Liberals: Moderates vs. Progressives

[Twilight Hue]

We liberals and progressives aren't advocating anything that hasn't worked elsewhere. We're not advocating anything new or experimental.

Like the joke Obamacare was?

 

[Stevicus]

But who is this "elite", in reality - assuming they exist? One can define all sorts of "elites" if one wants to indulge grievance politics.

My contention is that the people who benefit disproportionately from todays's neoliberal economic setup are the people at the top of companies, who are able to command absurd levels of remuneration and call in aid a non-existent "market" in top people to justify it. But the Right in many countries has succeeded in getting hoi polloi to hate an entirely different "elite", namely the bien-pensant urban liberal pinkoes, i.e. the left of centre people who fall into the trap of getting preoccupied with identity politics etc.

The elite are the power brokers - the wealthy and powerful class which has existed throughout history in one form or another - in every society. The elite are a political fact of life. One of the biggest lies that I've seen perpetrated is that everything revolves around "the system." It's "the system which is responsible" for all that is bad and good in our lives. It's referring to something cold, impersonal, and machine-like. One often hears it from bureaucrats and low-level clerks who don't like having to tell people bad news, but "it's not my fault; it's the system, so sorry."

I just don't believe that it's due to a "system." Somewhere in the confused Byzantine hierarchy we call a "system," there are real live human beings making decisions and choices which affect the lives of countless millions. We may not get to know their actual names (nor does it really matter), but we know what they do, because we can see the results of their actions all around us.

I also don't make any positive claims about their motives or why they do what they do. It could just be a matter of corruption and greed, which is the simplest explanation and a phenomenon commonly found in all political systems throughout history. Some conspiracy theorists might come up with more bizarre motives, up to and including lizard people and aliens.

To be honest, if the people were given better wages, better working conditions, more affordable housing, food, and other necessities, better education, better healthcare, better opportunities - then I wouldn't really care if we were secretly ruled by lizard people. I don't really care about the political feuds and rivalries at the top, as long as they remember the folks at the bottom. It's when they forget and think that they're above it all; that's when the radicals start to come out of the woodwork. That, too, is another political fact of life which we haven't had to face in quite a while. But we may be facing it now.

 

[joe1776]

Thanks for the example, Joe. Two questions: (1) what percentage of Americans do you think “have a brain” when tens of millions voted for Donald Trump twice, and tens of thousands enthusiastically attended his rallies? Do you think that segment is likely to support “no moderate compromise on this” and do you think legislation can be passed without at least some of that support?

Support for Medicare for All has remained consistently strong over the past two years, according to a new Hill-HarrisX poll.
Sixty-nine percent of registered voters in the April 19-20 survey support providing medicare to every American, just down 1 percentage point from a Oct. 19-20, 2018 poll, and within the poll's margin of error.

But it currently doesn't have a chance to become law. The money and lobbying of the corporate interests are just too strong in both parties.

(2) You don’t think a public option / Medicare for All is a significant moderate compromise on this?

No. It's too complicated to explain why, but I regard that as a bait-and-switch tactic by the insurance companies.

There's a good chance it will pass but the results will be worse than no change at all.

 

[icehorse]

The dynamic here is that the liberals (what the OP calls 'moderates') have historically used the progressives as bogymen to threaten the right with. That is, they position themselves as the 'reasonable compromise' between the progressive wing of American politics and the right wing(s) of American politics. Then they come up with a 'compromise' that is spun as 'reasonable' but is actually targeted at defusing the political pressure from the progressives for change.

In essence, liberals want to maintain the status quo and aim to do so by putting mere band aides on every problem there is with the status quo. They don't solve problems, they do as little as they can do, and still squeak by. But what has that strategy gotten America in the past 40 years? A break-down in the social contract that led after World War II to the largest, most prosperous middle class in world history -- plus a disgruntled under-class willing to vote for the likes of Donald Trump. Liberal politics has failed America. e.g. we're the only advanced nation without some form of universal health care; our middle class is shrinking; wages for the poor are stagnant or in decline; we are falling in upward socio-economic mobility, etc. etc. etc.

I agree that America has seriously degraded over the last 40 years. But my take is that virtually all of DC has been corrupted by big money. Dems, GOP, liberal, conservative, progressive, you name it. And the oligarchs LOVE IT when we bicker amongst ourselves.

 

[joe1776]

Like the joke Obamacare was?

