Purity vs. Policy

As I’ve mentioned ad infinitum, the search for money in politics and during campaigns is relentless. It was that search for money during my run for US Senate that brought me to the DSCC annual big donor confab in Martha's Vineyard. 

One of the groups I had been courting without even the slightest hint of success was an organization known as the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. The PCCC (closely affiliated with Elizabeth Warren), was founded in 2009 and was still run by its co-founders, Stephanie Taylor and Adam Green. 

After I gave a speech in front of a bunch of sitting Senators and mucky-muck donors, the networking began. Almos immediately, Adam Green from the PCCC buttonholed me. 

“Gary, that’s was incredible.” No folks, I am not making this up. “You hit all the issues we care about. I had no idea you could take those positions in Wyoming.” He said the PCCC wanted to support e, but first I needed to have an interview with Stpehanie.

The call from Stephanie came in one evening while I was back in my hotel room. Stephanie was engaging, but after the introductory pleasantries, it was all business. We discussed Social Security, Wall Street, and corporatism, net neutrality, and a host of other issues. Everything seemed to be going well until we came to healthcare. 

Stephanie asked me how I felt about Medicare-for-All (“M4A” for short). I knew this was one of their key issues and viewed this issue as a strength of mine since I had recently been the Chief Operating Officer of the medical center in my hometown. 

I eagerly dove into the issue. My position was pretty clear: First, I was for universal coverage. Every American deserves access to basic, quality, affordable healthcare. Every. Single. Person. Second, having experienced first-hand the complexity of insurance and the administrative costs and nightmares in our current system, I was a firm supporter of standardizing insurance coverages and absolutely believed that a single-payer system like Medicare was eventually the way to go. 

So far so good. Stephanie seemed to be on board. 

Then came the third leg of my healthcare position. From a pragmatic perspective, I believed (and still believe) that we need to understand the reality of transitioning from the current primarily private insurance system to a more public one. I fully supported a public option as part of the Obamacare exchanges but also believed that politically we needed a transition period while making it clear that, ultimately, a single-payer system like Medicare was the most efficient way to administer universal coverage/access. 

For those of you old enough to remember the Gong Show, well, GONG! Wrong answer! 

Clearly, my answer was not acceptable to Stephanie. She pushed on why I didn’t support M4A immediately. I told her I did, but even if it passed that day, it would take years to transition the system. After all, Obamacare passed in 2010 but wasn’t truly implemented until 2014. And, in my view, we needed to provide interim alternatives (public option, etc.) while moving towards M4A. That also could include immediately lowering the age limit for Medicare to 55 and also placing dependent minors on Medicare as well. 

What had been a friendly discussion suddenly took on a distinct chill. As much as I tried to explain my position to Stephanie, she didn’t seem to want to hear anything else other than unequivocal support for Medicare-for-All. No transition, public option, or taking into account the political realities of convincing a split America to embrace universal coverage first, and eventually, single-payer. 

 I could sense things going sideways; potential financial support from the PCCC evaporating as we spoke. As hard as I tried to reason with her, I had failed the purity test.  

It mattered not that my opponent- a friggin’ doctor – wanted to repeal Obamacare and had absolutely no interest in helping people gain affordable access to healthcare. That I had actual experience in the healthcare system and might have the credibility, if elected, to convince elected officials and the public how to move towards the ultimate goals. That we agreed on virtually every other policy issue they cared about. 

Nothing else mattered. I was not Pure. I wasn’t worthy. 

The call ended pleasantly but in ambiguity. Stephanie said she would discuss it with her team and get back to me. 

She never did. Nor did Adam. They didn’t even give me the courtesy of returning my phone calls or emails, nor the courtesy of telling me they weren’t going to endorse/support me. They just disappeared. I never interacted with them again. 

_______________________________

DC is full of true believers. People who want simple solutions to complex issues. In my view, that’s absolutely okay – we need those who, in good faith, hold strong beliefs on how to better our society ( “good faith” being the key driver here – we currently live in a world where people in power in DC are decidedly NOT acting in good faith and NOT acting to better our society; in that case, all bets are off and resistance is imperative).  

But to change society for the better, at least in the realm of public policy, you need to actually be able to legislate.  

That means passing laws.  

That means creating coalitions.  

That means convincing others with disparate motivations and beliefs to join in your cause. Politics in many ways is the art of compromise – even amongst those with whom you might share most beliefs but differ on a few tactical ideas. 

DC is also full of people full of their own importance and indispensability.