Just prior to the debate, Sanders released a plan for how he would pay for his proposal on single payer health insurance. And he's been pretty clear about his approach to Wall Street. But what I found most interesting were a couple of his exchanges about how he diagnoses the problem in our politics. We all know that both he and Clinton have plans for how to reign in the influence of money. But when the moderators asked about how the candidates would deal with the political polarization that exists today, Sanders made it clear what he sees as the source of the problem. Here are a couple of excerpts:
What this is really about is not the rational way to go forward -- it's Medicare for all -- it is whether we have the guts to stand up to the private insurance companies and all of their money, and the pharmaceutical industry. That's what this debate should be about...
In all do respect, you're missing the main point. And the main point in the Congress, it's not the Republicans and Democrats hate each other.
That's a mythology from the media. The real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do...
All of us have denounced Trump's attempts to divide this country: the anti-Latino rhetoric, the racist rhetoric, he anti-Muslim rhetoric.
But where I disagree with you, Governor O'Malley, is I do believe we have to deal with the fundamental issues of a handful of billionaires who control economic and political life of this country.In other words, Sanders made it clear that he thinks the sole source of political polarization is the influence of money in politics. I doubt you will find a Democrat who would disagree that it is a problem. But is it the only thing that divides us? That is a question worth considering.
For example, when it comes to Congress, that analysis totally dismisses the fact that there are ideological differences between both individual members and between the two parties. On the Republican side, it doesn't strike me that the Freedom Caucus is motivated and/or controlled by the influence of big money. There is the play for power that is almost always a factor in the divisions we see. Sanders is right to suggest that it's not as simple as thinking that the two parties hate each other...there is a lot more at stake than that.
And of course, when it comes to the American people, we've all seen how over the decades politicians have exploited the very real divide that is caused by the kind of racism, sexism and nativism that is being articulated by Donald Trump.
The United States is a large very complex society. The roots of issues like our partisan polarization are not so easily narrowed down to one single cause. While it is true that money plays a role, when we assume it is the only reason for our divisions, we do what Sanders does so often...dismiss our actual differences and accuse our opponents of being corrupted by money. That was essentially his charge in a recent ad titled Two Visions.
What we are witnessing right now is that there are signs that the control money has on our presidential politics is increasingly being challenged. In the Democratic presidential primaries, that goes all the way back to Howard Dean's 2004 primary challenge through the success of Barack Obama as the one-time insurgent candidate who took on the establishment in a campaign fueled in large part by small donors. On the Republican side, the current primary campaign is all about the fact that big money from superpacs is having almost zero influence on the outcome.
It is important that Democrats not simply ignore these changes, but understand them and find ways to build on what's changing. But I suspect that gets back to the original difference between Clinton and Sanders that was clarified last night: do we build on changes that are currently underway or ignore that and try to restructure the whole thing?
When you put it like that, the difference in vision could easily be restated as "progressivism" -which has always, ISTM been about building on top of what has already been achieved- and "radicalism" -which is about sudden dramatic change. The latter is attractive to those who want Change Now! but the former is familiar to anyone who has ever worked with or within an existing organization to make change happen. As far as track records for success goes, I think it's pretty inarguable that radical change has historically produced very small groups of "winners" and large populations of miserable, displaced or damaged survivors.
ReplyDeleteMy perception that Sanders will tend to push for the "radical" approach and that Clinton will tend to attempt a "progressive" approach is, more than any other reason, why I support Ms. Clinton. Though I'm sure Mr. Sanders would fail at any of the more radical changes he'd try, the thought of the sort of radical changes he wants are a bit scary just because the consequences of rapid change are always more severe and less predictable than incrementalism.
I'm more confident that, her flaws and the excruciating pace of slow change notwithstanding, Hilary Clinton can at least achieve some progress and avoid some disasters while in office.
Well, this just persuades me further that Bernie is lying to his fan base (read: being a demagogue). If the problem in Congress is that Big Money is controlling both parties and there is no actual friction between Democrats and Republicans, how is it that the Democrats and Republicans come into conflict with each other on so many issues -- and in particular issues where Big Money is on the one side and the Democrats are on the other?
ReplyDeleteLet's take health care: the Republicans wanted insurance companies to gouge the public with abandon, the Democrats wanted to make sure insurance companies provided value to the public, and the Democrats also tried to pass a public option.
Let's take guns: something like 90% of Democrats favor stronger gun regulations, the Republicans (and too often, Bernie) put the interests of the NRA over the good of the public.
How about taxes? Republicans did not want to raise taxes on the rich, the Democrats wanted to, and a compromise was eventually struck.
If Big Money is running the show behind the scenes, either Big Money suffers from multiple personality disorder, or (the universal fallback position of conspiracy theorists everywhere) it's all theater for the sheeple, maaaaaaaan. So, either Bernie is out of his god damn mind or he's just saying what his audience wants to hear.
As PBO says...Change has never been quick. It has never been simple without controversy. Change depends on persistence. Change requires determination.
ReplyDeleteThe white political left has always dissed the notion of the centrality of racism...to struggle for Peace in Justice...Racism does not just effect black people...it affects white people as well...it is what keeps the GOP and who they serve in Power...it allows some one like Trump to exist.... this is why Bernie thought that he could win over Trump's white voters...or for the DNC to think that they could woo white votes...
What about the issues of voting rights...even if the DNC only saw the issue of voter suppression as an issue of self preservation...they have not addressed it all...neither have the DEM Candidates
The elephant in the room...Racism...when will white folks be able to see it...maybe never...perhaps we will go around in this circle forever...
Bernie made a mistake by putting out details and numbers about his single payer plan.
ReplyDeleteHe should have learned from Trump that it is hard to attack a general idea but easy to attack specifics. Putting out specifics gives your opponent ammunition. He should just say he is going to implement an awesome single payer plan that will provide health insurance for everyone and not add to the deficit. If anyone asks for specifics just tell them it will be awesome.