It sure was in 1986

In the early 1980s, with the 1965 Voting Rights Act only beginning to impact the political environment, Mississippi, with the largest percentage of African Americans, was forced by a real Department of Justice to redraw congressional districts previously designed to eliminate, or at least minimize, black voting power. A new Delta-focused district sought to create a chance to elect an African American, but it was majority minority only in total population, with black voting registration still far below 50 percent.

Robert Clark, the first black citizen to be elected to the Mississippi House, was the Democratic nominee in 1982, in the first year of the newly redrawn district. That campaign, which white Republican Webb Franklin won in something of an upset, and the rematch in 1984 focused almost solely on the racial confrontation, which Franklin exploited.

As the campaign calendar turned to 1986, many Democrats in Mississippi believed the district was unwinnable by an African American. As a result, the Democratic primary that year pitted Mike Espy, a young African American lawyer with deep roots in the Delta, against Pete Johnson, a politically ambitious white lawyer and grandson and nephew of former Mississippi governors. Espy narrowly prevailed, but many pundits gave him little chance to defeat the incumbent Franklin that year.

Mike Espy’s campaign win in 1986

Full disclosure, I was hired after Espy’s primary win as his press secretary, and for all but the final weeks of the campaign, was the only white staff member. After nearly a decade as a journalist covering politics in New Hampshire and Mississippi, it also was only my second campaign as a staffer. As young and inexperienced as I was, the manager, an African American from upstate New York, was even younger than me, although he had more political campaign experience. We grew to become brothers, and remain so to this day.

Throughout history, the Delta in Mississippi has been among the most productive agricultural land in our nation, but the mid-1980s were a crisis for farmers throughout America. The financial crisis for non-corporate farmers spawned the Farm Aid concerts in 1985, produced and featuring Willie Nelson, Neil Young and John Mellencamp. Mellencamp’s Rain on the Scarecrow became the soundtrack for those events, highlighting the challenges facing family farmers.

Mike and his campaign rigorously sought to frame the campaign about the farm crisis, and not about race. His focus was dismissed on the right and, in some cases, criticized on the left, but Mike never lost his focus on what was important: the economic concerns of his constituents.

The Ragin’ Cajun was right then, and should be again

James Carville’s memorable phrase “the economy, stup” didn’t start out as a message to the world. It was aimed at establishing message discipline for Bill Clinton’s campaign staff in Little Rock, AR. And although it was only the second point of three he emphasized, he was right then, and I just wish he would remember this year how right he was – and should be again.

Center-left Democrats, including my friends James and Paul Begala, wring their hands over the word “socialist.” But when you hear most progressives speak – whether they claim the socialist label or not – they’re talking about issues that would make the lives of most Americans so much better. And issues like better health care options, making our tax structure more fair, or expanding housing and child care opportunities are absolutely supported by a strong majority of Americans. These are mainstream ideas, not radical ones, despite what the oligarchs want us to believe.

But on the other side, too many Democratic Socialists seem more focused on defeating centrists Democrats as the only way to achieve real change.

I understand the frustration on both sides. But the problem, as it is so often, is that too many people – aided by a media driven by a narrative scheme in which there must be a protagonist and an antagonist – don’t frame the campaign around real issues on which the vast majority of the American people are focused. Their frame is around ideology, which most Americans not only don’t believe truly impacts their lives, but probably aren’t thinking much about as they’re trying to make a pay check stretch to the end of the month. As an English major, I appreciate the frame. As a former journalist, I see it as a lazy way to create tension and draw interest. As a political professional, I recognize that frame just doesn’t work for most voters.

Our focus should be on those we seek to serve

The real focus of Democrats needs not to be an intraparty battle over issue purity versus political calculation. The real focus needs to be on our party’s roots with working people, and how we can truly help them. Our focus needs to shift from ourselves and our candidates to what’s really important: the people we want to represent, the people we want to serve.

The vast majority of Americans are struggling, while a narcissistic trust fund baby who has failed at everything, acts like a monarch. His allies are attempting to recreate the SS, and a small group of techno-billionaires think they would be better off without a democracy. Americans right now are looking for candidates who can speak to them authentically about issues that concern them. We need to respond to that search.

I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) decided against supporting New Hampshire’s continuing effort to maintain its treasured First in the Nation (FITN) Primary, an event it has held since 1952. A small state, with a politically experienced electorate, where face-to-face always countered mediated campaigning, the Granite State’s role in presidential politics has drawn praise from many a political operative, pundit and political journalists.

But I’m happy to let others, like my friend, Steve Marchand, make the case for why it’s a mistake for the DNC to push New Hampshire later in its primary calendar. His piece is well worth a read, especially if you are not from New Hampshire. I think Steve’s bottom line is this:

“If the Democrats’ number one priority is winning the general election in 2028, then New Hampshire is the best place to start. And if that’s not our number one priority… then what the heck are we doing?”

HOW WE GOT HERE

However, my focus is to challenge the DNC’s recommendation that South Carolina again get primary calendar primacy. Having the Palmetto State go first, Nevada second and New Hampshire third simply reprises the calendar from 2024. But there was an understandable, if hardly defensible, rationale that year, as we have very painfully learned.

First, a little historical background. Recall that the 2020 Iowa caucuses were plagued by all sorts of problems resulting in a long delay in reporting the results. But eventually certified results showed Pete Buttigieg winning the most delegates, while Senator Bernie Sanders won the popular vote. (Those problems amplified arguments that a small and not very diverse state like Iowa shouldn’t have such an outsized role in the Democratic primary calendar). Sanders then won New Hampshire and Nevada and appeared to be on a roll toward the nomination.

But after dismal finishes in the first three states, Biden, who had led most polls coming into 2020, was all but counted out as the campaigns moved South. That is where Biden’s candidacy was resurrected with an overwhelming victory in South Carolina. The win was fueled by huge support from the African American community, largely credited to the efforts of veteran Congressman James Clyburn and the then-chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Jamie Harrison, who ultimately became DNC chair in 2021. Soon after, most opponents had withdrawn, leaving Biden the apparent nominee almost by attrition.

In 2023, the DNC bowed to President Biden and voted to replace New Hampshire as the first primary in the 2024 Democratic primary calendar with South Carolina. Along with that change, significant sanctions were threatened against candidates or states, like New Hampshire, that sought to circumvent that calendar. The clear reward for South Carolina revitalizing Biden’s campaign in 2020 had the added benefit of making a primary challenge to him more difficult.

WHAT IS THE DNC THINKING?

Many have noted the lack of diversity in New Hampshire’s population, which is impossible to argue. Only Maine, Vermont and West Virginia have less diverse populations than the Granite State. But South Carolina is far from the most diverse state in the nation. In fact, 22 other states have more diverse populations.

Nevada ranks third among all states for the diversity of its population. It was the DNC’s recommendation to go second in the primary calendar. Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Georgia, Florida, New Mexico, Alaska, Arizona, Virginia, Illinois, Delaware, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Louisiana, Washington, Connecticut, and Mississippi all rank ahead of South Carolina in terms of the diversity of their populations. If the DNC is arguing for a diverse population, South Carolina doesn’t offer the strongest case.

African Americans have long been a substantial segment of the Democratic Party coalition and a key not to just Biden’s success in 2020, but to successful Democratic campaigns across the country. But South Carolina ranks only sixth among states with the largest percentage of African Americans. Mississippi ranks first among all states, with a Black population of just under 38% of its total population. Louisiana, Georgia, Maryland and Alabama all have African American populations of nearly 30% or above, while South Carolina has about 27%. If the idea is to build a campaign around this constituency, why pass over five states with larger percentages of African American voters?

Political opportunity? It’s even worse. Only twice in the last 70 years, has South Carolina voted for the Democrat for President: John Kennedy in 1960 and Georgia neighbor Jimmy Carter in 1976. Fifty years since the Palmetto State voted for a Democrat for President. The high-water mark for a Democratic presidential nominee in the last quarter century was Barak Obama’s 45% in 2008. Generally in politics, a double-digit win is called a landslide.

It’s also been two decades since a South Carolina Democrat served in the U.S. Senate. The current Congressional delegation has only one Democrat, Rep. Clyburn, and there was talk this year of redistricting to make it 7-0 Republican. Donald Trump got 58% in South Carolina in November 2024, so going first in the primary season last time didn’t spark a Democratic revival then, and likely will not this time either.

SOUTH CAROLINA’S FIRSTS

But now, South Carolina apparently will again be given the honor of being first in the Democratic presidential primary calendar on January 22, 2028. In 2024, it was about Biden and his allies rewarding the Palmetto State for 2020 and heading off any serious primary challenge in 2024. In a similar vein, former Obama Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer suggests in his latest Message Box Substack that keeping South Carolina first in 2028 will be a huge boost for former Vice President and 2024 Presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

New Hampshire does have a state law requiring it to hold a primary before any other state, and so it is likely the Granite State will hold a primary – with or without Democratic approval – sometime before South Carolina. Republicans, of course, continue to accept New Hampshire’s primary primacy. Ethan Chen has an interesting take on why the Granite State will still be first and why it matters.

Of course, this won’t be the only time South Carolina was first in something.

South Carolina was the first state to adopt articles of secession from the federal union on December 20, 1860. For those still confused about secession and the Civil War, those in the South Carolina secession convention made it clear. Their secession declaration made plain the primary reason for leaving the union being “[a]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery…”

In March, 1861, Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address memorably concluded:

We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

South Carolina’s response, a few weeks later on April 12, was to be the first state to fire upon federal troops. Led by Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard, rebel troops for weeks repulsed efforts as early as January 1861 to resupply and reinforce the small Union garrison at Fort Sumpter in Charleston, S.C., Harbor. After demanding surrender of the fort the day before, Beauregard’s forces opened fire early on the morning of April 12. Already short of supplies, U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson and his second-in-command, Captain Abner Doubleday of future baseball fame, held out for 24 hours before finally surrending.

That is the history of South Carolina, a history it continues to celebrate and praise. It’s representatives in Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol are states’ rights and slavery advocate John C. Calhoun and Confederate General Wade Hampton.

We should never forget or attempt to erase or whitewash history. South Carolina’s history is hardly what the Democratic Party should be elevating or rewarding in determining the party’s nominee to lead this nation into the next decade.

“We are put in Concord to make hard decisions…” Alexis Simpson.^[2]

The silence of New Hampshire Democratic Party and elected Democratic leaders across the board has been deafening on at least one hard decision: how to pay for what they claim to support. As if their own silence were not enough, they insist on imposing a revenue gag rule across the party and its candidates.

In the Granite State, those with less have been consistently forced to pay the most so the wealthiest individuals and corporations can enjoy tax cut after tax cut. This reverse Robin Hood revenue system has and continues to crush New Hampshire public school students, working and middle class families, and seniors while keeping young men and women from staying home or considering moving to the Granite State because they simply can’t afford it. It is a major reason New Hampshire has the second oldest population among the 50 states.³

THE FALSE CALCULATION OF “THE PLEDGE”

Democratic leaders for more than 50 years have succumbed to the political fallacy the late right-wing extremist Union Leader publisher Bill Loeb and the late and equally radical former Gov. Meldrim Thomson created more than 50 years ago. So many Democratic leaders have cowardly not refused, but actually themselves adopted “The Pledge” to veto any sales or income tax as a craven political calculation. But the numbers haven’t added up, financially or politically.

Since the birth of the pledge in 1972, 12 people have served as governor, but just four were Democrats. For each of those four, factors other than “the pledge” might be considered dispositive to their success.

The first, Hugh Gallen, defeated Thomson in 1978 largely on the single issue of electric utility charges being imposed on ratepayers to help pay for construction the Seabrook nuclear plant. After taking the pledge in his two successful campaigns, Gallen explicitly rejected it in 1982 in his bid for a third term. Pundits and many Democratic leaders pin his loss to John Sununu, Sr., on that decision. But Gallen’s 1982 re-election campaign may have been hindered by an illness that felled him just weeks after the election.

The two female Democratic governors, Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, each won their first term by defeating the same man, Ovide Lamontagne, whose extreme stands on social issues like abortion are cited by many as making him one of the weakest Republican nominees in modern state history. John Lynch also benefited from a weak opponent, defeating Craig Benson, the only Governor in nearly a century to be denied re-election by voters after serving only one two-year term.

The Democratic record in the Legislature is even worse. In the 27 elections since 1972, Democrats won majorities just four times in the House and just three times in the Senate! Over those 27 elections, Democratic leaders warned candidates not to discuss an income or sales tax because to do so would come at the cost of electoral failure! Obviously their silence gained them little. Republicans continued to charge that Democrats were for raising taxes, and the Democrats only response was a tepid, “no, we’re not.”

WHAT THE PLEDGE HAS COST: DOWNSHIFTING

So accepting or even adopting the Pledge didn’t produce any political security for Democrats. But the cost has been enormous to everyone except the wealthy. Just in the last decade, the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute calculated that regressive property taxes increased by nearly 50%, or $1.5 billion.⁴ That increase was the result of continuing efforts by Republicans to “downshift” the cost of public services by reducing the state’s share of support. While Republicans did cut taxes, the only beneficiaries were the wealthiest individuals and corporations. And the bill for those tax cuts for the wealthy was passed on to the other 95% of the state.

Republicans eliminated the Interest and Dividends tax which 9 out of 10 Granite Staters never paid. They also cut taxes on the biggest corporations doing business in the state. Small businesses and “Mom-and-Pop” operations got little or no tax break. And that wasn’t the end of their reverse Robin Hood funding scheme.

For a visual explanation of this “downshifting” in NH, take a look at this graphic on the left. I’d provide a credit, but I can’t remember where I found it. If you do, let me know.

Republicans like to note New Hampshire is in the top 10 of states and the District of Columbia in total education spending on public schools, which is true. But most of that money comes from local property taxes. New Hampshire is last in support for schools provided by the state.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous quote: Never have so many paid so much for so long to cover the political cowardice of the silence of so-called leaders.

_{[1] MLK, November, 1967, Steeler Lectures}

_{[2] Alexis Simpson, Close Up, WMUR, 6/29/26}

_{[3] https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/median-age-by-state}

_{[4} https://nhfpi.org/resource/property-taxes-in-new-hampshire-how-they-work-and-how-they-compare/}

If you haven’t read George Orwell’s 1984 lately (or ever, heaven forbid), reviewing some recent speeches and articles by New Hampshire House Republicans is an enlightening (re)introduction to double speak, the art of insisting that night is really day.

In one “up is down” tour de force in an op-ed published in 2025, Osborne declared that restricting local voters’ ability to decide how much to spend on public schools is actually “empowering local control!” The Vietnam-era Army major infamously quoted about “destroying the village in order to save it” would certainly applaud Osborne’s efforts. This year, Osborne is running for Speaker, the top job in the House, but while his ambitions have grown, his Free State extremist policy prescriptions have not.

Despite years of claiming to promote smaller government closest to the voters, Osbornne leads a Republican caucus that eagerly abandons those principles when it suits their narrow and extreme agenda. One Republican committee chair outright dismissed the very idea of local control, saying New Hampshire law means the state controls but only until that approach doesn’t suit their purposes.

Arguing for statewide zoning proposals, another Republican committee chair insisted that “one size fits all” was more efficient, but his colleagues repeatedly bash “one size fits all” for public education. That is, until that one size means demanding yet another new statewide curricular addition to promote their views.

While the Republican majority argues for a “my body, my choice,” approach on vaccines, they deny women that same choice for reproductive health. Similarly, House GOP members are all over the map on parental rights: for parent rights when it comes to book banning, but denying parents’ rights when the parent seeks gender affirming care for their child.

In his op-ed, Osborne insisted “the state Legislature does not set local property tax rates,” but then asserted, “[W]hat we are doing – is to draw a line in the sand, limiting excessive local spending.” Translated, that means the state doesn’t control local property taxes until it does.

While Osborne and his Free State caucus like to claim to be tax cutters, property taxpayers know that is far from the truth, at least for most Granite Staters. In the last ten years, property taxes have risen by nearly 50%. Osborne and his cronies have only cut taxes for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in New Hampshire. That has downshifted costs from the state to local communities and public schools. And that has meant higher property tax bills for middle and working class families and individuals and on seniors on fixed incomes, while young people are being locked out of home ownership or even an affordable apartment. So 95% of the state pays more so the top 5% can pay less, thanks to Osborne and Republican tax cuts. They enjoy the so-called New Hampshire Advantage, while most of us pick up the tab.

Rising property taxes are clearly the number one issue for New Hampshire voter sOsborne’s solution to rising property taxes – his “line in the sand” – is to propose spending caps, sort of the equivalent of stopping a patient from bleeding by suffocating him. The bleeding stops when the patient dies.

A dozen or so communities had the chance last year to consider school spending caps, described by one Republican House member as “wildly popular,” while providing no evidence. Giving lie to that claim, however, voters almost universally rejected the Free State “cure” of spending caps as far worse than the ailment.

New Hampshire clearly supports public schools, which is why they we have been willing to approve spending that puts our state in the top ten for education spending, something Republicans mention frequently. What they don’t add is that New Hampshire is dead last among the 50 states in state funding for education, and that the Granite State relies far more than any other state on property taxes to support public services like schools.

To avoid broadly attacking all voters, Osborne blamed “a small group of activists” who are, he claims, solely responsible for “excessive local spending.” Imagine, “a small group of activists” trying to control government!

But that is exactly what Osborne and so many of his Republican colleagues signed up for when they moved to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project (FSP). FSP’s stated goal was to recruit 20,000 alleged Libertarians from out of state (or about two percent of the state’s population, i.e. a “small group of activists”) to move to the Granite State, take over state and local government, eliminate institutions like public schools, and ultimately secede from the United States.

So to review the Republican House majority (Free State) positions:

• using the power of the state to impose restrictions on local voters is “empowering” them, even though those same voters mainly reject caps;

• the Legislature has nothing to do with local property tax rates, until it does;

• the state “drawing a line” over local spending is consistent with local government control, although local control is a fantasy;

• and the ability of a “small group of activists” must be reined in, unless of course they ARE that “small group of activists,” in which case, more power to (their) people!

And now Osborne, who has routinely worked to punish Republican colleagues who failed to toe the Free State line, seeks to rise to the speakership!

To the House Republican majority, Big Brother, the totalitarian leader in Orwell’s1984, is watching approvingly.

The Power of Money

Feel like you’re losing ground and not being heard?

Yes, the system is truly rigged, but we keep looking in the wrong direction. The folks with the most are working overtime to pit those with just a little against those with less. Keep looking down, they say, trying to keep you from ever looking up. It’s an age-old scheme. Distract those near the bottom by making them afraid of or feel more superior to those at the bottom, so neither focuses on those with the real power and wealth.

We now have the world’s first trillionaire in Elon Musk, whose wealth surpasses that of the gross domestic product of 174 nations! Read that again. One man with more wealth – and power - than nearly 200 countries! A South African immigrant to the United States actively working to foment hatred of immigrants; using his newly purchased internet platform to promote division.

The current U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision in 2010 shifted from the democratic ideal of “one person, one vote” to “one dollar, one vote.” A majority of the court, inventing a new doctrine, created a false equivalence of corporations to real humans when it came to political contributions, protecting corporate free spending with the cover of free speech under the First Amendment protection. So now, more than ever, that decision provided those with more resources with Constitutional protection to exercise more power, more influence and a louder voice, drowning out the voices of average citizens. So much for the faux doctrine of originalism, always a political invention dressed up to create a patina of judicial theory to cover mere partisanship. James Madison and John Marshall would be appalled.

A similar Supreme Court majority in Trump v United States overturned the fundamental principle that no one is above the law. That case provided a President (or at least Donald Trump) the same privilege of “devine-right monarchs,” something our ancestors thought they ended forever on this continent with their blood and sacrifice beginning at Lexington and Concord. Then this year, a corrupt and compromised Department of Injustice extended that privilege by agreeing to exempt Trump, his family and his businesses with immunity from tax oversight, again placing him above the laws to which every other American is subject.

The still to be fully released files on Jeffrey Epstein and his rich and powerful co-criminals is yet another example of how there are truly at least two tiers of justice in this nation, one for the powerful and wealthy, and one for everyone else.

But what about New Hampshire?

The New Hampshire Republican majority – let’s be honest, it’s the Freeloader (so-called Free State) majority – has followed the same playbook. While only the biggest and richest companies actually had any business tax liabilities, the GOP majority cut their taxes, resulting in higher property taxes for middle and working class families and seniors. But that wasn’t enough, so they eliminated the stock and dividend portfolio profits tax paid only by those with thousands of investment income every year.

Hard times in the land of plenty,

Some got it all, and the rest, they ain’t got any^[2]

This year, Republicans essentially confessed that their policies had in fact downshifted costs to property taxpayers. But instead of a real solution, their idea was a property tax cap. That doesn’t solve the problem of rising costs and supporting public schools. It’s like finding someone bleeding on the side of the road and deciding to put your foot on their neck in the belief that if they stop breathing, they will stop bleeding.

Unfortunately, New Hampshire Democratic leaders have been cowed into a silence that becomes complicity. They refuse to acknowledge not just that the state has a revenue shortfall, but that our whole tax system is skewed to benefit the wealthiest individuals and corporations, while middle and working class individuals and families, seniors and young people pick up the tab. It truly is a reverse Robin Hood system in which those with the least pay the most to support the rich.

To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy, but in a democratic society, everyone should pay their fair share. The New Hampshire Constitution includes that simple requirement in Article 12, Part One (the Bill of Rights).

Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary. [emphasis added]

We seem to have forgotten that Constitutional requirement, just as we have ignored the Constitutional requirement to support public education.lost that thread in our devotion to the singularly political “Pledge” to absolutely refuse to consider any revenue options. As costs rise, either more burden is placed on property taxpayers or services continue to be cut back – or both.

Shameless plugs… for others

I highly recommend three other Substacks, two written by good friends and a third written by someone I respect, but haven’t had the chance to meet in person yet. Check out my friend Andru Volinsky at https://substack.com/@andruvolinsky?utm_source=global-search,

another friend, Steve Marchand, with his excellent Politics of New Hampshire Substack at

The Politics of New Hampshire with Steve Marchand

A NH Senate Seat That Has My Attention

Tonight, I hope you’ll join me at 7 pm for my initial episode of a periodic 2026 series of live programs called “Pitch Deck”. I’ll be doing a quick analysis of a key downballot district, followed by a live conversation with the Democratic candidate running in that district, followed by Q&A with our live audience…

Read more

3 months ago · 14 likes · Steve Marchand

, and finally the excellent exposition at The Quiet Cost Substack at

The Quiet Cost

The Decoupling Idea: What It Could Mean for Charlestown, Claremont — and Towns Like New Castle

The Quiet Cost · Steven · North Charlestown, NH · June 2026…

Read more

3 months ago · 2 likes · Steven

And I highly recommend listening to both Nanci Griffith and Omar and the Howlers, but turn up Omar, especially for the opening riff.

