Oh, I read the article. I simply responded to only one of the points being made. :-)
and that even if they do show some spine and force a floor vote on Medicare for All it will be quashed by other politicians on Capitol Hill.
And there you have it.
Caity has been opining on the “Totally Evil US Government” subject, both here and on Twitter, for the last week to ten days. I have some agreement with her views on this matter, but the bottom line is that there’s almost no political currency these days for any massive movement to a more “moral” (not sure that’s the right word, but whatever) form of government. Even amongst progressives (who, as far as elected politicians are concerned, barely exist outside of totally safe districts who would elect a Cocker Spaniel if it had a (D) after its name) the “Totally Evil US Government” faction is small, and those who would promote mass-change policies like M4A have little power for the aforementioned reason.
And that’s not even mentioning the fact that the POTUS-to-be’s personal politics are closer to George W. Bush than Barack Obama, and his VP is a corporatist cop who is only a “progressive” in the fantastical dreams of some partisans.
I try not wish for things that will never happen; that path leads to madness. I prefer to advocate for things that have some possibility of coming to fruition. The US will never change its neoconservative attachment to global hegemony; there’s too much money at stake, and that attachment is about to go on a sugar high because China is actually behaving like the first real live enemy we’ve had since the Cold War — the neocons don’t have to invent one like they have been doing. Further, M4A loses its tiny amount of political capital with expansion of the ACA; and the same principle applies to any number of broad change initiatives.
Know what the real issue is? It’s not a lack of “consciousness”; it’s political hubris. Our government, policy-wise, is designed to move incrementally. Any politician who utters the phrase “Go Big or Go Home” (or any other euphemism which means that they are about to advocate for a large policy shift) needs to be removed from office, because they are failing to understand the fundamental structure of the US governmental system, which (a) is designed to do nothing unless there is broad agreement on doing something (e.g., 70% of the electorate and the politicians they elect) else (b) policies are enacted at the state level.
So, there, now I’ve gone on more than I wanted to, because you were the second person to provide editorial commentary on my admittedly brief original post. If you want to change a “consciousness”, as Caity says, you do so generationally — — you or I will not live to see it.
The practical battles are in policy.