24 April 18
ernie
Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 was not
universally welcomed, to put it mildly. His basic argument was that
Democrats could assemble a cross-ethnic and cross-class coalition by
offering big universal public programs like Medicare-for-all and free
college tuition. But large portions of the party dismissed him as an
interloper, a naive radical, or even just another entitled white male.
Which makes developments since the 2016 election
rather interesting: Quietly but steadily, the Democratic Party is
admitting that Sanders was right.
Let's begin with the signature issue of Sanders'
campaign: a national single-payer health-care program, or
Medicare-for-all as it's known.
Hillary Clinton, who ultimately bested Sanders for the
party's nomination, insisted the idea "will never, ever come to pass."
Fast forward roughly a year, and Sanders' proposed Medicare-for-all
legislation attracted 16 Democratic co-sponsors,
including likely presidential contenders Sens. Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.), Corey Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and
Kamala Harris (D-Calif.).
Meanwhile, the liberal think tank Center for American Progress has proposed
bundling Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP into a public health coverage
option on steroids. It would use bargaining tactics similar to Medicare
to hold down health-care costs; premiums and cost-sharing would be
capped to make it affordable for low-income Americans; and children and
new retirees would be enrolled in it automatically. This isn't the same
as Sanders' proposal, which would involve no premiums or cost-sharing at
all (a provision unlikely to survive), and would blow up the whole
health-care system in one fell swoop. But the idea is clearly for the
new public option to ultimately swallow the rest of the system.
To the extent the CAP proposal disagrees with Sanders,
it's over theories of change rather than the end goal. Furthermore, CAP
is closely aligned with the centrist Clinton wing of the Democratic
Party, and does a lot of the party's policy construction. That the think
tank felt the need to release this proposal shows how profoundly the
ground has shifted in a short time.
Then there's the minimum wage. During the 2016
campaign, the Democrats were nervously tip-toeing up to $12 an hour as
the new national minimum they wanted. But Sanders' surprisingly strong
bid for the nomination had its effect, forcing
a $15-an-hour minimum onto the party platform. Since then, it's been
the Democratic default: The bulk of the party in the Senate has consolidated around a $15-minimum legislation.
Meanwhile, a Democratic bill to make college tuition and living expenses debt-free has eight senators and 14 House members co-sponsoring.
In fact, parts of the Democratic Party are arguably trying to out-Sanders Sanders.
The social democrat from Vermont never got around to endorsing a universal child allowance,
for instance. But the idea clearly comports with his overall philosophy
and preference for Nordic-style welfare states. Enter Sens. Michael
Bennet (D-Colo.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), who have a bill
that would transform the currently-inadequate child tax credit into the
closest possible thing to a universal child allowance, while still
being run through the tax code.
But the most interesting policy here is a federal job
guarantee. This would be a public option for work, offering employment
with a living wage and benefits to anyone who wants it. The idea goes
back at least as far as the Civil Rights movement.
Stephanie Kelton, one of Sanders' key economic advisers, has been
working on the idea for years with economists associated with the
University of Kansas City-Missouri and the Levy Institute, and pushing
it up through Sanders' network of political outfits.
Meanwhile, another
group of economists, including Mark Paul, William Darity and Darrick
Hamilton, has also been building out the idea. And Sanders himself organized a townhall with Hamilton to talk about it.
CAP suggested a watered-down but still admirable version of a job guarantee a few months ago. Then Gillibrand publicly endorsed a job guarantee in mid-March. And she's kept up the drumbeat since. This past Friday, Booker released legislation
for a pilot program version of the job guarantee, built off Paul,
Darity and Hamilton's work.
Then on Monday, Sanders pushed his chips in,
announcing legislation for a full-bore national version of the policy.
This actually looks somewhat similar to how Clinton,
Barack Obama, and John Edwards all egged each other on towards health
reform in the 2008 campaign. Parts of the Democratic Party are now
taking the basic building blocks of Sanders' political philosophy and
running with them.
"Donald Trump's victory implies that people need to be more bold," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) recently observed.
"People yawned at the smallness of American politics, at the stagnation
of American politics, at the same faces, the same ideas, the same
talking points." In the late stages of Obama's presidency, before Trump
won, the idea of the Democrats hitching their wagon to Medicare-for-all,
a $15 minimum wage, or a national public works program seemed radical.
But if Sanders' campaign delivered no other message to the Democrats, it
was that they needed to get out of their comfort zone. Go big or go
home.
The Democrats went home in 2016. So now they're finally going big.
No comments:
Post a Comment