I’m always interested in the arguments candidates use against one another and the logic that goes into those arguments. The biggest most potent argument against Bernie Sanders I believe is the argument that Bernie has lots of ideas and no clear plan for how to accomplish any of his goals. It is a very pragmatic argument. One that Hillary Clinton supporters bring up pretty often, and one even the candidate herself has raised in debates.
To be fair it is one thing to propose something like free college for every American, and another to actually get it passed. Especially when you consider much tamer, less revolutionary, far more boring and mundane ideas have hit a wall in Congress. Legislation to do something as simple as lower the interest rate for college loans, or cap said interest rates to reduce the amount of student loan debt have stalled in congress due to partisan gridlock and obstructionism.
Yet it is in that context, that reality that Senator Sanders has proposed not only free college for everyone, but a plan to pay for it that includes a tax hike on the wealthiest Americans. Two things no Republican member of the House or Senate will ever get behind. In addition to this proposal Bernie Sanders wants to revamp Health Care implementing a single payer system that would make Obama Care look like a band-aid compared to the complete overhaul Sander has proposed.
These are all ideas I agree with by the way, but I see the merit of Hillary’s pragmatic criticism. How do you deliver on an agenda like this in this political climate?
For his part Sanders has generally put his faith in the American people. Placing his bets on the idea that this will be a tidal-wave election. A political revolution in which no blood is shed, no dictators overthrown. Instead the will of the people will overwhelm any remaining long term residents of DC, essentially forcing them through political pressure to vote against their own ideology in order to appease an active, passionate and attentive electorate or lose their job in two years to opponents who will.
This is of course the way we’d all love the system to work. But in reality ideology trumps all. Even self perseverance. Many Republicans would vote themselves out of office before casting a vote in favor of any of these types of programs. And unfortunately the way house districts have been drawn allows most Congressmen to get away with flaunting popular opinion in favor of pandering to the very like-minded, expertly cultivated base that makes up the majority of their electorate.
So for people like me who are pragmatic, the argument of “we’re going to have overwhelming support” just doesn’t fly. I’ve seen overwhelming support melt in the hell-fire that is Congressional Obstructionism. Overwhelming support and 50 cents will get you a phone call, assuming you could find a payphone.
I suspect many Democrats feel the same way. We like the things Bernie Sanders is saying, and we plan to vote for him, we just wish he had a clear plan to actually achieve these big picture ideas. Or at the very least had a more pragmatic counter-argument to offer as a rebuttal.
I believe I have that counter-argument. Pragmatic to a fault and in keeping with the stakes of this election as well as the intelligence (and disillusioned state) of the electorate. It’s a simple argument that re-frames the discussion bringing the whole debate about specific policy proposals back down to earth.
The meat and potatoes of it is that this is a debate about ideas. Not political maneuvering or coalition building.
Just ideas. Good ideas vs. Bad ideas. It is a debate about aspirations. About priorities. The question facing Democratic voters is what kind of President do you want? Someone who starts the debate with Republicans at the 50 Yard line or someone who shoots for the moon? It’s not about whose proposals you most want to see hit a wall of obstructionism and never go anywhere. It’s about who do you want in charge of the veto pen? Who do you want pushing back against what Al Gore called the “right-wing side wind?”
Why are we pouring over logistics of specific policy proposals at all? Not a single proposal from any Presidential Candidate ever passes Congress verbatim. In fact Presidents rarely send bills to Congress at all. President Obama has accomplished a lot in his eight years, but none of the proposals he debated Hillary on in 2008 made it through Congress intact.
The Affordable Care act is a great example. During the 2008 Democratic Primary Debates President Obama was totally against an “insurance mandate” making the very true argument that people who go without insurance by and large do so because they can’t afford it, or didn’t qualify, not because they didn’t want it. His solution to getting everyone covered was the “Public Option” which was really the better way to do things. But once the bill made its way through Congress the Public Option was out and the much debated, very much opposed insurance mandate was in it’s place.
Don’t get me wrong, the Affordable Care Act is still miles ahead of what we had before. My only point is that the policy proposals of Presidential Candidates are basically fairy-tales. Mildly fun to think about but ultimately pointless. Arguing over how these things will get through Congress makes as much sense as arguing how your hypothetical spaceship would survive flying through the Sun. No matter what make-believe answer you come up with you’re wasting your time. And ours.
The entire point of Presidential Candidates drawing up policy proposals is to get an idea of how these candidates think. What they prioritize and what they would like to do. Whether or not they can actually do it is besides the point. After all one of them isn’t even going to be President so immediately half of the proposals we’ve heard are completely worthless, and the other half are probably worthless. We’re just waiting to find out which is which.
This is why the proposals made by Bernie Sanders are more appealing to me. It shows his priorities are to make sweeping changes that benefit the majority of Americans. It shows he values the average American and understands the struggles we face. It shows he’s willing to at least argue from the left for progressive policies and not start the conversation at the center and then fight like hell to keep legislation from drifting too far to the right. Which sadly happens all too often.
The fact of the matter is all supposed plans, coalitions and political talents aside, Hillary’s proposals stand an equally snow balls chance in hell of actually getting passed. Congress is too divided, Senators and Congressmen are too beholden to special interests. Some version of a policy proposal may pass, but it’s usually extremely watered down.
So the question becomes how progressively potent do you want the starting point to be? Which candidate is more likely to push our agenda, and push back against the right? Which candidate is more likely to negotiate and compromise on key elements?
I say look at the policy proposals of the two candidates and forget about the likelihood of it actually passing Congress. It won’t. None of it will, from either candidate. Forget all that.
Instead take the ultimate pragmatic view of asking what do these proposals say about each candidate? What kinds of legislation will they send to Congress on my behalf? What kind of deals will they be likely to make behind closed doors? What kind of compromises will they make? Who will have a seat at the table and who will be denied? What kind of legislation will they sign into law, and what will they veto?
What kind of Supreme Court appointments will they make? What kind of executive orders will they issue? How will they use our military? Who will they appoint to important positions like head of the FCC? Head of the EPA? How will they handle legislation that deals with Net Neutrality? What about legislation like SOPA? Where did they stand, where do they stand? What corporate interests does each candidate have a soft spot for? What loopholes, trade agreements and deregulation can you expect to see if not outright advocated for, somehow allowed to slip by seemingly unnoticed?
And lastly how does their Presidency stand to influence our country, our party and our world? Are they going to move this country to the left? Will the candidate represent the left in policy and debate or will the candidate take a non-partisan approach that does nothing to win the war of ideas? How about our party? Will we see more progressives in Congress as a result of our Presidents leadership, or the return of the DLC and a new generation of Joe Libermans? As for the world, what image will we be broadcasting to them? What will the first term of either candidates Presidency look like from an outsiders perspective?
Policy proposals during a campaign are basically useless as policy proposals. But they do give a great deal of insight into the type of person you’re electing and the type of President they will be. Instead of asking how a specific policy will pass Congress, ask how their policies reflect who they are, what they stand for, and who they’ll fight for.
I guess the soundbite would be:
“Without a solid majority in Congress neither of our proposals stand a chance. What matters today is priorities. What do we want? And what are we willing to fight for?”
By the way if you enjoyed this little diary, gimme a tip of the hat and remember to vote for the nominee no matter who it is. Trump and the other stooges make my skin crawl.