Should we just disregard our rational assessment of the situation and go for broke? Are we party-pooping nay-sayers when we suggest it doesn't make sense for progressives to attack an effective middle-of-the-road democratic legislator? If we argue that the entrenched networks of organizations in health-care make dream of single-payer unrealistic and that our efforts might better be spent on reforming what can be reformed are are just counter-revolutionaries in disguise?

The "dare to be bold" gambit, the one that criticizes the cautious as unimaginative, lacking hope, uninterested in really helping people, slaves to the machine is as often irresponsibly wielded as not. A critique of this rhetorical move might be based on the question of who is putting what at risk. When one's own fortune, reputation, career, etc. is what's at risk, the phrase "go for broke" has some meaning. But too often, especially in politics, it's the privilege of not bearing the risk that emboldens people to embrace audacity. Folks in that position might claim to being "all in" but they're not.

We saw this in the 2016 election. We see it in conversations about healthcare in 2018. How many folks with their good intentions and decent employer paid health plans are big advocates for single-payer? Meanwhile, the republicans chip away at the Affordable Care Act affecting the welfare of folks who don't have corporate sponsored health care.

At some level it's another version of Weber's ethic of responsibility/accountability.