By John Hirschauer
Monday, March 09, 2020
The public’s support for Medicare for All varies wildly
depending upon the language pollsters use when asking voters about it. When the
Kaiser Family Foundation informed respondents in a recent poll that Medicare
for All would “guarantee health insurance as a right for all Americans,” 71
percent of them supported the plan; when they were told that the plan would
“lead to delays in people getting some medical tests and treatments,” 70
percent opposed it.
In short, single-payer health care is more appealing in
its blurriest outlines than it is when it comes into focus — much like its most
prominent proponent, Bernie Sanders.
Sanders enjoys significant personal popularity and has
for most of his career. He has become the most popular senator in America by
sticking to the same operative philosophy for most if not all of his
professional life. (Joe Rogan called him “insanely
consistent.”) His policy positions — free college, universal health care,
and other expensive giveaways — poll fairly well among voters when framed in
abstract terms that elide the costs involved in implementing them. As he
frequently reminds the American people with a sense of conviction and moral
urgency that stirs up an almost religious fervor among his supporters, he
“happens to believe” health care is a yoo-man right.
At some point, though, utopian platitudes have to become
concrete policy proposals. Once Elizabeth Warren released her “plan” to upend
the American health-care system, she forced voters to confront the actual
tradeoffs involved in the sort of “big, systemic change” that she was selling.
It’s one thing to tell a pollster you’re for Medicare for All, but it’s quite
another to support the same policy after being confronted with the tax hikes
and private-insurance ban it would necessitate. Idealism is fine, National
Review’s founder famously quipped, but as it approaches reality, the costs
become prohibitive.
To be sure, idealism has still gotten Sanders pretty far
in his quixotic effort to execute a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party.
The apparent popularity of his progressive agenda before its downsides are made
clear to voters has helped to fuel his diehard supporters’ intense
consternation and anti-establishment sentiment. The obvious antipathy that the
Democratic establishment holds for Sanders and his supporters has only
furthered their sense that the entire political ecosystem is working in concert
to prevent the sort of “political revolution” that they claim, with at least
superficial plausibility, has the mandate of the popular will.
All of this — the support for Sanders’s agenda when
sketched in its vaguest terms, the real and perceived grievances against the
party establishment — has in turn allowed Sanders and his supporters to craft a
compelling story: Their movement is a People’s revolution, militating against
the forces of dark money and corporate interests, waging a heroic war on the
Wall Street tycoons who wield outsize influence on our political process and
both political parties. Since public polling shows popular support for the Sanders
platform, the narrative goes, any suggestion that Bernie is a “radical” is
little more than wishcasting by a bourgeois, neoliberal press, a group of
capitalist bootlickers desperate to uphold an indefensible economic order.
This narrative worked better than anyone had a right to
expect against Hillary Clinton four years ago, and until last Tuesday, it
appeared on track to deliver Sanders the nomination in 2020. With a horde of
“moderates” in the race splitting the centrist vote and clear possession of the
party’s “progressive” lane, Sanders had been able to finish in a virtual tie in
Iowa and command a plurality of support in the New Hampshire primary and the
Nevada caucus. While he failed to capture an outright majority in any of the
three opening states, his performance was sufficiently strong that his
exponents in the press saw fit to take a victory lap. “Why do they never
learn?” asked Mehdi Hasan of The Intercept. “The only way to test
‘electability’ is through actual elections, and so far Sanders is two for two.”
Unfortunately for Sanders, after those electoral
victories, he became the race’s clear front-runner. Once that happened,
Democratic voters were no longer weighing Bernie in the abstract — the jovial,
if curmudgeonly, senator whom Paul Krugman strained to depict as a Scandinavian
social democrat — but Bernie as a committed ideologue, happy to defend Fidel
Castro’s literacy program and the poverty-reduction efforts of Communist China.
For all of the Bernie Bros’ indignation with a Democratic
establishment that richly deserves their scorn, it was still the voters
who handed Joe Biden — a doddering old warhorse who had seemed a dead man
walking for months — a resounding victory on Super Tuesday. He won ten of 14
states, captured 573 delegates to Sanders’s 491, and now leads Sanders in the
popular vote by over 900,000 votes. Sanders is still alive in the race, to be
sure, but his chances of a comeback are getting slimmer by the minute.
If the origin myth of Sanders’s movement were true — if scheming
“ah-li-garchs” were really to blame for keeping his broadly popular agenda at
bay — then one would think his campaign could have convinced actual voters
that he was a superior candidate to Biden, who often struggles just to put
together a coherent sentence on the stump. Perhaps Sanders, and the philosophy
he champions, are more appealing in theory than in practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment