What should Dems prioritize for 2020? | Warren's blunder
Priorities, priorities.
Last week Vox’s Matt Yglesias wrote a piece arguing that 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls should prioritize climate policy, immigration reform, and pro-democracy reforms (end the filibuster, establish automatic voter registration, win statehood for DC/Puerto Rico, etc.) above all else.
He says that Medicare-for-all should not be a top 3 priority, mainly because the vicious fight required to pass it in 2021 would be too much of an opportunity cost for other legislation.
I don’t think I’m persuaded by that. I think Medicare-for-all should be a top 3 priority — here’s a quick run-down of why.
First of all, Medicare-for-all is hot right now, and Dems should capitalize on that.
Polling data shows that Medicare-for-all is clearly what the Democratic base wants: A recent poll by Data for Progress shows that among registered Democrats passing Medicare-for-all is a higher progressive policy priority than any other major issue.
Medicare-for-all also has cross-partisan appeal. A recent poll shows that 70% of voters support “providing Medicare to every American.” The poll found that 52% of Republicans support that proposition as well. Other polls have found similar levels of popularity. There are reasons to be skeptical that GOP support for it will endure — it’s unclear how many voters really understand that Medicare-for-all would ultimately seek to replace private health insurance, not supplement it. And once it enters the polarization vortex and Trump tags it as a threat to white people or private enterprise, then GOP interest in the policy will decline sharply. But there are good signs that Medicare-for-all appeals to the instincts of Americans across the political spectrum (which shouldn’t be too surprising given how immensely popular the old system of Medicare is among all Americans) and that could weaken counter-mobilization efforts.
Medicare-for-all has got a significant amount of momentum already. A huge number of the leading 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls have coalesced around it to prove their progressive credentials — it’s becoming a signaling mechanism for candidates to show they’ve got their finger on the pulse. The salience of the policy should make it easier to create a mandate for it within the party.
I’m not going to pretend that all of this means the fight for Medicare would be easy. It would be an ugly fight. Not only against the right, but also the private insurance industry, the hospital industry, and quite possibly many medical professionals afraid that their pay will be docked by cost-cutting pressures. But the movement that will be required to pass it — which would have to rise up across the nation — and the actual passage of the bill has the potential to transform political consciousness in America. Decommodifying health insurance and claiming health as a social right will be a paradigm-changer in terms of Americans’ relationship with the government. If it passed, it would change the very terrain upon which future political battles will be fought. While on one hand it would probably cost more time than a lot of other legislation, it also has disproportionate potential to ease the passage of subsequent left-leaning legislation. And even if Medicare-for-all proves to be out of reach, the emergence of a robust public option has the potential to be a transformative victory.
Lastly, Medicare-for-all is morally imperative. Obamcare was already struggling before Trump took office and it’s set to get worse, thanks to the GOP‘s nihilistic attacks on it. The US is the wealthiest country in the world, its healthcare system is atrocious and vulnerable to constant attacks, and the best and most sustainable solution that we know of is creating a government-backed health insurance system. How long can we procrastinate on what should be considered a prerequisite for calling ourselves a civilized society?
A quick note on the caravan
I'm seeing a number of liberals on Twitter talking about how the Central American caravan is actually very far from the US and it's becoming smaller. That's worrying because I think that's buying into the white nationalist frame by being like, "Well it's not that scary."
It doesn't matter if the caravan is huge and right at the US border — they are desperate people, they have a right to apply for asylum, and of course they can't break in by force. And it is precisely because they have banded together that shows that they aren't trying to slide into the country undetected.
Warren's affirmative action blunder (written a couple weeks ago)
Elizabeth Warren is venturing into some very tricky territory with her claims that her ancestry played no role in her professional success.
Her video interviewing colleagues who hired and worked with her at various law schools is pretty straightforward and well-intentioned: it’s meant to rebut Trump’s allegation that she claimed she had Native American heritage during hiring processes. All evidence suggests that never happened.
But the language that she and her colleagues employ while proving it have the subtle effect of bolstering the conservative case against affirmative action.
Warren, in her video and tweets, proclaims repeatedly that her “background played no role” in her hiring. Her peers in the video go on and on about how she was hired because she was “the best there was on the market,” and a former student testifies she is “the hardest working person” she’s ever met.
This is all dangerously close to trafficking in anti-affirmative action tropes. Of course Warren's background played a role in her admissions — her middle class whiteness played a role in the formation of her identity, the way she was perceived by society, and the range of opportunities she had throughout her life. And the testimony about how hard-working and talented she is implicitly reinforces the notion that beneficiaries of affirmative action are often middling candidates who exploit their minority status in order to secure positions that they aren’t really qualified for.
A Boston Globe article that Warren has repeatedly linked to showcases this pretty well:
“Was Warren on the agenda because, as her critics say, she had decided to self-identify as a Native American woman and Harvard saw a chance to diversify the law faculty? Did she have an unearned edge in a hugely competitive process? Or did she get there based on her own skill, hard work, and sacrifice?
This framing explicitly makes talent/work ethic and succeeding as a minority mutually exclusive. It says: Did Harvard jump at the opportunity to hire a minority, or did she actually make it because she deserved it?
I don’t think this is really Warren’s or the press’s intention — they could argue that Warren didn’t use her Native American ancestry to enhance her hireability AND that she was hired because she’s exceptional — but it’s still troubling. There is no doubt in my mind that people reading this are absorbing the reactionary idea that people who benefit from affirmative action are getting free passes.
Affirmative action isn’t supposed to give unqualified minority candidates a leg up. It’s supposed to give qualified minority candidates extra attention, based on the premise that both historically and today they face unique obstacles that non-minorities don’t, and the idea that institutions are enriched by diversity. And it only makes sense if one acknowledges that one's background always plays a role in where they get in life.
What I'm reading
Is CBD oil legit? Probably, but most consumer products at the moment are snake oil.
Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970.
Why using Gmail's auto-replies will nudge us toward a dystopian hellscape.
How Manhattan became a ghost town.
Bernie Sanders' next steps remain a genuine mystery - including, it sometimes seems, to himself.
You buy a purse at Walmart. There’s a note inside from a “Chinese prisoner.” Now what?
Post Malone is the perfect pop star for this American moment. That’s not a compliment.
Three long reads
Tribalism Isn’t Our Democracy’s Main Problem. The Conservative Movement Is.
Ben Rhodes and the crisis of liberal policy
Why are Americans still uncomfortable with atheism?
***
If you want to give me any feedback or just want to share some thoughts, you can reply directly to this email and I'll be able to read it — and respond.
If this was forwarded to you or you caught this online, you can sign up for this newsletter here.