^[1] Griffith, N. (1994). Time of inconvenience [Song]. On Flyer. Elektra Records

^[2] Dykes, K. (1987). Hard times in the land of plenty [Song]. On Hard times in the land of plenty. Omar and the Howlers. Columbia Records; Epic Records.

Whether in science, technology, exploration or politics, those most willing to risk failure, who push the envelope, who are bold enough to accept failure are those who often are able to advance progress the farthest.

This has never been a fearful nation. In declaring independence from what was then the most powerful empire in the world, the signers concluded with their mutual pledge “to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

In his first inaugural address in March, 1861, with seven Southern states already having voted to leave the Union, President Abraham Lincoln appealed to “the better angels of our nature,” but also reminded secessionists they had “no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ‘preserve, protect, and defend it.’”

Taking office in the depths of the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said his plan was “to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” FDR was admitting from the start he did not have all the answers, but was willing to accept failure in a search for solutions.

President John F. Kennedy challenged Americans with “the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” He added later, “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

None of these leaders chose the easy or safe course. The Declaration’s signers, Lincoln, FDR and JFK acknowledged risks, but were willing to move forward despite those risks. Like that hockey skating coach, they knew if you’re not falling, you’re not trying.

Still Reaching Beyond Our Grasp?

So when did America lose that willingness to try, to get back up after a fall, to understand risking the possibility of failure might improve the probability of success? To, as the poet Robert Browning wrote, reach beyond our grasp?

When and why would America, a nation built by strivers and seekers, accept a President who refuses to take responsibility, even when it is patently clear the failure/bankruptcy/crime was his. And at the same time, that President is all too willing to claim credit for anything and everything, even when it is obviously clear he had nothing to do with a success he claims.

Just as important, why do so many of today’s Democratic leaders all too often seem more willing to choose what they perceive as a safer political path? Such a path challenges no one, motivates no one, inspires no one, and has proven time and again to fail to provide neither winning policy nor winning politics.

That Safe Course Isn’t Safe

Too many Democratic leaders, at the national and state levels, seem committed to a strategy that asks voters for their support because “we’re not as bad as the other guys.” Hardly a message to excite or inspire or connect with people. It should be obvious at this point that most people feel they are falling behind or can’t even get in the game. Debates about moving farther left or to the center seem useless when voters don’t believe we care about them or even understand their struggles.

The same middle and working class precincts in Milwaukee carried by Senator Robert F. Kennedy in the 1968 Democratic primary were then carried in the general election by former Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who at the time remained a supporter of racial segregation, although he would later eschew those views. Kennedy and Wallace could not have been more different, but somehow they drew support from many of the same voters.

A similar contradiction occurred in 2016, when some, if not many, supporters of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist, voted for Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton in the general election. Think what you want, but it’s hard to escape the idea that voters in 1968 and 2016 felt that more seemingly mainstream politicians weren’t speaking to their concerns.

If We’re Not Falling…

As a first-term New Hampshire state representative and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, I’ve seen both in my House district and in Concord how damaging our reverse Robin Hood tax scheme is. For years, the Republican majority has cut taxes for the wealthiest individuals and corporations. While they trumpet a New Hampshire Advantage, it’s only an advantage for those at the peak of the economic ladder. In the meantime, the rest of us have been forced to pick up the tab through higher and higher property taxes.

I spent the last two years focused on legislation and advocacy in an effort to make those with the most pay their fair share and to give middle and working class families, seniors and those just starting out some real tax relief. I took my hits from both the right and the left, including actual death threats. I didn’t succeed, but I still believe in that coach’s mantra: if you’re not falling, you’re not trying.

This summer and fall, when you hear Republican candidates insist they’re for lower taxes, just remember they don’t mean lower taxes for you. And when you hear Democratic candidates taking “The Pledge” to oppose an income tax, which would be far more fair to 95 percent of New Hampshire citizens, ask them how they plan to pay for the public schools, better health care, more housing and expanded child care they claim to support.

Make them get past the empty political rhetoric and meaningless slogans into real solutions.

Ending On A Musical Note

Every time I heard my son’s hockey coach, I was always reminded of one of my favorite songs, This Old Porch, by Lyle Lovett and Robert Earl Keen, on a place of persistent and resistant memory. The last verse hits home:

This old porch is just a long time of waiting and forgetting
And remembering the coming back and not crying about the leaving
And remembering the falling down and the laughter of the curse of luck
From all of those sons of bitches who said we’d never get back up^[1]

^[1] Lovett, L., & Keen, R. E. (1986). This Old Porch [Song]. On Lyle Lovett. Curb Records

Meanwhile, the House Democratic leadership argued there was no need for a tax vote because polls show New Hampshire doesn’t support an income tax. But the polls also largely offer limited choices with no context, like asking, “Would you like a poke in the eye?” Despite a lot of rhetoric about public schools, healthcare, housing, childcare and other wonderful things, Democratic leaders don’t have a good answer about how to pay for their “Fair Chance Agenda.”

Republicans trust voters as long as they vote on only one loaded question, and Democratic leaders only trust polls that ask loaded questions.

Last week, in response to the political games of both parties, I proposed a Constitutional amendment to cut property taxes by permitting a progressive income tax with revenue dedicated solely to public schools and requiring the additional state aid to reduce the local school property tax. Our courts have ruled that currently the New Hampshire Constitution permits only a flat tax.

My proposal would not have imposed an income tax, despite the political wailing from both sides. It would have given voters a real question: “Would you support a progressive income tax to reduce your property taxes by increasing state support for public schools?”

Bad polls and worse political rhetoric ossified over five decades claim the answer is no. But I believe if voters truly understood what’s at stake, the answer just might be yes. A yes vote would reverse our inherently regressive tax scheme. Far more than any other state, New Hampshire relies on taxing our homes — the only capital investment that is taxed on unrealized increase in value. It doesn’t matter that the homeowner doesn’t benefit from the increase without selling or taking on more debt to pay the tax bill.

I joked on the House floor that I successfully achieved the rare display of the leadership of the two parties coming together. Democratic leaders happily threw me under the bus, and I’m sure my effort will be twisted in some upcoming GOP ads. But what neither side wants to do is engage on a real, constructive conversation about how rising property taxes are crushing ordinary people. Democratic leaders hope you won’t ask. Republicans happily attack public schools and destroy other services, protecting their wealthy benefactors at the expense of the rest of us.

Who really owns the New Hampshire Advantage?

As I’ve written before, what the so-called New Hampshire Advantage really means is assuring that those with the most resources pay the least. In the last decade, the Republican majority cut business taxes paid by the largest and wealthiest corporations and eliminated the Interest and Dividends Tax, paid only by those with substantial stock portfolios. The top 5 percent increased their advantage, while the other 95 percent picked up the tab through higher property taxes.

For more than five decades, we’ve lived with the political cotton candy “Pledge” Republicans trot out to scare citizens with the threat of higher taxes, while pursuing tax schemes favoring the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of everyone else. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders have been cowed by the GOP framework, and as a result only play defense by saying, “No, we’re not for broad-based taxes.” But they have no answer about how to pay for all the things they claim to support.

Other efforts to cut property taxes

My effort last week was far from the first time I’ve tried to raise the issue of dealing with the rising property tax burden and the reverse Robin Hood nature of our state’s tax structure.

In December, 2024, I urged Democratic leaders to make reducing property taxes the primary message for our party. In knocking on hundreds of doors in my district encompassing the towns of Canaan, Dorchester and Orange, the rising property tax burden was the No. 1 issue I heard about, and the next issue was a distant second.

As one means to try to reduce the property tax burden, I introduced a bill to require multinational corporations to begin to pay their fair share. Unfortunately, it was defeated on an overwhelmingly partisan vote, 163-209, with almost every Democrat in support.

In October, 2025, I went before the House Rules Committee to urge waiving a House rule to permit a bill to restore the Interest and Dividends tax and the business tax cuts of the last decade. The bill, HB 503, had been defeated in the 2025 session well before two separate court decisions again affirmed the state was unconstitutionally shortchanging public schools, actually identifying the shortfall as at least $500 million. I wasn’t even allowed to defend my request because no one on the committee — including the three Democrats — would make a motion to allow discussion. I tried again before the full House to change the rule to allow reconsideration of HB 503 before the full House. While 56 fellow Democrats supported my effort, leadership of both parties opposed it and it failed.

In February, the House took up another of my bills, HB 1636, which would have required the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) to develop five different options to raise at least $500 million to meet the court’s ruling that that amount was the minimum the state needed to add to its support for public schools. While Democratic leadership again opposed this bill, continuing the gag rule on discussing revenue, this time 75 fellow Democrats voted with me to support this bill.

The system needs to change

Too many of my constituents are living in fear of a tax bill they will struggle to pay or face the very real possibility of having to leave their home. That’s not right, and it’s why I’ve fought so hard to change that system.

If you’ve made it this far, you may be interested in watching the entire debate last Thursday on CACR 12, both on the Republican effort to ban an income tax and my proposal to allow citizens to vote on considering a progressive income tax. You can watch the entire debate by clicking on this link. Despite my best efforts, I have failed to bring relief to property owners. I do hope for their sakes, others will pick up this fight. It’s good policy, good politics, and good for New Hampshire’s citizens.

In my 30s, I left New Hampshire and moved to Mississippi, where I spent nearly 10 years — first as a journalist and then as a political operative. I served as press secretary on the campaign of the first African American elected to Congress from Mississippi since Reconstruction then the next year on the campaign and ultimately the staff of one of the state’s last progressive Democratic governors. I learned more about culture, history, music, literature and politics through day-to-day life than my formal education, which was underpinned by a largely white European perspective.

Language was, of course, a key part of my education in the South. Expressions like y’all or fixin’ to (as in I’m fixin’ tofinish writing this column) became second nature and remain to this day as part of my linguistic repertoire. I met and hold dear wonderful Southerners of all races who worked to reach beyond prejudice to make life better for all.

Mississippi for decades has routinely finished last in most good measures of quality of life and first in most that are bad. A signature slogan of the successful 1987 gubernatorial campaign was “Mississippi will never be last again.” We made progress, but didn’t get nearly as far as we had hoped. As aways, there was strong opposition to change, especially from those at the top of the food chain. But one of my favorite rejoinders to status quo supporters was,“If we’re so smart, why aren’t we rich?”

That comeback burns in my head every time I hear New Hampshire’s Democratic leaders enforcing their “revenue gag rule.” It is an absolute prohibition about discussing the most important question facing New Hampshire: a tax scheme favoring the richest 5 percent of our state at the expense of the other 95 percent. It is not based on policy or values; it is wholly a political calculation.

For over 50 years, New Hampshire Democratic leaders have been cowed by the ghosts of Bill Loeb and Mel Thomson, the prime movers behind “The Pledge,” a commitment to oppose any broad-based tax under any circumstances. It is the same as pledging to never raise your home thermostat above 32 degrees no matter the outside temperature. Who cares if people and pipes freeze? We’re saving money!

With an annual salary of $100, it is no accident the New Hampshire General Court is dominated by those who are retired or have some individual wealth, inherited or earned, or because they own and operate their own business. There is nothing wrong with belonging to any of those groups. But it is inherently undemocratic that those interests dominate every political discussion because the interests of younger citizens, working-class individuals and families, and older folks on a fixed income not augmented by substantial retirement or investment benefits are underrepresented or not represented at all.

Too many mainstream Democratic leaders cling to the orthodoxy that not taking “The Pledge,” even talking about raising revenue, is the third rail of New Hampshire politics, guaranteed to earn an electoral loss. But having been engaged in electoral politics for over 30 years, I strongly believe their calculation is wrong, and I think New Hampshire electoral history demonstrates my point.

Since 1992, House Democrats won majorities only four times out of 17 election years, a .235 batting average. Three of the years in which New Hampshire House Democrats won a majority were among the biggest wave elections for Democrats nationally. In last 20 years, Democrats have averaged 167 seats in the 400-seat House, 34 seats short of a majority. Only once in that time were Democrats able to hold a majority for more than two years. Also, in every election year in this century at which control of the redistricting was at stake, the Republicans prevailed, enabling them to draw maps to help them maintain control.

I firmly believe our inability to sustain a majority is directly related to the fact that while we advocate strongly for public schools, health care, housing, child care and a host of other progressive issues, we come up short when we are asked, “How are you going to pay for that?” For too long, Republican political operatives and many of their candidates have gotten away by accusing Democrats of wanting to raise taxes, while claiming the GOP supported cutting taxes. Our silence on the revenue question, as the saying goes, essentially serves as consent to the GOP framework.

But the real issue isn’t about who’s for raising and who’s for cutting taxes. Over the last 10 years, Republican tax cuts helped the wealthiest 5 percent of our state — both individuals and corporations — but in cutting taxes for the wealthy and well-connected, the GOP just shifted the tax burden, making the other 95 percent pick up the tab through higher property taxes. Republican tax cuts focused on cutting business taxes, paid mainly by the largest and richest corporations, and eliminating the Interest and Dividends Tax, paid largely by people in the top 5 percent of wealth.

An Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy shows the wealthiest 1 percent (those with family incomes above $700,000) pay just 2.6 percent of their income in taxes. Those with family incomes below $35,000 — the bottom 20 percent — pay more than three times as much, nearly 9 percent.

So the real issue is about who is paying taxes and who is not. Republican tax policies shifted the burden to allow those with the most to pay the least. A fairer policy — and a winning political message — would be to reverse that so that everyone pays a fair share. And that is, by the way, exactly what is required by the New Hampshire Constitution.

The New Hampshire advantage is only an advantage if you’re one of the top five percent of the Granite State, meaning your family income is above $329,000 annually. If so, congratulations! But Republican tax cuts for the wealthiest and well-connected individuals and corporations have been paid for through rising property taxes, meaning the other 95% of us are paying for those tax cuts that only benefit those with the most.

So it’s not really about who’s for or who’s against taxes. It’s really about who pays the taxes to maintain our roads; fund our police, fire and other first responders; and provide quality public schools that assure we have a broadly educated workforce and the citizenry required for a functioning democracy.

To answer that question, the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) did a 50-state study, appropriately entitled “Who Pays?” ^[1] The ITEP study found that in New Hampshire, families earning less than $35,000 (the lowest 20% of our citizens) devoted nearly 9 percent of their income to taxes, while families earning over $720,000 annually (the top 1%) devoted just 2.8 percent of their income to taxes. Those with the least spend over than 3 times more on taxes than those with the most.

New Hampshire isn’t the most regressive state in the nation, but it is near the top third. That’s a real advantage if you are wealthy or well-connected, not so much if you’re a middle class or working class individual or family.

Article 12 in Part One, the Bill of Rights, in New Hampshire’s Constitution explicitly makes clear that we must all be responsible for our fair share.

Every member of the community has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property; he is therefore bound to contribute his share in the expense of such protection, and to yield his personal service when necessary. ^[2] (Italics added)

That’s just not happening with our current taxation scheme, and the Republican majority is only making it worse, putting an increasing burden on those with the least to benefit the wealthiest and well-connected.

General John Stark’s famous toast, “Live Free or Die. Death is not the worst of evils,” celebrated a community of individuals who had fought and won with him at the Battle of Bennington, helping achieve a government “of the people, by the people and for the poeple.” He understood, as did all those we celebrated this week on the anniversary of “the shot heard round the world” who fought and often died to found our Republic, the admonition to “Join or Die” in an earlier political cartoon that became a symbolic flag during our American Revolution.

The idea today that our state’s motto should be read as “everyone for themselves” would be not only unrecognizable, but repugnant to those who fought to create the United States of America, including those who wrote our own state’s Constitution, clearly establishing a responsibility for each of us to carry our fair share of weight.

An “advantage” that favors the few, especially those who enjoy the most, at the expense of the rest of us is neither an advantage nor is it in keeping with the real spirit of New Hampshire and the Spirit of ’76.

^[1] https://itep.org/whopays-map-7th-edition/

^[2] https://www.nh.gov/glance/state-constitution/bill-rights

That punchline comes to mind often these days given the disconnect between what we’ve seen on videos from Minneapolis and what we’ve heard from leaders in Washington.

But I also am reminded of the “lying eyes” joke every time the New Hampshire Republican fog machine reaches back into its tattered bag of political attacks to draw out their well-worn boogey man: taxes.

One object of their most recent attacks were efforts I helped initiate to provide real property tax relief combined with funding this summer’s New Hampshire Supreme Court decision reaffirming three decades of judicial findings that state support for public schools is inadequate and unconstitutional.

The Republican political game plan is based on their false claim that they’re for cutting taxes, while accusing opponents of wanting to raise them. But cut through the political fog to see the real issue: who is paying which taxes. The GOP cut taxes over the last 10 years, but those cuts largely benefitted ultra wealthy individuals and corporations. As a result, costs were downshifted costs for public services, like education, from the state to towns, cities and school districts, causing either property taxes to rise or services to be cut.

The GOP “lying eyes” frame honestly has been effective in serving their political interests. But it’s done real damage, to modest homeowners, those on fixed incomes, our children and to our futures.

Just last year, for example, the Republican majority in Concord eliminated the Interest and Dividends (I&D) Tax, which was producing about $180 million. The tax only applied to unearned income from investments, and qualified retirement accounts were not taxed. So when the I&D was eliminated, who benefitted? If you were fortunate enough to have an investment account worth $500,000, your tax bill would have been no more than $750!

A NH Fiscal Policy Institute study found “more than nine of out every ten forgone dollars with the (I&D) tax’s repeal benefit the top 20 percent of households by income, and more than half of the dollars uncollected with the tax’s repeal benefit the top 1 percent of households.”

More than one-third of state revenues come from taxes on businesses, but again the lion’s share of who pays those taxes aren’t small “Mom-and-Pop” type enterprises. In fact, only 3% of all New Hampshire businesses employ more than 20 people. More than three-quarters of business tax revenue comes from that 3%, mostly national or international companies (think Walmart or Amazon) or big pharmaceuticals.

The BPT was cut five times under Governor Sununu. The current rate is 7.7 percent, among the lowest corporate tax rates in New England, and down from 8.5% in 2015. The Business Enterprise Tax (“BET”), implemented in 1993 under Republican Governor Steve Merrill because Craig Benson and Cabletron were suing him, is a tax on wages paid by small and medium sized companies. The current rate is about half a percent (0.55%). The BET was cut four times under Sununu. It was 0.75 percent of wages in 2015.

Again, according to the NHFPI because “New Hampshire (is) more reliant on corporate tax revenue than any other state. But when business profits drop or tax reductions are passed, the impacts may be felt by Granite Staters through reduced public services or higher property taxes.” And another study countered claims that the business tax cuts actually produced more revenue, showing that business tax revenue actually grew twice or three times as fast in states that did not cut their business taxes as it did in New Hampshire.

When NH cuts its state revenues either services get cut or local property taxpayers get stuck with the bill. For more on the impact of tax cuts from NHFPI, go here.

Republicans claim cutting taxes will produce more revenue, but another report by NHFPI found no evidence of increased business activity, while the cuts cost the state upwards of $1 billion in lost revenue.

So the GOP gave billionaire and trillionaire companies a big tax break, while the rest of us picked up the tab with our property tax bills or faced significant cuts to needed services. So the real question isn’t who’s cutting or raising taxes.

The evidence is clear. Republican tax cuts benefitting the ultra wealthy are paid for through increased property taxes for middle and working class individuals. So next time you hear Republicans talk about taxes, realize what they’re actually asking is whether you believe their political rhetoric or your lying eyes.

The Fed has two jobs: contain inflation and promote job growth. But in his last press conference following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting to assess the state of the economy, Powell pointed out that while inflation remained stubbornly above the Fed’s target of 2%, unemployment has begun to rise. Given that diametrically opposed situation, Powell suggested there was “no risk free” option for the Fed to meet its obligations. So the Fed voted to lower interest rates by a quarter point, aiming to help the job market, even while risking a rise in inflation.

Marchand smartly translated Powell’s “no risk free” options to the current state of politics, at least for the Democratic Party. I was struck again by Steve’s analysis when I heard Boston TV sports reporter Phil Perry compare the approach of legendary Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and current second-year Pats QB Drake Maye.

Perry argued that Brady essentially played a safe game waiting for the opponent to make a mistake, then ruthlessly exploited it. But Brady, with experience and often far better teammates, had the luxury of such a risk-averse strategy. Maye has been far more willing to take bigger risks, playing far more aggressively, and – at least in the most recent games – successfully. Frankly, in his early years, Brady, too, was far less risk averse.

For those who don’t follow sports, I apologize. But it occurred to me Perry’s analysis of Patriots QBs was as appropriate an analogy for the Democratic Party’s current political situation nationally and here in New Hampshire as Marchand’s application of Powell’s “no risk free” options.

We live in a fragile and dangerous age for our democratic experiment. But history teaches us the response to extremism must be bold, loud and unrelenting. American politicians in the antebellum period prior to the Civil War and those in Europe in response to the rise of Fascism in the 1930s attempted compromise after compromise. We should know by now the road to failure is paved by seeking accommodation with those for whom there is no accommodation, only domination.

Here in New Hampshire, we face a challenge from a small group of so-called Free Staters who seek not only to live outside the laws built by a consensus of our citizenry, but to impose their extreme views on the rest of us. They do not believe in compromise, they believe in raw power, in smothering any opposition.

They have made it clear that if you disagree, you will be marginalized or even pushed to leave your home and this state. They use language that, at best, borders on threats. At worst, they make no attempt to hide their contempt and willingness to resort to violence. They are the definition of bullies.

Our response cannot be to wait for our opponents’ mistakes and misguided policies to move public opinion in our direction. Nor can we simply rely on messaging that we are NOT them. I’m reminded of Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s twist on Dante in his 1968 presidential campaign that “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”

Democrats in New Hampshire and nationally must offer a positive, bold and contrasting vision of what we believe and where we would lead. That’s what leaders do: offer real solutions.

Like the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, our response must be non-violent, but it must be firm, bold and unwilling to accept the voices of those who counsel patience. Dr. Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is the most lucid explication of that rationale.

I also highly recommend two recent columns in the New York Times regarding the current dismal state of the Democratic Party and prescriptions for its revival, one by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes and another by historian Timothy Shenk.

When every option involves risks, why not be bold?