Alexandra Octavio-Cortez has been characterized as a real "lefty." To solidify that image, the Congresswoman from New York City has thrown in with the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders.
You know, that Bernie Sanders, who's been out there with Medicare For All, a.k.a. single payer health care, for some years now. He introduced it in the 2016 campaign, in fact, and hasn't backed off of it an inch.
He describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. In terms of most other Democrats, it's accurate. Not many of them hold tightly to the idea of a single-payer, national health care plan, completely assuming student debts, free college education, lowering the age to begin Social Security, and other economic ideas that put him out of the mainstream.
In other words, Sanders believes he can become the mainstream if only the country would let him. It inspires some and wears on others. And it looks like it hasn't worn completely well on AOC.
Just the other day, she put it out there that there were some pretty obvious political realities in taking such a firm, absolutist stand--namely that such a proposal as Medicare For All is DOA in any Congress that may emerge from the 2020 elections.
Such was reported by Paul Waldman in the Washington Post. And anyone who looks at Congress realistically will obviously conclude the same thing. The Democrats may hang onto a majority in the House this time around, and they yearn to control the Senate, too. If there's also a Democratic president, he or she would have to sail a more moderate tone on health care so as not to scare away those who might favorably consider a Congress and presidency that's completely flipped.
Would it mean that we're going the socialist route? People would reasonably ask. That's unlikely anyhow.
First, because not all Democrats are all that crazy about universal health care, and will be saying so in their House and Senate campaigns to get the edge on Republicans, who might just have been weakened by the revelations of the impeachment crisis and who will be echoing 45's bellowing of "socialist!" because they don't have anything else to say that makes the least bit of sense. Secondly, because since the Republicans have stretched the national debt to incredible lengths, a wiser stance to take would be to work to reduce that debt, stabilize markets, and bring a semblance of calm to a very frazzled country. An overriding concept of national health care wouldn't add to that attitude.
Better still to move toward the public option as an improvement to Obamacare. After all, Obama himself kept saying that his plan would need improvement but for now, it's better to have one than not.
But those deductibles are back-breaking. Congress and a new president would do well to consider how to arrest that trend instead of overturning the cart and starting all over again--which would also open the door to a re-introduction of Republican hijinks, bringing the pharmeceuticals back into the fray in an unsettling way.
Octavio-Cortez, having now been in Congress for the better part of a term and having been around conversations here and there, gets how such a strong plan like Medicare For All might never be taken seriously. So she's hedged a bit.
Actually, it sounds genuinely progressive but not cuckoo, as some might say. "The worst-case scenario?" she said the other day. "We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option. Is that a nightmare? I don't think so."
Neither do I. It's a far better sell. Granted, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, to name two (with Michael Bennet being another had he but hung on, but 100% can only be divided so many ways) are far more tuned into such scenarios, partly because they know it sells better to the Democratic faithful who are nervous about keeping such an option open and sending 45 back to Mar-A-Lago, this time permanently. This might be a far better way to have both.
I'm as ready to attack the abuses of corporations as Bernie or anyone else. I'm also one who understands that, as opposed to 45 and his minions, government is about trying to get more than one party on board and about moving forward boldly where one can, incrementally where one must. Even AOC has figured that out.
It'll be interesting to see how Sanders reacts to that and whether he'll continue to welcome AOC on the campaign trail. The turning point, if there is one in this multi-leader campaign, is approaching with Super Tuesday less than three weeks away. Many of the states with primaries on that day are southern; the Democrats there don't usually stick out their necks and crusade for strong policy reforms. If Sanders wants to put them under his wing and get a delegate count that begins to look unconquerable, staying out on the edges might not be wise.
He has to have thought about that at some point. He might want to consider that if the public option might work now, Medicare For All might get some traction down the road. But it's too great a reach. Besides, 45 is already itching to lash out and attach "socialism!" to just about any Democrat who gets the nomination, as illogical as that may be. But logic never bothered him; raw emotion is where he lives. It may already be too late for a Sanders nomination and campaign to overcome that.
Still, for Sanders to begin to walk back his ironclad position of a public option toward something a bit more palatable for those still in the country's political mid-section, especially now that he claims a thin front-runner's spot, might provide the cushion he needs in case he has to stare down the ugly bully across the stage from him in a debate. You know, I've re-thought that position, and I think a public option would be an important step in the meantime. Something like that.
Some things have to take a back seat if we're to get 45 moved out of the way to provide a path for decent government again--at least, what's left of decent government after 45's damage has been assessed and addressed. That it has become an overriding priority is horribly sad. But by now, it can't be overlooked. It's good rhetoric to try to posit oneself on the side of policy initiatives being a major priority, but as 45 commits act upon act of vengeance for having escaped impeachment charges due to a squirming, intimidated Republican Senate, it's going to become crystal clear that to get anything remotely resembling good governance accomplished, his ejection is paramount.
I haven't heard any of the Democratic presidential candidates put it quite that way yet, but maybe their sights aren't fixed too far ahead of their headlights. When you run for office, that's not a bad attitude to have: a vision of victory, yes, but a need to always have one's eyes focused on the next thing, too.
I think Teddy Roosevelt said it: Keeping one's eyes on the stars, but one's feet on the ground. (Casey Kasem always signed off that way) Either way, the fleet of competitors has already narrowed. For the rest, the far turn isn't far off. If AOC has made the kind of adjustment that's pragmatic but winnable, maybe Sanders might find it possible as well. Otherwise, lukewarm support for a candidate wedded too closely to idealism won't get it done this time.
Be well. Be careful. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment