Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
Posts: 30,307
Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2019, 01:41:47 AM » |
|
Getting progressive policies that Sanders and Warren are proposing is not a 1-year or even 4-year project. It is something that we will have to gradually work towards. Without the Senate, it will be nearly impossible to achieve a legislative feat such as Medicare for All, or even a watered down version of it. But no Democrat is going to get a lot of legislation through if Republican keep the seat, and those who think that Republicans are going to be eager to work with someone like Biden have another think coming (if Biden wins but Republicans hold the Senate.) So, if Democrats do fail to take the Senate, it will be more about shifting the narrative, and selling the idea of universal health care, and getting into the weeds about what it actually looks like, and why it actually benefits the overwhelming majority of Americans. Shifting public opinion is always a multi-year project, but it doesn't happen if we concede that universal health care is "too extreme" or not feasible; that's only true as long as people believe it is.
If, however, Democrats do take the Senate (51 or 52 seats would be preferable to just 50), a certain about of bargaining and compromise will need to happen. I acknowledge that, but I don't believe in campaigning on that, because compromises should be geared towards a larger goal, and we shouldn't allow the watered down versions of the larger goals become the goals themselves. Expanding Medicare is probably a more plausible short-term goal, but again, we get there by making Medicare for All the position of the "left", so that merely expanding Medicare is referred to by what it really is: a compromise. More aggressive taxation of the wealthiest will come in the context of expanding not only healthcare, but also social security, so that it becomes clear that said taxation is not simply picking on the rich because we hate them, it's putting money into programs that help all Americans. Free public college will not happen immediately, but freezing tuition and expanding opportunities for financial aid and scholarships is a step toward that. These are some examples, and I could go on, but this post is already getting pretty long.
Another part of this needs to happen not only at the statewide level, but the local level. We need to support and grow our local benches, and promote progressive candidates with developed ideas in citywide races as well as in legislative districts, so that more progressive laws can be enacted at the local level as well, and more people can see and enjoy the benefits. People can say what they will about Sanders, but he has at least attempted to do this, on some level.
Finally, the response to "Warren/Sanders/the Democrats/etc are too far left" should not be "that's good", or "left is good", since that's just as lacking in substance. The response should be to reaffirm our vision, and prove that our solutions are geared toward helping people, making society more equitable, and giving opportunities to all Americans, especially the traditionally under-served. The question I would have for more moderate Democrats is whether or not they agree in theory with the idea that everyone should have healthcare and be able to afford the treatment that they need, that everyone who wants a higher education should be able to get one without ending up in five or six figures of debt, and so on. If they do, then the disagreement isn't so much ideological as it is in the legislative process. Talking about different methods to achieve these goals is the kind of debate I would like the Democrats to have, and would be good for the party as a whole, as it would result in more detailed and fleshed-out plans. Simply saying someone or something is "too far left" or is "socialism" (which everyone knows is bad) isn't substantive or helpful, and simply ends up dividing us.
|
