It's the diametric opposite of communism.  

It is sometimes frustrating to use the term "Democratic Socialist," and have people turn up their noses, not knowing exactly what that means, but thinking it's the same thing as communism, and then turn around and say that they are 100% behind some political statement or plan that is pure Democratic Socialism.  Ah, the sad and painful result is this, of the dumbing down of the few social studies requirements for students in school left after most of them have been eliminated from public school curriculum.  When I taught high school civics, we distinguished between the economics and politics of Marxist Communism, Democratic Socialism, Capitalism and the American Constitutional Republic, which is a form of Democracy.  I doubt that's even a college requirement now. 

And here's some additional news.  Considering the political atmosphere in this country right now, it would not matter very much if it actually did.  We've seen Trump's true colors for a long time now, and while it is an embarassment to this country that it has taken so long for its people to realize this, there is now a solid core of Americans, about 60% of those who plan to go to the polls and vote in November, who realize electing Trump was a huge mistake.  

That has opened the door for more consideration of candidates for office who self-describe as Democratic socialists to campaign and win in primaries, since the pressure to try and generate more support from more conservative voters, which didn't ever really work anyway, is not as intense.  In fact, the wing of the Democratic party that seems to be most enthusiastic and is drawing people in and raising the percentages of potential voters is the side that leans toward Democratic Socialism.  

Democratic Socialism is Franklin Roosevelt

Franklin Roosevelt, arguably one of the best Presidents in American history, and singularly the most popular, won his first two terms on his economic plan, The New Deal, which was the most innovative economic, social and political reform programs in American history.  The New Deal is still one of the best examples of Democratic Socialism, because so much of what was instituted by government to help provide relief for the unemployed, recovery for the economy and which reformed the financial and banking system to safeguard against future economic downturns has survived to the present day.  And it was successful in achieving its ends, in that it laid a framework down for continued reforms, based on the learning experience where there were failures.  

So this is nothing new.  Take away the edge that has been placed on terms like "socialist," and it becomes pretty clear that the things on which current American Democratic Socialists are focusing are popular with voters.  Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have invested a lot of time articulating the agenda for Democratic Socialists.  They want to break up the corporate monopolies, something which we have a legal and constitutional basis for doing, but which has been unenforced by recent Republican administrations, put in a system of fair and equitable taxation, "making corporations pay their fair share" when it comes to taxes, which they don't do now, and get the government involved in a much bigger way in areas where there is a demonstrated need for reform, such as health insurance and health care.  

The aim of their agenda is to help the American working class by providing an economy that focuses on affordability.  They want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, many of who pay next to nothing now, and well below the percentages of income that middle class taxpayers now pay.  And they want to make major reforms to the Affordable Care Act, in ways that eliminate the profiteering on health insurance coverage, and gets the insurance companies out of the business of determining patient care.  

It's been the left side of the Democratic party that has provided the energy and momentum that has produced the massive turnouts in the No Kings marches and rallies, and has pushed voter enthusiasm to near-record polling levels three and a half months before the midterms.  And I'll also say that it is not going to be necessary to try and walk some kind of middle-of-the-road position to attempt to attract more conservative voters.  Those whose ignorance and stupidity include racist prejudice against candidates like Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for the Senate seat in Michigan, and Francesca Hong, the Demoncratic nominee for Governor of Wisconsin, wouldn't be convinced to vote for them anyway.  There will be plenty of more progressive minded voters to make up the difference.  

The Main Objective of This Civics and Economic Lesson

We've had laws regulating economic practices in this country since the very beginning.  They are based on the founding American principle that a government of, by and for the people is responsible for the collective protection of its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  As a result, when it has become the practice of business to organize itself in such a way as to take advantage of Americans by profiteering tactics, such as forming trusts, or monopolies to control every aspect of supply and demand of goods and services, government has stepped in.  That, for most of those who call themselves Democratic Socialists, is the essence of government protecting its citizens.

I've had a front seat to the monopolies and trusts being formed in health care over the last 20 years as I have prepared for retirement.  My current health care provider, a non-profit, religious based corporation, was bought out by a major medical conglomorate about four years ago.  The effects of this have been immediate.  There was a rush, among some of the older doctors and medical staff, to the retirement exit.  Appointments that used to be easy to get within a couple of weeks, now require more than a month's wait, and in the case of my general practice physician, three months is not unusual.  During the three hospitalizations I've had over the past eight years, there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of nursing care, as the number of patients assigned to each nurse in the hospital has doubled and nursing staffs have been cut.  

Of course, the most noticeable change was the increase in costs, as my insurance provider raised premiums because the costs went up.  I went on Medicare three years ago, just before my employer-provided insurance premium topped $1,000 a month.  But the gap insurance that I have now is double the monthly cost from the original contract.  

Communication, even through their online app, has become far more difficult and time consuming following a major change to a different provider for online medical records.  Shortly after having a major problem retrieving my own online account through the app I found out that the corporation that now owns the provider also owns the company that operates the online records system.  The average wait to see a specialist now is 6 weeks.  

My Support For Democratic Socialists Starts With Their Support of Medicare For All

I've seen "socialized medicine" up close.  When my Dad remarried at 80, it brought a stepbrother and his wife into the family who are Canadian citizens.  They are in their 70's so I've seen how their medical care works, compared to ours.  They live less than an hour's drive from Toronto, so of course, they have access to the best that Canadian Medicare has to offer.  There is a cost to the program, like Americans and medicare, Canadians pay the medical tax as a payroll deduction.  That, of course, spreads the cost of medical care out over a lifetime.  

But the bottom line is that most of the money paid in, about 90% of it, actually pays for the care, while in the United States, half of what we pay for medical "costs" go to pay the dividends for stockholders who own the hospital corporations and insurance companies.  They seem to be very satisfied with the quality of care they receive, and while there are some procedures and regulations that seem designed to test patience, overall, from my perspective, they are much better off than I am, even though I've finally reached medicare eligibility.  Their actual cost, out of pocket, for the premiums is less than half of what private insurance costs in the US.  

The trade off is that the difference between what most Americans, or their employers, now pay for health insurance is twice as much as the payroll deduction would be for a Medicare-for-all kind of program.  For me, the last two or three years that I worked, that would have meant a savings of over $500 a month.  That's a huge benefit for middle class Americans, the 99% of us who work for a living.  

And that's what Democratic Socialism is all about.  It's about helping the middle class get more out of the dollars they work hard to earn.  

Carville Predicts That When the GOP Loses the Midterms, Trump Will Resign, And Get Vance to Give Him a Blanket Pardon

Carville's New Twist on Trump's End Game 

I know a lot of people don't put a lot of stock in James Carville's predictions, though he does seem to have an uncanny knack at getting these things right most of the time.  And this most recent prediction is plausible, especially with the understanding that the GOP is just about as corrupt as any political party ever has been in American History.  I can see it happening. 

Carville predicted, several months back, that if Trump lost control of Congress, even just the House of Representatives, in November 2026, he would step down.  My first thoughts were that he's such an egomaniac, and so controlled by his own grandiose delusions that he would choose to remain, even knowing that Congress would squelch anything he wanted to do.  

But, his ego is not able to deal with losses, disappointments and failures, and he will be faced with that at every turn when the Democrats get back in control of Congress.  Carville has been pretty accurate in reading the signs of mental breakdowns occurring with Trump, and he has been fairly accurate in his predictions what Trump will do next.  Unless he is completely out of it mentally, something that is entirely possible, Trump has to know that he will be pursued for his crimes the moment he steps away from the immunity bubble the Supreme Court gave him.  More than anyone else in the country, he knows exactly what he did with Jeffrey Epstein, already public knowledge and what will focus on the evidence to clear all of that up will take him down.  

So negotiating some kind of deal with Vance, someone who is perhaps his equal when it comes to lack of character and integrity, perhaps worse if that's possible, is very likely.  

Such a Move Woulld Have Disastrous Consequences For Vance and For the GOP

The backlash that ended any possible success of Gerald Ford's Presidency came from his pardon of Richard Nixon.  Wrongly discerning that the country didn't want to keep kicking Nixon around for his crimes, Ford issued the pardon that ended his political career.  It was an egregious violation of the rule of law, giving a "get out of jail free" card to someone just because they had managed to get the American people to elect them to public office.   It ushered in a Democratic sweep in 1976, and whatever hopes Ford might have had for remaining in office died the day the pardon was issued.

And I hope that if Carville's prediction comes true, the same thing happens to Vance and the GOP.  

Vance would be a worse President than Trump.  Of that, I have virtually no doubt. Opportunists tend to be incompetent, and what we have seen from Vance so far, if it is representative of the man's character and ability, doesn't inspire hope for the fact that he is one heartbeat away from the Presidency.  He is one of the most dishonest and duplicitous individuals in politics, and he is dangerously lacking in the ability to comprehend facts.  He lacks any kind of personal charisma, which I've heard described as a "loser personality."  He's taken so many different and opposite positions on various issues that it is impossible to know what he really believes.  

The fact that he doesn't get caustic criticism from the conservative Evangelical right is very telling, converting from conservative Evangelicalism to Catholicism.  Anyone else who did that would be considered a godless heretic by many Evangelicals.  Religious beliefs are the result of deep, personal convictions, in the same way politics are part of personal identity.  Vance has flip flopped in both areas, which opens him up to legitimate questioning of his ability to be trusted on anything.  

I'd be overjoyed with the prospect of Trump being ousted from the Presidency for any reason, but not thrilled at the prospect of having someone even more corrupt and lacking conviction waiting to sieze power.  We need to make sure there's a Democratic Congress in place that isn't going to bow to corporate interests or billionaire wishes and willing to oppose anything Vance does.   

Progressive Democrats Are Winning Primaries: What Will This Mean For the General Election?

Robert Reich: The Real Meaning of El-Sayed's Victory

"With the victory of progressive Abdul El-Sayed over Rep. Haley Stevens in Michigan's Democratic primary yesterday, prepare yourselves to hear enormous quantities of bullsh*t about the Democratic party now being taken over by Democratic Socialists.

Or, as the reliably establishment New York Times described what's at stake, 'Can an insurgent candidate, with unabashedly left-wing positions, win in a moderate state?' 

Oh, p-l-e-a-s-e!

Michigan Democrats didn't chose El-Sayed because he's "unabashedly left wing," or because he's a Democratic Socialist (in fact, he's not).   They chose him because he is a fighter--at a time when America needs fighters willing to stand up to the worst tyrant who has ever occupied the Oval Office." --Robert Reich

Thank you, Robert Reich, for that very clear, honest evaluation of just exactly what did happen in Michigan.  I agree with his assessment 100%.  

Maybe Reich is a little bit hesitant to go out on a limb and predict an El-Sayed victory.  But I'm not a professional pundit or commentator.  So I'll say it.  A majority of Americans are sick to death of the corporate money running our politics and dictating more and more aspects of our lives.  And we are even sicker of seeing the Presidency of this country become the playtoy of a spoiled rotten brat who has no respect for anyone, not even himself, and who is using this office to enrich himself and his children at my expense, and yours.  

And they're going to elect El-Sayed, because they understand that his opponent, Mike Rogers, is a corporate sell-out, and a brown nosing Trump sycophant.  He's going to win for the same reason that Troy Jackson surged ahead of Susan Collins in the Maine Senate race from the moment he was announced as Graham Plattner's replacement.  And for the same reason that James Talarico, in spite of all of the resistance of pollsters who can't seem to get out of their minds that there are more Texas voters with reasonable intelligence than there are ignorant stooges, will become the first Democratic senator from Texas since Bob Krueger.  

And for the same reason that Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic party nominee for Governor of Texas, just pulled even with Greg Abbott in the recent polling in that state. 

Democrats generally talk a good game when it comes to believing that Trump is an existential threat to American Democracy, but the Democratic establishment has done little to stop him, even when they had the power to do so.  That's because they, too, are subject to the whims of the billionaires who are buying the government, representative by representative, senator by senator, and they are protecting Trump at all costs.  So there are a lot of empty words coming from Democrats who are proclaiming the Trump threat, and pointing to the Trump incompetence, moral bankruptcy and dementia, but actually just sitting in their own feathered nest, doing as little as they can get by with and still remain credible. 

I've watched this as the opposition to Trump has grown exponentially and gotten much louder, as No Kings marches and rallies have grown and made a real impact, becoming a genuine threat for a whole phalanx of Republicans in state and federal government.  I'd have expected Democratic politicians to be right in the front, leading the marches and being the loudest voices.  And a few of them have shown up.  But not like one might expect of the opposition party.  The loudest voices in opposition are coming from within the population, and many of them are independent voters.  

It's apparent, with primary victories of candidates like Juliana Stratton, in Illinois, who has been very visible in the No Kings movement, and who is much more progressive than her opponent, Raja Krishnamoorthi, was.  That made the difference in my vote, and it clearly had an effect on many others as Stratton, an underdog, surged to a win in the last days of the primary.  Looks like Michigan voters tend to feel the same way.  

And as reluctant as the pollsters seem to be to admit it, the progressive wing of the Democratic party is energized right now, and their enthusiasm is going to carry a lot of Democratic candidates over the finish line in November.  This is going to be a bigger blue tsunami than most people think it will be.  And it is because of principled progressives like Abdul El-Sayed.  

Of course Republicans are going to push to emphasize the extreme side of Democratic candidates.  But this is an ongoing theme, and people tend to brush most of that aside as nothing more than campaign rhetoric.  Most Americans are clueless when it comes to economic realities, theories and who owns who and what.  El-Sayed had a great response to his opponents ignorance when he pointed out, very simply, that his name was not the reason Americans are now paying high prices for gasoline.  

And that's one of many reasons why he's going to win this election. 

And I can make one more prediction.  If the establishment Democrats fritter away what is shaping up to be a massive victory that will neutralize Trump by all this "party war" talk, and all the false narratives, then they can forget about winning in 2028.  If they can't embrace what is now the most enthusiastic wing of their party, and its voters, then what are they doing that is worth the time, effort and money they are spending?  

 

  

 

How Many Conservatives Would Give Up Their Democratic Socialist Benefits?

Out of ignorance or principle?  My best guess is no conservative would give them all up.  And that makes the ones who try to equate this with communism hypocrites.

Conservatives love to throw around the term "socialist" to try and make it stick to their Democratic party opponents.  They are depending on Americans being pathetically ignorant about the use and definition of these political terms and they are trying to equate Democratic Socialism with Communism.  Of course, the average American with a high school diploma or a couple of years of college is not likely to recall facts from their civics education which explain that the kind of Democratic Socialism that exists and is being promoted in the United States is the diametric opposite of Maxist Communism, the key being the term "democratic" in the essence of what it is.  

American Democratic Socialism, specifically, is more of the opposite of Marxist Communism, especially as an economic perspective, than the perceived "capitalism" that most people mistakenly think is the automatic partner of democracy.  And mistakenly think is the economic system that is put in place by the Constitution.  It's not.  

Our constitution does not specify or dictate the kind of economy that exists in the United States.  In fact, the role that our government plays in the economy, when it comes to regulating the value of currency, determining interests rates and using taxes to provide resources for government operated agencies and institutions that it has as responsibilities given to it by the people who empower it, is socialist, and by the pure definition of that word, always has been.  

Social Security and Medicare are Democratic Socialist Programs

A post on Facebook tried to contradict me when I stated that Social Security was the result of Democratic Socialism, and so, by principle, she should waive her right to receive her benefits.  She responded that Social Security (note--the "social" part of the term) wasn't socialism because we pay into the program.  But that isn't what defines something as socialist or capitalist.  

What makes Social Security the pure result of Democratic Socialism is that the people had the final say over its existence and what it would do, and it is government administered, with a required contribution from all citizens.  It's not market driven, the costs of the program determine the contribution of each person, and the amount they eventually earn, and pay in determines the benefits they take out.  So it is a purely socialist program, and as a pension provider, it is the most secure safety net older Americans have, because a high percentage of retirees in the United States are dependent on it.  

Medicare, too, is a result of Democratic socialism.  It is a government administered program, in which government determines the rates, premiums and benefits, funded by contributions made through the FICA deductions from paychecks.  The payouts are determined by government, not by supply and demand, and the program works, because collectively, the health care business needs the patients provided by medicare in order to fund its operations.  

So a conservative like my Facebook friend has a choice to make.  Either grow and learn in their understanding of Democratic Socialism, and how it benefits themselves, or by principle, turn down participation in any institution that is socialist by nature.  This would include social security and medicare, your local ambulance, paramedic and fire protection service, your police force, flying on an airplane where the safety is guaranteed by government provided services in air traffic control and where airplane arrival and departure is from a government owned and operated facility,  some utility providers, including the electricity generated by hydroelectric power generated by dams, like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and even driving on highways that are paid for by tax dollars.  

Let's Talk Being a Patriotic American, the Constitution and How Democratic Socialism is the Diamentric Opposite of Marxist Communism

Democratic Socialism is a protection against excessive capitalism, especially in those areas of the economy where corporate wealth enables large corporations to build monopolies, violating laws against doing so.  That actually skews the basic principle of capitalism, which is built on the law of supply and demand by artificially controlling the supply to jack up prices or eliminating fair competition in order to rake in excessive profits.  

Democratic government is outlined in the constitution as being of, by and for the people.  The Constitution does not establish a capitalist economy in the United States, but it does offer freedoms which make a fair capitalist system possible.  It provides protection, at taxpayer expense, so that businesses are able to operate in relative freedom and engage in fair competition.  It protects business against unfair competition and excessive greed, by allowing legislation which ultimately regulates business for the good of the people.  

In that aspect of its operation, Democratic Socialism is the ultimate expression of the will of the people, while in any Communist system, the will of the state, usually determined by a small, powerful oligarchy, is protected.  The theory is that if the state is collectively the sole beneficiary of prosperity, it is able to guarantee the equality of the economic circumstances of its citizens.  And of course, because of all kinds of variables, inequality can't be overcome.  Under the kind of Democratic socialism that now has a following in the United States, mostly under Democrats, the people are the beneficiaries of whatever service or product that is its ultimate result. 

Democratic socialism promotes and supports individual rights and freedoms, even in the American political system, in far greater proportion than the regulated capitalism of the Republican party's economic philosophy does.  It prevents the provision of basic human needs from being priced out of the ability of many Americans to afford.  

Democratic socialism will be opposed to what is going on in the American economy now, almost unchecked by any kind of regulation, and even if there is regulation, enforcement of it is being ignored by a majority Republican congress.  They claim to be supporters of the rule of law, but they have abandoned that support when it contributes to the wealthiest of the wealthy profiteering and exploiting the 99% of the population that has to work for a living and the majority who live paycheck to paycheck. 

Affordable Health Care and Affordable Housing Are The Single Biggest Issues

The fact that access to necessary health care is not considered a basic human right in this country is one of the biggest moral and ethical failures of the whole idea of American exceptionalism.  In a system where the Constitution claims that the government is responsible for the overall protection of the lives of its people, and where the language of political debate includes insistence on protection of "the sanctity of human life," the way we manage health care, compared to the rest of the industrialized, prosperous countries of the world is a colossal moral failure.  

