Do Establishment Dems agree with Bernie on policy? And chasing the center...

[Dans La Lune]

For many years — even decades — the goal for Dems has been some version of single payer, to reduce the cost of medication, to get policy addressing climate change, positive immigration reform, to increase minimum wage, affordable education, etc. This has been the aspiration of the Democratic party, the long-term goals.

Do establishment Dems still believe in these policies, but think slow slow-walking them (incrementalism) is the preferred method of implementation, or has the establishment simply abandoned them? I would say they’ve largely abandoned them because of how politicians are bankrolled. And Third Ways exists within the Democratic party to say, ‘Be as socially liberal as you want, as long as we get to craft neoliberal [conservative] economic policy.’

On compromise: If from a Democratic perspective Republicans have bad policy ideas and motives, wouldn’t more compromise (with Republicans) mean less good policy? And wouldn’t a moderate candidate, with center-leaning positions (closer to Republicans than say Bernie or Warren), have to compromise yet again with Republicans to craft policy with their support? Finally, wouldn’t that make the policy destination center-right, if not fully right-leaning? Assuming Republicans agree to negotiate, and Dems aren’t simply negotiating with themselves and their right-leaning members (see Obamacare). In which case, do progressives even have a seat at the table?

Anyone see how this could (IMO definitely has) lead to a constant drift towards the right?

 

[Dittohead not!]

For many years — even decades — the goal for Dems has been some version of single payer, to reduce the cost of medication, to get policy addressing climate change, positive immigration reform, to increase minimum wage, affordable education, etc. This has been the aspiration of the Democratic party, the long-term goals.

Do establishment Dems still believe in these policies, but think slow slow-walking them (incrementalism) is the preferred method of implementation, or has the establishment simply abandoned them? I would say they’ve largely abandoned them because of how politicians are bankrolled. And Third Ways exists within the Democratic party to say, ‘Be as socially liberal as you want, as long as we get to craft neoliberal [conservative] economic policy.’

On compromise: If from a Democratic perspective Republicans have bad policy ideas and motives, wouldn’t more compromise (with Republicans) mean less good policy? And wouldn’t a moderate candidate, with center-leaning positions (closer to Republicans than say Bernie or Warren), have to compromise yet again with Republicans to craft policy with their support? Finally, wouldn’t that make the policy destination center-right, if not fully right-leaning? Assuming Republicans agree to negotiate, and Dems aren’t simply negotiating with themselves and their right-leaning members (see Obamacare). In which case, do progressives even have a seat at the table?

Anyone see how this could (IMO definitely has) lead to a constant drift towards the right?

The stated goals of the Democratic Party are still "some version of single payer, to reduce the cost of medication, to get policy addressing climate change, positive immigration reform, to increase minimum wage, affordable education, etc."

I'm not sure just what the "ect" is, but those are the goals as stated by the Democrats.

The Democrats' goals as outlined by the Republicans are to destroy America by instituting Marxism, communism, socialism, and any other destructive "ism" they can think of.

The reality is that the health insurance industry is opposed to single payer and that they fund campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

The reality is that the employers of illegals like the status quo, and that they fund campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

The reality is the fossil fuel industry does not want to address climate change, and that they fund campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

A higher minimum wage and more affordable education, especially for the medical field and for engineering would both be of benefit to the country. Those reforms just might pass Congress if it can put aside the hyper partisanship and actually work together on practical matters.

But, that would be very difficult in the current political climate.

In conclusion: When all is said and done, a whole lot will be said, but little will be done.

That's my cynical opinion. It could be wrong, as my cynicism steers me wrong as much as 5% of the time.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I'm not sure just what the "ect" is, but those are the goals as stated by the Democrats.

The ‘etc’ would be the remainder of Bernie’s agenda, more or less.

The reality is that the health insurance industry is opposed to single payer and that they fund campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

The reality is that the employers of illegals like the status quo, and that they fund campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

The reality is the fossil fuel industry does not want to address climate change, and that they fund campaigns on both sides of the aisle.

A higher minimum wage and more affordable education, especially for the medical field and for engineering would both be of benefit to the country. Those reforms just might pass Congress if it can put aside the hyper partisanship and actually work together on practical matters.

But, that would be very difficult in the current political climate.

So should getting money out of politics really be Bernie’s first agenda item? That would be one of those ‘etc’ things, but it appears to be priority #1 towards getting anything done.

In conclusion: When all is said and done, a whole lot will be said, but little will be done.

That's my cynical opinion. It could be wrong, as my cynicism steers me wrong as much as 5% of the time.

I think things would change a great deal if ‘corporate daddy’ was no longer in the picture.

 

[Dittohead not!]

The ‘etc’ would be the remainder of Bernie’s agenda, more or less.



So should getting money out of politics really be Bernie’s first agenda item? That would be one of those ‘etc’ things, but it appears to be priority #1 towards getting anything done.



I think things would change a great deal if ‘corporate daddy’ was no longer in the picture.

Getting money out of politics is at once nearly impossible and absolutely essential if any of the other Bernie goals is to be reached.

Ironically, I think Bloomberg has a better chance of getting money out of politics than anyone else. While he is outspending the competition, the money is his own and not that of special interests.

 

[aociswundumho]

For many years — even decades — the goal for Dems has been some version of single payer, to reduce the cost of medication,

It will increase the cost, not reduce it. Offering tens of millions of people free healthcare will drastically increase costs.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

For many years — even decades — the goal for Dems has been some version of single payer, to reduce the cost of medication, to get policy addressing climate change, positive immigration reform, to increase minimum wage, affordable education, etc. This has been the aspiration of the Democratic party, the long-term goals.

Do establishment Dems still believe in these policies, but think slow slow-walking them (incrementalism) is the preferred method of implementation, or has the establishment simply abandoned them? I would say they’ve largely abandoned them because of how politicians are bankrolled. And Third Ways exists within the Democratic party to say, ‘Be as socially liberal as you want, as long as we get to craft neoliberal [conservative] economic policy.’

On compromise: If from a Democratic perspective Republicans have bad policy ideas and motives, wouldn’t more compromise (with Republicans) mean less good policy? And wouldn’t a moderate candidate, with center-leaning positions (closer to Republicans than say Bernie or Warren), have to compromise yet again with Republicans to craft policy with their support? Finally, wouldn’t that make the policy destination center-right, if not fully right-leaning? Assuming Republicans agree to negotiate, and Dems aren’t simply negotiating with themselves and their right-leaning members (see Obamacare). In which case, do progressives even have a seat at the table?

Anyone see how this could (IMO definitely has) lead to a constant drift towards the right?

Spot on, that is exactly what's been happening, for almost four decades.
Punching Left while agreeing to be dragged further and further Right.

And there hasn't even BEEN much or anything in the way of compromise.
Even when we crafted a healthcare reform plan based on Heritage Foundation boilerplate, the moment we attempted to add a public option, Republicans along WITH "moderate" Dems screamed bloody murder and the so called "moderate" Dems threatened to kill the plan altogether.

Punching Left, marching further and further to the Right.

And then, when the plan finally passed, TWENTY-FOUR STATES refused to implement it, and although a small handful changed their minds later, in the end that further damaged the reform. And now it's on life support and the current administration is determined to kill what's left of it altogether WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY LYING about protecting it in front of all of Congress AND the American people, many of whom won't bother to fact-check the lies until it is their turn to seek healthcare.
Then it's too late, and fifty bucks says the Republicans will find a way to blame the Left and they'll cover up their lies.

I keep saying we're forty years too late, and we should have burned them to the ground when they first started this.
We have ONE CHANCE to take back power and try to fix this.
And a so called "moderate" will not join that fight...they like their own personal situation too much, they like their own personal recompense and security too much.

The Left should have taken note of The Powell Memo and correctly interpreted it as the Right's call to war back in 1971.
We didn't. We let the moderates convince us it was nothing.

 

[Craig234]

So should getting money out of politics really be Bernie’s first agenda item? That would be one of those ‘etc’ things, but it appears to be priority #1 towards getting anything done.

He has to do both.

 

[Craig234]

The Left should have taken note of The Powell Memo and correctly interpreted it as the Right's call to war back in 1971.
We didn't. We let the moderates convince us it was nothing.

There's a good argument - admittedly from the right - that the Powell memo actually did not cause much.

But it does seem to be a sort of 'concurrent' memo describing what was being done, as business organized for political influence. A lot of key things happened around that time, from propaganda factory 'think tanks' to taking aim at legal doctrines - Buckley v. Vallejo 'money is speech was 1976, led by Powell on the Supreme Court - and pursuing right-wing judges more.

 

[Greenbeard]

The party’s goal is affordable, high-quality care for all Americans. Zealous devotion to one pathway to the detriment of the overall goal is not where the party is.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There's a good argument - admittedly from the right - that the Powell memo actually did not cause much.

But it does seem to be a sort of 'concurrent' memo describing what was being done, as business organized for political influence. A lot of key things happened around that time, from propaganda factory 'think tanks' to taking aim at legal doctrines - Buckley v. Vallejo 'money is speech was 1976, led by Powell on the Supreme Court - and pursuing right-wing judges more.

Good argument from the right.... :lamo

Think tanks were INVENTED to SERVICE the boilerplate of Powell.

 

[3leftsdoo]

For many years — even decades — the goal for Dems has been some version of single payer, to reduce the cost of medication, to get policy addressing climate change, positive immigration reform, to increase minimum wage, affordable education, etc. This has been the aspiration of the Democratic party, the long-term goals.

Do establishment Dems still believe in these policies, but think slow slow-walking them (incrementalism) is the preferred method of implementation, or has the establishment simply abandoned them? I would say they’ve largely abandoned them because of how politicians are bankrolled. And Third Ways exists within the Democratic party to say, ‘Be as socially liberal as you want, as long as we get to craft neoliberal [conservative] economic policy.’

On compromise: If from a Democratic perspective Republicans have bad policy ideas and motives, wouldn’t more compromise (with Republicans) mean less good policy? And wouldn’t a moderate candidate, with center-leaning positions (closer to Republicans than say Bernie or Warren), have to compromise yet again with Republicans to craft policy with their support? Finally, wouldn’t that make the policy destination center-right, if not fully right-leaning? Assuming Republicans agree to negotiate, and Dems aren’t simply negotiating with themselves and their right-leaning members (see Obamacare). In which case, do progressives even have a seat at the table?

Anyone see how this could (IMO definitely has) lead to a constant drift towards the right?

Democrat Party = Completely controlled by sociopathic corporate conservative oligarchs

Anyone who doesn't know this = Not paying attention

:shrug:

 

[jamesbyoung]

All Dems are about winning (and the means they would vote for the Bern), because they know that 90% of his programs would not make it through a Dem congress.

A Bern candidacy would tout that Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are in a 'no touch lock box.'

 

[Craig234]

Good argument from the right.... :lamo

Think tanks were INVENTED to SERVICE the boilerplate of Powell.

I think you're misunderstanding the issue. If you say trump will act like a maniac out of control this year, and he does, it doesn't mean it's because you said it.

An analysis was done of the timing and effects of the Powell memo that found a lot of things happening that might have been consistent with it but weren't caused by it. It's not as if Powell was a Bond Villain mastermind of evil over earth directing everything. He was one actor among many going down the same bad path.

 

[Craig234]

Here's a liberal story on the Powell memo, supporting what I said.

The Myth of the Powell Memo | Washington Monthly

 

[Dittohead not!]

It will increase the cost, not reduce it. Offering tens of millions of people free healthcare will drastically increase costs.

Is that why health care is so inexpensive in the US but so costly in the rest of the world?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I think you're misunderstanding the issue. If you say trump will act like a maniac out of control this year, and he does, it doesn't mean it's because you said it.

An analysis was done of the timing and effects of the Powell memo that found a lot of things happening that might have been consistent with it but weren't caused by it. It's not as if Powell was a Bond Villain mastermind of evil over earth directing everything. He was one actor among many going down the same bad path.

No, he was THE actor going down the path because he was among the first of a handful of influencers who put it out there.
He was a SCOTUS justice, and he ruled accordingly. He was put there to serve a purpose...this purpose.

to write a confidential memorandum for the chamber entitled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System," an anti-Communist and anti-New Deal blueprint for conservative business interests to retake America.[...]

He argued, unsuccessfully, that tobacco companies' First Amendment rights were being infringed when news organizations were not giving credence to the cancer denials of the industry. ("Thank you for smoking!")[...]

It sparked wealthy heirs of earlier American Industrialists like Richard Mellon Scaife; the Earhart Foundation, whose money came from an oil fortune; and the Smith Richardson Foundation, from the cough medicine dynasty;[14] to use their private charitable foundations, which did not have to report their political activities, to join the Carthage Foundation, founded by Scaife in 1964[14] to fund Powell's vision of a pro-business, anti-socialist, putatively minimalist government-regulated America as he thought it had been in the heyday of early American industrialism, before the Great Depression and the rise of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.[...]

The Powell Memorandum thus became the blueprint for the rise of the American conservative movement and the formation of a network of influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council

Have you HEARD of ALEC?
I assume you have. Do you think ALEC is a bipartisan group that is willing to cooperate with "moderate" Democrats?
If so, then I'll wait while someone comes up with examples, because I don't remember any.
ALEC's tentacles are in almost every government of almost every city, county and state in the country.

The Citizens United decision was based for the most part on arguments in First National Bank of Boston v. Belotti

Don't underestimate or poo poo Powell, as it only shows that you don't take its total effects today seriously, and the only way that happens is if you're unaware of how far reaching its effects have been.

Powell's other decisions have had far reaching effects, too.
In Coker v. Georgia, Powell stated ""the victim [did not] sustain serious or lasting injury".
That's why today you hear Republicans say things like "If it's a legitimate rape, a woman's body has a way of shutting that whole thing down."

Don't minimize Powell as it is indeed "the shot heard round the world".

 

[Craig234]

Have you HEARD of ALEC?
I assume you have. Do you think ALEC is a bipartisan group that is willing to cooperate with "moderate" Democrats?

Are you kidding? I've been posting about ALEC for 10 years, including a post here this week. They're a horrible Republican-supporting corporate group; we're lucky they've been exposed and some members left.

Did you read post 14 for more info on the history?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Getting money out of politics is at once nearly impossible and absolutely essential if any of the other Bernie goals is to be reached.

Well, it requires 2/3rds of Congress or 2/3rds of States to propose a Constitutional Amendment. It’s a heavy lift for sure, but not impossible. All of Bernie’s goals require rallying the people. He promises no results without their efforts.

Ironically, I think Bloomberg has a better chance of getting money out of politics than anyone else. While he is outspending the competition, the money is his own and not that of special interests.

Ironically Michael Bloomberg IS a special interest and an oligarch. If you can shape the course of history via your money, you’re the problem and not the solution.

 

[Dans La Lune]

It will increase the cost, not reduce it. Offering tens of millions of people free healthcare will drastically increase costs.

It will increase taxes but reduce the cost of healthcare, which everyone needs. The average family of four costs around ~$28,000 a year in healthcare. Some of that is paid by the employer, but those benefits are factored into an employee’s wage. And some of it is out of pocket expenses after those benefits kick in, around ~$6,000.

This is a pretty simple equation: Would you rather pay more or pay less?

 

[Napoleon]

Is that why health care is so inexpensive in the US but so costly in the rest of the world?

Let us know when someone proposes something even remotely similar to what the rest of the industrialized world is doing. Berniecare isn’t it.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Let us know when someone proposes something even remotely similar to what the rest of the industrialized world is doing. Berniecare isn’t it.

The thing about that is, neither Bernie nor anyone else who might win the White House is going to be writing the legislation for universal care, or for anything else. The actual bill that comes to the president's desk to be signed or vetoed is written by the Congress, not the president. It doesn't matter what sort of a plan the candidates tout during the campaign. They won't be formulating the plan anyway.

 

[Greenbeard]

The thing about that is, neither Bernie nor anyone else who might win the White House is going to be writing the legislation for universal care, or for anything else. The actual bill that comes to the president's desk to be signed or vetoed is written by the Congress, not the president. It doesn't matter what sort of a plan the candidates tout during the campaign. They won't be formulating the plan anyway.

A good reminder that electability, administrative competence, and leadership qualities are likely much more important than grandiose ideological commitments on policy when it comes to picking the nominee.