I don’t really know what you are getting at. First you say Dems have taken on the branding, you admit that it has become a catchall term for universal healthcare, only to turn around and deny that anyone is co-opting Medicare for all.
Why are you being evasive? Your whole point is Dem centrists are co-opting M4A and you can’t name names.
I think it’s fine that Dems are uniting around universal health care regardless of what it’s called. You aren’t fine with that but you can’t identify which candidates are stealing Bernie’s thunder.
...But here are two modest proposals. First, Democratic presidential candidates should join in an informal union and agree to stop answering “raise your hands” questions in debates. Inevitably, they are forced later to say that this or that issue is complicated, that the question they were asked was not exactly the right question — and the more they explain themselves, the more slippery they look. Inevitabley, they are forced later to say that this or that issue is complicated — and the more they explain themselves, the more slippery they look.
Second, Democratic primary voters should add a new criterion to their list of must-haves: Who among these candidates is best suited to create the diverse alliance that must come together to beat Trump? This is not an argument for automatically picking the most “moderate” candidate. The nominee will certainly need middle-of-the-roaders who recognize what a disaster Trump’s presidency is. But she or he must also mobilize younger progressives into the electorate. Rarely has a party been more in need of raw political talent.
House Democrats need to get their act together.
Pelosi’s colleagues should then ponder a variation on a query from baseball lore: Can anyone here play a long game?
This requires assessing how much clout you have now (it’s limited) and what your job is (improving the chances of defeating Trump and thereby earning the ability to get much more done after 2020).
It will be unforgivable if the opponents of a genuinely dangerous and immoral regime indulge themselves with inward-looking feuds when history’s demands upon them could not be clearer.
I’m not denying it at all. I just want you to list names. You won’t because then you would have to admit that the only way to accomplish your goal is for Bernie to win.
E.J. Dionne: Will Democrats fight Trump or each other?
Of course, it's not as simple as either/or. The nature of our system is they must do both. But I agree with the overall idea in this piece. Including these two proposals and the conclusion:
Inevitably, they are forced later to say that this or that issue is complicated, that the question they were asked was not exactly the right question — and the more they explain themselves, the more slippery they look. Inevitabley, they are forced later to say that this or that issue is complicated — and the more they explain themselves, the more slippery they look.
Which is why my local dsa chapter is canvassing Sharice Davids' district. What a bullshit line of argumentation. Whatever makes you feel better about supporting the McKinsey guy.
You are describing co-optation and suggesting that I or "Bernie folks" should be happy that democrats latched on to something for political gain while muddying the water on the policy goal.
He’s not wrong, Ph.
Depends. Is the goal universal health care? If so, then no.
Is the goal Bernie for President? If so, then yes.
You’re not about establishing a universal health care system to better our lives.
I don't believe that the kind of massive social change that we need will happen through electoral politics, but through a mass mobilization of poor and working class people.
Meaning what, exactly?
I should have said "through only electoral politics,"
Whew. Definitely better.
What is "direct action"?