I am not fully for one candidate or the other. I see that Mike Thompson’s Establishment-Democrat methods and policies have been failing us for a while now. Thompson is a Democrat, and many of his policies are preferable. He cares deeply for his community. Eric Jones offers a worthy alternative, even as he and his supporters have drawn significant ire from those who view challenging the Democratic establishment candidate as a personal affront. We have a choice to make for the 4th District House of Representatives.
Perhaps the independent, patriotic right can join the independent, patriotic left (and the middle, too) to vote for change in California’s 4th Congressional District. While I might have preferred an outspoken progressive in the mold of Abdul El-Sayed (running for Senate in Michigan), our purplish district—registered at roughly 42% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 28% Other/Independent—demands a different fit. For the people of CA-04, Eric Jones is the better overall candidate.
Thompson has not been meaningfully challenged in any of his 14 congressional races until now. Jones is a populist/progressive, anti-establishment capitalist outsider who paid much of his own fee with his and his family’s money to enter a congressional district race in a district otherwise captured by a Blue Dog Democrat and the Democratic establishment. Blue Dogs are notorious for breaking rank to vote against progressive populists, usually against most everyone’s interest except big donors, as Thompson did to end the possibility of keeping Medicare insurance for over 5 million Americans in 2025. Billionaire donors got their tax break, though.
Maybe some like the certainty Thompson goes out of his way to demonstrate. Considering our circumstances, I think Thompson has a lot to answer for, along with the rest of the Democratic establishment. He believes he has been a good steward of an economy and social structure that serves the very wealthy. Thompson has spent over two decades sitting comfortably on the House Ways and Means Committee—faithfully presiding over the rapid widening of our economic divide.
I believe Thompson thinks he is doing a good job, but what I see is that Thompson’s “pragmatism” has not effectively curbed excessive military spending or tax laws that favor the already wealthy. Nor, judging by his record, will Thompson push for social programs that greatly improve the affordability of education or medical care.
Trump and Project 2025 have decimated basic human dignity for all Americans, with little resistance from establishment politicians in either major party. Not being Trump is not enough. Where is the vision and temperament to make oneself a champion for the people? It won’t come from performative objections to a lack of process when the EPA is being shut down and the word “climate” is struck from the public record.
Jones is new, and not a progressive panacea. His reliance on market solutions makes his economic views closer to Thompson’s than mine. Jones benefited greatly from government educational and family support. He has good business instincts and made the most of the asymmetrical economic opportunity that comes with being an Ivy League-educated venture capitalist.
Has Jones backed off the “tax the rich” enthusiasm that buzzed in the earliest moments of his campaign? Somewhat. Has he stuck to his no-PAC, corporate-money, and anti-donor-influence positions? Yes. Has he ever aligned identically with “Medicare for All”? No. He supports Medicare expansion specifically for vision, dental, hearing, and in-home healthcare.
Critics of Jones complain that his rhetoric changes with the audience. I would agree that his platform on fighting corruption, affordability, and a safer future has become more specific, and not every part will appeal to everyone, but it’s very public and mostly consistent. Eric Jones’ positions have not changed on refusing big-pharma, utility, defense contractor, and lobby interests. Eric Jone’s positions have not changed on more aggressive tax policy that would have the wealthiest pay more and the working public pay less. Eric’s position on affordability hasn’t changed; he won’t accept the status quo system where most won’t be able to buy a home until they’re 40, if ever.
Eric is not part of the leadership that led to the $20 trillion, 20-year Iraq and Afghan wars (4.3 million killed, 3.7 million of those civilian non-combatants), and now to the over $130 billion, 8-month Iran catastrophe. He did not give us a bond market and high interest rates that threaten the US’s standing in the world’s financial markets. He did not become convinced of the infallibility of foreign countries and their insatiable need to massacre an entire people under the pretext of safety. Eric sees no reason American taxpayers should foot that bill.
In my opinion, we should stop paying for it. Mike Thompson has had his day. Eric Jones doesn’t offer perfection, but he brings the necessary energy of a new generation of leadership. Eric is the better choice because he understands the structural threats to our democracy and has fought for, and is more likely to continue fighting for, structural change rather than settling for the decline of business as usual.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