As a progressive, I agree that the ACA is pretty much a joke. That's why it got enough Republican votes to pass. But universal healthcare is a game changer.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Like the joke Obamacare was?

At first it wasn't a joke. It was overall a workable idea. What ruined Obamacare was lack of agreement and the fact that it was an attempt to get abortions publicly funded in the face of public outcry. It could have worked if: 1. Republicans had supported it instead of gutting it. 2. The software actually did what it was supposed to do instead of punishing anyone who tried to use it. 3. The Democrats compromised on pro life issues so as to get bipartisan support.

 

[Twilight Hue]

At first it wasn't a joke. It was overall a workable idea. What ruined Obamacare was lack of agreement and the fact that it was an attempt to get abortions publicly funded in the face of public outcry. It could have worked if: 1. Republicans had supported it instead of gutting it. 2. The software actually did what it was supposed to do instead of punishing anyone who tried to use it. 3. The Democrats compromised on pro life issues so as to get bipartisan support.

For me it was the draconian mandate that puts everyone into an economic prison with a permanent unpayable debt for life. It was deemed unconstitutional so they decided to call it a tax to make it legal on paper. A mafia does things like that. Its called extortion.

 

[joe1776]

At first it wasn't a joke. It was overall a workable idea. What ruined Obamacare was lack of agreement and the fact that it was an attempt to get abortions publicly funded in the face of public outcry. It could have worked if: 1. Republicans had supported it instead of gutting it. 2. The software actually did what it was supposed to do instead of punishing anyone who tried to use it. 3. The Democrats compromised on pro life issues so as to get bipartisan support.

As long as they are not paying a higher percentage for it than their competitors, and they can add 19% as a profit margin and pass it along to the consumer, healthcare insurance companies welcome fraud.

There's no way for the free market to work in this industry as it does with manufactured products.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What specific progressive issue should Biden/Harris have adopted which would have resulted in creating more “excessive discomfort among communities of white privilege” than a Trump/Pence victory?

That is a flawed (if not disingenuous) question.

Recognizing the lessor of two evils as the only available alternative makes it no less onerous. I voted for Biden-Harris, and argued that others do so as well, fully expecting its current flight to right of center. The hope continues to be the the resulting regime will feel haunted by an uncomfortable dependence upon the Stacey Abrams of the world. If they don't, 2024 is likely to prove dismal.

Your view seems to be: "Liberalism is good because the white privileged electorate is too backward to accept anything better." Sadly, that has so far proven true. Gladly, it seems to be slightly less true every day.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your view seems to be: "Liberalism is good because the white privileged electorate is too backward to accept anything better." Sadly, that has so far proven true. Gladly, it seems to be slightly less true every day.

Essentially, yes. I agree that it is sad - and I also agree that unfortunately, it is true. Thank you for the response.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Google " the squad"

Ah OK. The four women of colour under the age of 50 who are in American congress.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, but how does that help us WIN? I agree with you but realistically, Americans in Texas, Florida and Ohio are not going to vote for what they consider to be a “far left” candidate no matter how disconnected that perspective is from the rest of the world.

Liberals have to figure out how to advance their agenda and persuade the voters we have in America, not the voters we want to have.

As an example of this: I think Mayor Pete is onto something when he goes on Fox News and tries to win over what he calls “future former Republicans”. I think telling Americans we are not eliminating private insurance is much more likely to actually result in a public health option (“Medicare for all”) that can pass in Congress, rather than pushing to eliminate private plans which the progressive wing wants. Half of America will cry “socialism!” and make comparisons to Venezuela if we pursue the progressive plan and nothing will get done - no matter how correct we think we are.

Get better PR, really. Conservative policies aren’t popular, even in the US, going by the “popular vote” anyway.
Your liberals concede too much and seem lethargic. They need to sell it to the public in a way that is not scary.
Alas, I don’t know if they can

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The dynamic here is that the liberals (what the OP calls 'moderates') have historically used the progressives as bogymen to threaten the right with. That is, they position themselves as the 'reasonable compromise' between the progressive wing of American politics and the right wing(s) of American politics. Then they come up with a 'compromise' that is spun as 'reasonable' but is actually targeted at defusing the political pressure from the progressives for change.

