Heads up, Democrats. Your case for democracy needs some help.

  Heads up, Democrats. Your case for democracy needs some help. Donald Trump is now positioning himself to try for a second term in 2024.   Democrats are asleep at the wheel if they assume naturally they will win because they support our traditional democracy and Trump is a wannabe autocrat.  Recent polls should be a wake-up alarm.  Republicans are far more passionate about believing democracy is under attack than Democrats.  . The question that should be put to voters in 2022 and 2024 is "in what kind of a country do we want to live in the future? Is it the democracy as we have known it or an autocracy?"  If Democrats make a strong case for democracy that contrasts the damage autocracies do to the freedom of voters to get their voices heard, the response should be clearly "democracy we have known". The follow-up response then would be " to vote the Trumpists out". However, making a strong case for Democrats' kind of democracy is still a work in progress and is not a done deal. The two political parties do not live on the same planet because democracy means different things to different partisans.  Simply calling Trumpists fascists or autocrat lovers meant as slurs is not enough. Simply shouting we are the ones for true democracy by and for the people and the other side is not is also not enough.  The astute  Trump opponents fear Trump wants to turn  US democracy into an autocracy, a fascist. who wants to keep opponents from voting by any means. Trump's supporters see Trump as a defender of democracy protecting us from voter fraud with "voter integrity laws".  What we will be facing in 2022 and 2024 is which ones of these views of democracy wins out.  Even more dire a question is" do we want to give  forces of autocracy more time and ability to consolidate their  power ?"

Truimpsters respond that liberals are trying to turn the US into a socialist state with the Biden agenda and socialism means the end of democracy. 

I was asked on another site via a meme by a Trumpster, if socialism is so great, why did not the central American migrants go to Venezuela? Here is my answer: Because dictatorships come in all ideologies,, fascism to communism, and stops in between. They are by their nature corrupt, favoring cronies or demographics who put them in office and will keep them there. If you are not one of "them", you have no rights or ability to keep them in check, or peacefully overturn them. They are not a government based on ability but based on the whims of one ruler. That is why you hear liberals calling Trump a wannabe dictator and an autocrat. Some call him a fascist because dictatorships in cahoots with big capitalism is the definition of fascism. So far as Venezuela is concerned, and to a lesser extent, Russia, both countries used oil revenue money to buy the favor of the group that would support them. ..When the price of oil crashed, so did their ability to bring the same continued prosperity to the groups that supported them. In Russia's case, Putin is not threatened by the middle class he favored, but because absolute power corrupts absolutely his villas and self-financial dealing and the oligarchs who enable him have created an opposition using whatever few democratic tools they had left...It sometimes takes years for demagogues to become dictators, but suppression of opposition via abusing democratic institutions is more likely in current history than the old way of military coups and revolution. The problem is dictators can come to power and slowly suppress opponents so that when they realize what has happened, it is too late for the people to act. Even those wannabe dictators who truly think they are the best thing that happened to their country begin to enjoy the power, privilege, and monetary rewards, and then they do even more to suppress any opposition. That includes total control of media so that opposition messages cannot get exposure, throwing opposition leaders into jail on some pretext, controlling the mechanisms of voting, using threats of force and using the military to crack down on domestic opponents, stacking the judiciary with cronies, and turning the legislature into a bunch of yes nodding heads, using those tactics.

Democrats on cable news often view the Trumpian threat as a rabid fringe cult. Here is why Democrats need to be more seriously alarmed bout Trumpism. The majority of voters may be mildly agreeing  Trumpism is anti-democratic., but unless Democrats convince more independents and disaffected Republicans to join them, it is not a given they will .win. The country is just too closely divided and the election process has been manipulated to favor the Trumpians.  Red and purple states are passing voter suppression laws and maximizing gerrymandering. The red states are giving their partisan-dominated legislatures the power to count votes and overturn the popular vote if they do not like the outcome.  So much of the issue revolves around what Democrats call "the big lie" that Trump won, not Biden, in spite of no evidence.  Democrats point to court cases and other evidence that there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 vote. 

A mid-September poll should be a warning to Democrats .. .CNN Poll: Most Americans feel democracy is under attack in the US - CNNPolitics   75 % of Republicans say democracy is under attack, compared with 46% of Democrats....  .   Among Republicans, 78% say that Biden did not win and 54% believe there is solid evidence of that, despite the fact that no such evidence exists.".Even the recent fiasco in the "Arizona forensic audit" conducted by their own GOP contracted Cyber Ninjas concluded that Biden won. That has not changed Trump's rhetoric to his devoted rally attendees immediately after the story was reported pointing to" what about" and " what ifs" while, counting on the ignorance of their supporters of the election systems and safeguards already in force.to believe him.  Republicans still claim they are the ones who protect traditional democracy from cheaters now and in the future and the Democrats are the ones stealing it. Even if the elections system "ain't broke", they still want to fix it to their advantage. The good news in that CNN poll is that when  Americans as a whole are polled, only " 36% of Americans say that President Joe Biden did not legitimately get enough votes to win the presidency. That 36% includes 23% who falsely say there is solid evidence that Biden did not win and 13% who say that is their suspicion only.".36% is a minority view, but it is a large minority and the battle is not over. The minority of the popular vote still can win control over the majority voters depending on which state the vote is close.  Current forecasts are that Republicans will win back their majorities in Congress in 2022 and that Trump will still be the leading GOP candidate in 2024. Democrats need to do more than just win; they need to win big. It still takes more than simple majority wins of popular votes by Democrats in close elections to offset the success GOP-dominated state legislatures have had in gerrymandering House districts to their advantage and discouraging the other side from voting. The Senate is already 50-50, and one race could tilt the balance one way or the other. 

When Democrats hail democracy and Republicans fear for democracy's vote integrity, they are not even talking about the same reality. Reality is shaped by demagogues, lies,  media, and individual experiences. . The problem is explaining this difference in the practice of democracy in terms of life experiences instead of abstract concepts. Autocracy and fascism are political science kinds of words, easier to pronounce than concepts to grasp or explain in a battle of persuasion of independents, who can swing elections. Fascism is used more of an insult, but it is a dictatorship with capitalists as their partners and supporters, instead of communists. Its history with Hitler evokes emotions,, but being called a Nazi is still unnecessarily inflammatory, even if the shoe fits.

The challenge to Democrats then is to put their views of democracy in the context of something meaningful to those who are not hardcore Trumpists  Perhaps one approach is "   Your vote may not even count because the  GOP is now in the hands of Trumpists who are making it hard for you to vote and be counted, especially if you are an assumed vote for the other candidate.  " For example, the laws being passed by legislatures in red states are permitting legislatures to overturn the popular voter election results. Also officials determining which votes are counted are being put in partisans' hands instead of separately elected election administrators. 

The beauty of democracy as we have known it for 250 years is that the will of the majority of people determines the direction of the country while protecting the rights of the minority views to be able to make their case to the public and win a future election. This is thanks to the observed First Amendment freedoms of peaceful assembly and media independence and derivative civil rights laws and amendments.  Putting this in more understandable popular terms, defenders could say  "Continued existence of our kind of democracy is threatened if allegiance is pledged to a ruler who is a person because they are given the power in terms in office to twist it to maintain and increase their personal power and control.". For example, those treasured protections can be circumvented by biased interpretation, appointments of loyalists,  and selective enforcement of laws .. That would be the case up and down federal, state, and local governments in legislative, executive, and judicial power centers. It is very possible to happen within the next few years unless voters stop it when they still have a chance.  As Ben Franklin has been quoted often. When exiting the Constitutional Convention, he said" We have a republic if we can keep it". We. the people, that's us, still have an opportunity to keep it by electing those who are pledged to keeping it. 

 Just promoting the value of the rule of law and an independent judiciary instead of a rule of a person needs to be put into terms of how this impacts people. For example Transitions of power to new winners had been peaceful until January 6, 2021, when even then the Constitution held in the end as the electoral count was certified. "Do you want a violent coup attempt after every election? Is that the kind of America you want?  January 6 was a close call. Do you want more of this in the future? There is no guarantee that peaceful transitions will be the situation forever. It depends who you elect to power"..

 The key to rule of the Consitution's longevity has been mutual respect by all parties to the rule of law until now. It has never been pledging loyalty to the rule of a person who determines how laws are interpreted and who enforces the law for the benefit of the ruler's loyalists. Those are the evil practices our founders had revolted against, the rule by such a tyrant. While the GOP tried to appoint enough judges they wanted to federal courts and the supreme court, even their appointees swore loyalty to the law while leaning to a more conservative ideology. They ruled in every instance that there was no evidence of the election being stolen. That independence of the judiciary is not a guarantee if both the legislative and executive branches are in the hands of a wannabe autocrat/dictator who can manipulate the provisions of existing laws and rules to replace vacancies with his loyalists he can depend on ruling as he wants.. One term in power is not enough to complete the takeover. Two terms could get an autocrat closer to there.  Is this the country we want in the future?

 The current attacks on Trump's anti-democratic tendencies have been limited to calling him an "autocrat" ..  That is far too gentle an approach, yet calling him a fascist creates its own hysteria, no matter how true it is.  Perhaps one way without getting in the weeds is to tag Trump as fear and hate rouser who wants to be a one-man ruler who tried to use the active military and judges appointments and federal prosecutors and inspiring violent actions to get his way. That sounds more like a wannabe dictator who wants another term in power to complete his agenda.   That is never what this country was about. " Our political future will not be a corrupt one favoring his cronies if he wins. Is this the country you want?"  

Biden's approach has been to make a case for democracy because it can get things done. He is demonstrating it by getting legislation passed that helps the middle class and lays the groundwork for a more prosperous future.  That is well and good since it demonstrates "he cares about me" and deflects the old "what have you done for me lately" cynical view of voters, But it is also backhandedly admitting that "autocracies" can also get it done, if not for everyone, but at least for their loyal supporters.  That is not enough of a plea to support the kind of democracy we have had for the past 250 years. Trump has always believed that the greater motivation in politics is "fear".  Democrats need to throw that back at him ...that "more of him will lead to chaos and conflict, and the loss of popular will expressed in a ballot box with his big lies and restrictive rights for those who oppose him.  Is this the kind of America we want for our future?"  There will always be those who are radical and fanatical enough to answer "yes, bring it on".  The task for those who want to keep the form of democracy we have had for 250 years is to keep them an even smaller minority of the electorate. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/gop-grave-threat-american-democracy/618693/

Keeping Constitution Week relevant

A version of this appeared in the Winter Park Times 9 27 19 https://winterparktimes.com/opinion/columnists/constitution-week-a-partisan-event/
Update 9 23 2019: Column version post Constitution Week event: The goals of last week’s Constitution Week in Grand Lake, Colorado sound noble, to understand how the American form of democracy came to be and to be educated about it. It was about patriotism, flag-waving, parades, and fireworks, but if you were looking for a balanced understanding of the Constitution and the various applications of it, this was not it. This was a highly partisan event.  The organizers used Constitution Week, just as it has in the past, to advance a political and ideological agenda.

For this year’s event, the leaders stated the focus of the Grand Lake Constitution Week was the evil of socialism.  Not so coincidentally in 2020 the Republican Party strategy is to brand all Democrats as socialists. In recent years featured speakers touted was fear of certain races and the evils of a certain religion. Each of those programs not so coincidentally supported a political agenda of the GOP or of Donald Trump’s  that year whether it was the President attempting to institute a Muslim ban or his dog whistles from the rally podium to fear and loathe brown and black people and “build the wall”.  If there was any connection with the Constitution, it was not one the event organizers may have had in mind, because the Constitution provides protection of minorities from discrimination, protects freedom of religion, and does not establish a preferred economic system, but a political one.

Trump’s 2017 agenda was to ban Muslim immigrants and the event speaker touted the horrors of Sharia law. Trump’s original initiative was rejected by the courts because it violated the Constitution's protection of the freedom of religion.  We often forget the First Amendment to the Constitution bans the establishment of a state religion.  When Donald Trump fired up racial tensions and “build the wall’, that year’s event featured a very controversial speaker, medal bedecked Sheriff David Clarke, whose racist remarks became so overt even Fox News fired him as a commentator.  This week Constitution Week organizers presented a panel of three women who were immigrants from China, Cuba, and Sweden, providing their views about the evils of socialism. The original definition of socialism has long been perverted and nuanced. No one on the presidential candidate debate stage or the incumbent in the United States is advocating either Cuban communism or anything that resembles China’s central control of the economy and extermination of dissidents. Socialism did not cause those oppressive regimes, but the lack of strong democratic institutions helped their rise. Those systems were imposed by force by a bloody revolution and followed regimes that were corrupt, autocratic, and governed a population with extreme income disparities.  Democratic Sweden’s system was voted in by its citizens. It may not be our choice, but it was their people’s will. A 2019 worldwide poll ranked Sweden in the top ten happiest countries in the world. (USA was 19th). Conservative columnist George Will has opined that Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders is no more than a democrat seeking to expand New Deal programs. Even Donald Trump has pledged to protect Social Security and Medicare.

The best defense against oppression by dictators is supporting the original intent of the Constitution’s central theme,   to prevent the rise of a a tyrant  with checks and balances and the rule of law   If there is a threat to the Constitution, it is  a wannabe autocrat of a president who  is determined to see how much of the Constitution he can stonewall, ignore or workaround to give himself  and his office more "executive" power without interference from legislative or judicial oversight.  Raising exaggerated fears of “others” is his strategy to gain support to trample these guardrails of American democracy.  
_________________________________________________________________________________ In the meantime, pro Russian Ukranians are hyping  I Love America as a way to give support to Donald Trump.  Waiving the Flag is a great exercise in democracy, but when it is hyped by a foreign government's active measures, be aware you may be falling for some scary stuff. https://popular.info/p/massive-i-love-america-facebook-page?fbclid=IwAR3w2fQ0nVbran5mcdoubpyKOCNnY7XRZVWxo64ELsGPKNTGXoXs3qAmA _____________________________________________________________________________

Original post:
The goals of September’s Constitution Week in Grand Lake, Colorado sound noble, to understand how the American form of democracy came to be and to be educated about it. That is not the main agenda this year.   Grand Lake organizers of Constitution Week are focusing on educating those who attend about the evils of socialism, featuring speakers to testify how socialism was bad in their own countries. It appears they want to scare us into thinking that we, too, will become Sweden, Cuba, or China, or as others have charged end up like Venezuela or being governed by a Pol Pot.  They want you to believe socialism will result in killing fields, lack of freedom, and dictatorial rule. If you are confused about what this agenda has to do with the Constitution, the answer lies in partisan politics. The strategy of the GOP in 2020 is to paint all Democrats as dangerous socialists and try to make their case that the Constitution is threatened. by the scare word “ socialism” as they define it. Socialism has many definitions and many degrees of application. A one-sided ideological presentation may be an interesting intellectual exercise, but it is irrelevant to the choices we face. No one on the presidential candidate debate stage or the incumbent in the United States is advocating either the pure form of socialism or laissez-faire capitalism of the 1800s or Cuban socialism or anything that resembles China’s central control of the economy and extermination of dissidents or even becoming Sweden. Even conservative columnist George Will thinks Bernie Sander’s democratic socialism is no more than expanded New Deal type programs. The feared Venezuela or Cuba dictatorships and Chinese communism arose from reactions to preceding despots, extreme economic disparities, and corruption.  That is not our history.  We in the US are building on 250 years of democratic practices as defined and shaped by our Constitution. 

Let’s face it.  We already have a blending of elements of socialism within a free enterprise system. It was the result of the 1930’s depression when unfettered capitalism failed and when free enterprise in more modern times also failed to provide affordable healthcare to so many.  We have a social safety net of health care and nutrition for the very poor. All came into being through our democratic process of representative government. The question is do we expand these to cover all or more people and add other programs. Politicians who advocate removal or reduce the New Deal policy of social security (funded by payroll deductions and employers), graduated income tax, and Medicare which is a single-payer health system for seniors and disabled find themselves in deep trouble. Taking away Obamacare subsidies for the lower middle-class and affordable coverage of pre-existing conditions for everyone was the main issue in 2018 which changed the House from red to blue.

 The best defense against extremism is strengthening democracy, not subverting it.  The more relevant and fundamental choice we will make in 2020 will be between our kind of democracy outlined in the Constitution and a further slide into autocracy, practiced and advocated by Donald Trump. The US Constitution established a political system, not an economic or a religious one, but it was designed with checks and balances and the rule of law to keep wannabe despots from abusing democracy for their own political power and economic gain. The President is attempting a direct assault on our Constitutional democracy.  He is determined to see how much of the Constitution he can stonewall, ignore or workaround to give himself more "executive" power, without interference from legislative or judicial oversight.  We know wannabe strong men and despots in countries with once  democratic and constitutional traditions  try every way they can to seize power by destroying an independent judiciary by stacking courts with those who will rule on law the way the ruler wants,  destroying  or degrading a whistleblowing free press, and  controlling the legislature  by threats and fear to keep it from standing in his/her way.  We are seeing that unfold now in the US. Often a despot gets to power by scaring their citizen to go along with the destruction of the guardrails of democracy by convincing them that some evil force is at work and assigns blame for their sorrows to a religious or ethnic group or some extremist political system that is advocated by very few. Declaring questionable national emergencies based on hyped-up fears of unwelcome "invaders" to ignore legislation and to rule by edict (executive order) is a time-tested technique used by wannabe despots to gather more power.   There are those who lin their own pockets by virtue of their positions as they welcome the support of their private endeavors and interference from foreigners to help them gain and maintain power and wealth. Those fears of foreign influence were shared by the writers of the Constitution and forbidden in that document.   Such issues need to be included in any discussion of the Constitution, but that is not this year’s focus in Constitution Week.

 By the way, European countries are also a hybrid of capitalism and socialism, but the proportions are different than ours. They have not slid down a slippery slope to autocracy and despotism of Cuban and Chinese communism.  Some believe Europeans are miserable with their socialism. There are always the disgruntled, and with any system, faults can be found, but citizens in European democracies with more equal elements of socialism/capitalism mixtures than us, poll happier than we in the United States. The US happiness measure of its population ranks 19th, well behind other Western-style democracies with their more hybrid economic systems, per the annual World Happiness Report, 2019.  FYI, Sweden ranks among top ten happiest countries in the World. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/happiest-countries-world-2019-winner-finland-bhutan-denmark-norway-iceland-a8831576.html

This is not the first-time organizers of Grand Lake’s Constitution Week have used the event to promote a political party’s strategy.  http://www.skyhinews.com/news/controversial-speaker-during-constitution-week-talks-islam-sharia-law/In 2017 they featured fear of Muslims who would impose Sharia law on us and provided Islamophobic speakers in order to scare those who attended in supporting Trump’s Muslim ban. Muslims have 1% of the US population and a Constitution that forbids the government from having a state religion. These scare tactics which originated with right-wing think tanks were amplified by Russian Facebook ads in 2016. As part of Russian active measures to influence the elections on behalf of the election of Donald Trump.
  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-releases-all-3000-plus-facebook-ads-bought-by-russian(
Further thoughts:
The purpose of Constitution Week is noble, but the founders of it in Grand Lake have over the years turned it into an opportunity to support partisan efforts to enhance a partisan strategy of one political party and a certain ideology.   It is a flag-waving event and should be in support of the Constitution and I applaud that,. I have no problem with the presentation of political views with which I disagree..  but it should not be the promotion of an off-topic opportunity to promote a one-sided ideological and political agenda without balancing it with other viewpoints or not discussing the pro and con implications for the Constitution.

 The event has a history of hyping fear of Muslims supporting the Trump Muslim ban and an attempt to scare voters by painting all Democrats as "socialists"...a polled scare word.. without presenting speakers with a different or nuanced view.  It is in lockstep of the Trump agenda and strategy they have publicly announced to paint all Democrats as socialists so therefore partisan. Courts found the Muslim ban was unconstitutional in violation of the Constitution's freedom of religion clause, and the Trump administration revised it successfully when it became a ban of those from both Muslim and non-Muslim countries.   All that glitters has also been controversial. In an event in an earlier year, organizers had a very medal bedecked Trump advocate controversial sheriff David Clarke to hype his racist agenda. Later, even Fox News fired him as a commentator for his racism.    

The purpose of Constitution Week was never intended to be a partisan or ideological rally and the annual national celebration was established as an initiative of the Daughters of the American Revolution.  There is an excellent site that provides a balanced celebration at  constitution.org   with an agenda permitting both sides of any controversy to present.  Instead of promoting the Constitution as the great document it is, Grand Lake Constitution Week has turned into an advocacy of a onesided ideological and partisan group. The implication is that those with opposing views on race and economic systems that differ from theirs are not patriotic and somehow do not support the Constitution.

After complaints emerged three years ago about its presentation by speakers with an ideological agenda, they have continued to make this event an advocacy opportunity for a particular ideological agenda, coinciding with a  particular partisan agenda du jour. They continue doubling down on it by featuring speakers off the topic of the Constitution and unrelated to the purpose of the national event. Instead of supporting the intent of the national celebration, it has become an unbalanced advocacy event which was not the intent of the DAR founders.  What has hating Muslims as a religious group, racist views,  and economic systems of Chinese, Cuban and Swedish socialism have to do with a  lauding of a political structure that shaped our country? The question remains:  What do these Grand Lake Constitution Week featured speakers have to do with the Constitution?  There may be a connection, but not the one the sponsors of Constitution Week had in mind. The Constitution does not establish a particular economic system and it protects the right to practice religion freely and protects racial and religious minorities from discrimination. 

For views of both liberal and conservatives of Constitutional issues as well as a non partisan presentation of the Constitution, go to https://www.constitution.org/

Recommended discussion on the definition and nuanced practices of socialism: 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/05/what-is-socialism

http://www.skyhinews.com/news/controversial-speaker-during-constitution-week-talks-islam-sharia-law/)s/

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/happiness-and-community-an-overview/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-quietly-ditched-trump-loving-sheriff-david-clarke

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/george-will/2015/06/05/will-bernie-sanders-neither-socialist-independent/28496461/   

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/immigrants-praise-us-constitution-bash-socialism-at-constitution-week/?fbclid=IwAR0Xd8QAKX7eAU2Ow1xf9kdOwzHgw1FHVP64-7eWZ6tWrrHRd-AzXBu1RBk

 $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over the next 10 years, which would be achieved by moving payouts to block grants; an $845 billion reduction to Medicare spending over the next decade that targets a decrease in wasteful spending via lower prescription drug costs; and -- surprise -- a roughly $26 billion decrease in Social Security spending over the next 10 years. 
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-outlines-significant-social-security-102100661.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=fb       Question: benefits, no cuts?






/

Democratic candidates smell and draw blood on health care

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News, July 5, 2019.
https://www.skyhinews.com/opinion/opinion-democrats-smell-and-draw-blood-on-health-care-issues/

 Democrats smell blood when it comes to health care as a winning issue. The danger is that the loyalties to various kinds of proposals and their partisan proponents become such a  divisive issue, it loses in 2020. Any hope to improve health insurance to any degree during a Trump second term would be lost as well. 

 Democratic candidate debates last week have renewed the national focus on health care policy because nearly all of the twenty on stage put it on or near the top of the issues they addressed. It is no wonder. A Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll in June 2019 before the debates found that 87% of Democrats put health care at the top of the list for candidates to discuss. The various candidates touted their approaches and criticized their opponents' health care plans with enough passion and drawing blood with criticism to give rise to the fear that the party is seriously divided.

 Both Republican and Democratic strategists will be sharpening their swords on the issue. In the 2018 midterms, coverage of pre-existing conditions was the hot button topic, even forcing Trump and some GOP candidates to pledge to protect pre-existing condition coverage without even providing a plan of how to do it or its cost.  

 What we can expect is for the GOP to claim that any plan with Medicare for All in its title or any variations thereof is nothing but socialism, a term that frightens GOP voters, but it does not scare most  Democrats,  especially younger ones, per a recent Pew Research Center poll.  The GOP has a grand old historical tradition of calling "socialism"  any government provided assistance to seniors such as Medicare and Social Security and they have begun beating the war drums against Medicare for All now with the same fire breathing tactics of yore. They would benefit from seeing the health care debate becoming lost in a socialism v capitalism controversy.

In taking sides of the various health care proposals,  Democrats could lose sight of who are the real enemies. They are the GOP who failed in their first attempt to repeal without replacing Obamacare and the Trump administration who would sabotage Obamacare out of existence, making it either unaffordable for many consumers or economically unsustainable.  Using executive orders,  Trump has eliminated the mandate for all to be insured and now permits employers to provide junk and cheaper insurance plans without all of the essential benefits.  Both of these  Trump actions are undermining the balance in the  "pool" of potential claimants. Increasing the numbers in the pool of those who use the benefits more than those who do not, leaves more of the sicker more expensive to treat in the pool,  increasing the costs for all of the participants and taxpayers associated with Obamacare.   There are fears that if employers offer poorer quality insurance plans,  they will dump the underinsured or uninsured sicker into Obamacare, unbalancing the pool even more.  Trump will want voters to buy his promises to repeal Obamacare with no comparable replacement proposals. Trump voters were pacified by those empty promises in 2016 and again in 2018 and may believe him again in 2020. 


There are several fundamental issues that may decide which plan comes out on top. One is the cost of the total replacement of Obamacare with Medicare compared to the public option method that allows consumers to buy into Medicare as a choice within or outside of Obamacare exchanges. The cost to taxpayers or to consumers of any Medicare for All plan at this stage is speculative and subject to self-serving claims. In fact, we may never get the official nonpartisan actuarial cost projections until the Congressional Budget Office weighs in on specific legislation being proposed in Congress. 

 The cost factor is not the only a worry to taxpayers, but it is also Important to consumers who fear they still have to pay too much out of their own pockets in co-pays and deductibles in any plan. Bernie Sanders proposed to replace all health insurance, Obamacare, employer or union provided, or private plans with Medicare for All. Sanders will have to convince voters higher taxes will be offset by the elimination of premiums and lower out of pocket expenses.  An issue that may scuttle the Sanders type proposal is the loss of union or employer-provided insurance, private plans, or supplementals. being proposed by him and some Democratic party candidates. The issue is fluid.  What was revealed in the KFF poll is that voters currently do not have a clear picture of the differences between the various Medicare for All proposals. The majority feared taxes would increase, there would still be deductibles and co-pays,  and 55% thought employer health insurance would still be provided. 

 Sen. Kamala Harris has supported both Sanders' plan and public options in the past and clarified her position after the debate to permit private insurance to exist in any case.  Julian Castro and Andrew Yang along with Sen. Kristen Gillibrand in the debate, and/or in prior public statements supported Medicare or Medicaid for All closer to the Sanders' model, but still permitted some limited private insurance.  The remainder of the debaters, including former vice president Joe Biden, supported the public option approach to some degree or another and would not eliminate private or employer insurance. 



_________________________________________________________________________
  
https://newsatjama.jama.com/2019/01/03/jama-forum-the-2018-midterm-election-results-and-health-care/
https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-june-2019/

https://time.com/5616864/2020-democratic-candidates-health-care/

 https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436162-medicare-for-all-where-2020-dems-stand 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/25/stark-partisan-divisions-in-americans-views-of-socialism-capitalism/

• 
  
• 
  

The GOP resurrects a bogey word: socialism

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News on line March 13, 2019
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/opinion-muftic-gop-resurrects-a-bogey-word-socialism/

Breaking news: Trump's budget proposes cutting $456 billion from  Medicare over 10 years, claiming it will come from "waste". Medicare.https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-apos-4-7-trillion-152510209.html

With a field of announced Democrats running for President that is larger than a football team, the ideological spectrum runs from socialists to no-labels who straddle the medium strip between both parties. The question becomes are Democrats about to commit political malpractice. The Republicans have obviously been looking at recent polls that indicate if they call domestic policy issues advocated by a Democrat as “socialism”, they have a potentially winning strategy. 

A Fox News January 2019 poll that found “80% of Republicans and 34% of Democrats who said it would be a “bad thing” for the United States “to move away from capitalism and more toward socialism”. Per a YouGov poll August 2018:  41 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents said they would feel “enthusiastic” about or “comfortable” with “a candidate for president who described themselves as a socialist,” while 59 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of independents said they would have “some reservations” or would feel “very uncomfortable.”  Pollster 538’s conclusion was that in 2019 socialism “was still an effective political bogeyman”.

The Republicans have moved quickly to exploit such polling by calling public policies that have widespread public support proposed by Democrats as socialism, from Medicare for All, a concept with 80% approval in recent polls to the Green blueprint for combatting climate change.  Their current strategy is to turn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist, into their most hated object hoping to paint the entire Democratic field with the same extreme paintbrush.

Socialism means different things to different people. There are many variations and degrees of government participation, and we can debate the fine points until we are blue in the face splitting hairs, but most voters are neither political scientists nor pundits and most only care which policy does what to their own family finances. Some will falsely believe socialism means advocating owning means of production.  Some will see it as class warfare or the destruction of capitalism. European countries have strong capitalist sectors while embracing some socialistic programs. Others will see limited socialism as needed to round out the rough edges of capitalism that left some in the dust. Trump’s tax policy that unfairly benefited few in the middle class but turned the ultra-rich into the ultra richer will be a Democratic party’s effective exhibit for the unfairness of income disparities.

The challenge for Democrats will be framing a position that clarifies what they mean to the public in a way that does not turn off the Never Trumpers and the independents because even a fully unified Democratic party is not enough alone to beat Trump in 2020.. If the candidate debates and primaries leave an unresolved rift with embittered sides of ideologues on one hand and moderate pragmatists on the other, they will have contributed to Trump’s second term. One approach could be that Medicare for All is no more socialist than current Medicare (very popular) or Social Security.  A limited version could be that Medicare is an option people can choose to buy into.  People do not care what ideological pin they stick on it; they just want to afford to pay for their medical bills just as they want to retire with at least a trusted safety net of social security. Both programs have always had the support of Democrats and the Grand Old Party has a Grand Old Tradition of opposing them. Republican attempts to reduce their benefits or to privatize them have failed. Public opposition stem from voters who have suffered under a private system before Obamacare and who have more faith in the fiscal stability of government funded retirement plans than the Wall Street casino or profit seeking health provider monopolies. Since there is no free lunch in health care or in retirement, the debate should include the finances of competing plans and the out of pocket costs to budget sensitive consumers.

https://www.quora.com/If-conservative-Republicans-dislike-socialism-then-why-are-so-many-still-in-favor-of-Social-Security-and-Medicare

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/05/what-is-socialism/

https://billmoyers.com/content/deja-vu-all-over-a-look-back-at-some-of-the-tirades-against-social-security-and-medicare/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/11/02/republican-public-opposition-to-social-security-and-medicare/#6b682cc94e71

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-socialism-still-an-effective-political-bogeyman

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/13/just-7-of-voters-enthusiastic-about-socialism-poll/

https://www.gq.com/story/electable-democrats-polling-election

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-apos-4-7-trillion-152510209.html