The "death panels" that Sarah Palin incorrectly asserted would be a part of the "socialized medical system" that she claimed Democrats were promoting when she was John McCain's running mate already exist and consist of the executives and agents of the major health care insurance companies in this country who have almost complete control over decisions made by doctors on behalf of their patients.  The individuals who make these decisions don't have medical degrees and can't practice medicine, but they have plenty of office space in every hospital in the country, and they must be consulted before they will pay for any procedure or treatment.  

And that's far worse than anything Sarah Palin envisioned in her propaganda regarding a single-payer, government operated health care system.  

And while insurance companies control the treatment decisions made by doctors, major corporations, including the insurance companies themselves, are buying up hospitals and medical practices, to turn a profit out of the care that the insurance companies do approve.  There are very few non-profit medical and hospital systems left in this country where, at one time, more than half of the hospitals were operated by Christian denominations.  

I've observed this first hand.  The hospital system where I've seen doctors and received treatment for the past eight years transitioned from being owned by a non-profit corporation originally owned by the Catholic church three years ago.  The quality of medical care declined almost instantly, the wait time to get in to see a physician in just about any specialty increased from weeks to months, including our family practice doctor.  In two subsequent hospital stays, I noticed a distinctive decline in the quality of nursing care in the hospital itself and a nurse who works there told me that the number of patients they are assigned on a shift has increased by a third since the corporation took control of the hospital operations.  

Emergency room wait times have become endurance contests.  There are three hospitals in this particular system, all of them in urban settings.  Prior to the corporate takeover, wait times at the largest of the three, connected to a medical school, averaged about two hours, while an hour to 90 minutes was typical for the other two.  Now, wait times after triage, before being assigned to a bed, run more than ten hours at the larger of the three hospitals, and eight to ten hours is typical for the other two.  And from personal experience, it may be at least another two hours, after being assigned to a bed, before a doctor actually shows up.  

Prior to the corporate buyout, the physicians connected to the hospital owned and operated their own practices.  Now, the corporation has organized the specialists into "groups" and I've noticed that there is a lot of empty space in the professional building at one of the hospitals.  I thought something was different when I started seeing my podiatrist and my cardiologist in the same clinic, having to wait in line to check in, and often waiting an hour to be called in to the appointment.  And since the corporate takeover, I'm on my fourth cardiologist.  One of the other three left to accept a position in another state, and the other two decided to take the opportunity to retire.  

Across the country, small, rural hospitals are closing everywhere, in some cases leaving communities without an emergency room, and an hour's drive or longer to the closest hospital.  I recently read that the small, coal-mining town of Williamson, West Virginia, the seat of Mingo County, lost its hospital as a result of financial difficulties it encountered during the COVID pandemic.  This left the county population of 22,000 without an emergency room.  The local medical clinic put up an investment to help get the hospital open again, and they got help from the Biden administration, via Senator Manchin, in the form of several million dollars, to get it open again.  The Republican senator, and congressman, did nothing.  Their "capitalist" economic philosophy apparently does not extend to helping their constituents access affordable medical care. 

And while health care involves the interest of humanity against corporate profiteering, housing markets are headed the same way.  Corporations with huge amounts of cash are buying up houses and rental property like the sky is the limit, raising rents while doing nothing to improve the properties they are purchasing.  Buying a home is becoming impossible for two entire generations of Americans, home ownership is staggeringly low, compared to just 50 years ago.  And costs of housing have jumped significantly.  So has homelessness.  

The solutions offered by the capitalists are, well, to lower the taxes paid on the profits of the profiteers.  That would be Republican policy.  The Democratic socialists want to invest in building new housing, cutting out the middle man corporate ownership, and either selling or renting directly, at costs which are much lower because the buyers and renters are not paying corporate profits at rates of 50% or higher.  And they want to fairly tax the profits being made on housing to pay for it.  

Which of those plans fits best with the American, Christian-influenced idea of basic human rights and the "sanctity of human life"?