In essence, liberals want to maintain the status quo and aim to do so by putting mere band aides on every problem there is with the status quo. They don't solve problems, they do as little as they can do, and still squeak by. But what has that strategy gotten America in the past 40 years? A break-down in the social contract that led after World War II to the largest, most prosperous middle class in world history -- plus a disgruntled under-class willing to vote for the likes of Donald Trump. Liberal politics has failed America. e.g. we're the only advanced nation without some form of universal health care; our middle class is shrinking; wages for the poor are stagnant or in decline; we are falling in upward socio-economic mobility, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks, Sunstone. The divide between “liberal” and “progressive” is one where I still have a lot to learn and I appreciate your insights, as always.

This is all good food for thought. One observation: you mention liberals using progressives as a “boogeyman” with which to threaten the Right. My personal inclination is to use the Right as a “boogeyman” to threaten the progressives!

I am joking of course, but only partially. Have you witnessed a Trump rally? Have you seen the crowds cheering while his helicopter lands, the song “Fortunate Son” blaring in the background (without irony, I might add)? Have you seen a parade of pickup trucks driving down a highway in Texas, waving their Trump, Confederate, and Thin Blue Line flags, driving through a largely African American area? I have.

Take an example: immigration. This monster of a man separated thousands of children from their parents and never reunited hundreds of them. Millions of Americans love him anyway. Including a small but real percentage of black and brown and LGBT people, for reasons I can’t quite explain. My concern is more of THAT would have been our future, if the Democratic Party pushed “open borders” with a progressive candidate as our platform, instead of coalescing around a moderate candidate, promoting some kind of immigration reform with humanity that can win over the middle.

What I notice is absent from your post, and Penguin’s, and others on this thread, is a recognition of the number and enthusiasm of Americans on the Right and the importance of preventing them from taking power again (as they did in 2016). That’s the “boogeyman” all of us on the Left ought to coalesce around to oppose, in my opinion - which I suppose we have done in 2020. I am not convinced that the most progressive proposals - open borders, defunding police, bans on fracking - can or could have defeated that.

 

[Audie]

Ah OK. The four women of colour under the age of 50 who are in American congress.

Why describe them that way _is that what is of foremost importance?

 

[exchemist]

For me it was the draconian mandate that puts everyone into an economic prison with a permanent unpayable debt for life. It was deemed unconstitutional so they decided to call it a tax to make it legal on paper. A mafia does things like that. Its called extortion.

Doesn't government have tax-raising powers?

 

[Heyo]

Why describe them that way _is that what is of foremost importance?

Nope. The importance is that all are Justice democrats. (But being female, of colour and under 50 is what separates them from the other Justice democrats.)

 

[Audie]

Nope. The importance is that all are Justice democrats. (But being female, of colour and under 50 is what separates them from the other Justice democrats.)

Ah, fighting catastrophes and deepening systemic racism.

If they really-really think "systemic" racism
Is "deepening" they are deeply ignorant of US history.

 

[icehorse]

For me it was the draconian mandate that puts everyone into an economic prison with a permanent unpayable debt for life. It was deemed unconstitutional so they decided to call it a tax to make it legal on paper. A mafia does things like that. Its called extortion.

hmmm... It seems you're conflating profiteering in the medical industry with the ACA?

 

[Heyo]

Ah, fighting catastrophes and deepening systemic racism.

If they really-really think "systemic" racism
Is "deepening" they are deeply ignorant of US history.

Where did you get that from?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

On health care, for instance: do you seriously think the features of the status quo like doing GoFundMe campaigns to cover basic healthcare costs and deciding to let their treatable conditions kill them so they don't bankrupt their families are more popular than a single-payer system would be?

Thanks, Penguin.

To answer your question: no, I would not think that would be more popular. I agree with you.

But, alas, not everyone in America listens to reason, as we see it.

The fact of the matter is, a single-payer health insurance program is only supported by about 50% of Americans, according to polls. A strong majority is against eliminating private insurance plans. There is more support for a “public option”.

And if you dig into that 50%, I’ll bet it is not a geographically diverse 50%, i.e., there are many states where it is less than that.

I get your point Penguin, but those of us on the Left have been making these points for many years. It has had some impact. But not enough to change the fact that a single-payer health insurance plan is not a winning issue for us right now. Wouldn’t it be better to push for universal health coverage with a public option or Medicare expansion, while keeping private insurance, and actually get it done? Versus pushing for something that ends up re-electing Republicans, who slowly roll back the modest gains of Obamacare over time?

I agree with your point about the Overton window. I’m glad progressives like Bernie are moving that window. But I’m also glad the Democratic nominee was not pushing to end private insurance because that simply is not popular in America. We have to win with the voters we have not the voters we wish we had - compromise is necessary.

Source: Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage