Reported for the Flatiron Hot! News by Eric Shapiro
After decades of Clintonian triangulation, incrementalism, technocratic tinkering and self-imposed limits, bold, progressive policies have finally found their way back into the public discourse. Movements, activists and progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders have moved the Overton window left to such an extent that transformative policies like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and tuition-free college are not only plausible, but popular. It is telling that even corporate Democrats running for president have embraced versions of these ambitious proposals, although their sincerity is, at best, questionable. Regardless, it is clear that Democrats, as well as many independents and even some Republicans, are eager for real, systemic change to address pressing issues like income inequality, the healthcare crisis, criminal justice reform and the existential threat of climate change, to name just a few examples.
This is extremely encouraging and validating for progressives; it seems that after decades of being forced to settle for market-based, incremental solutions, a substantial portion of Americans have come around to these policy priorities. But it is premature to get too excited – and not just because it is possible that Democrats could opt for a centrist like Joe Biden in the 2020 primaries or worse, Donald Trump could win reelection. Setting aside those prognostications for now, it is crucial for Democrats to consider the inevitable challenges to implementing a truly bold, transformative, progressive agenda, even in a best-case scenario.
Warren v. Sanders
That is to say, even if Bernie Sanders (or Elizabeth Warren, for those such as myself who consider her an appealing second choice) wins the presidency, Democrats preserve or expand their majority in the House of Representatives and win back the Senate, progress of the kind we are hoping for is far from guaranteed. This is in part because the Founders enshrined in the Constitution mechanisms to prevent rapid change. It is partly because asymmetrical partisan polarization and the gradual degeneration of the GOP into an extremist, reactionary cult means that no Democratic president, much less a progressive one, can count on any Republicans to support their agenda.
There is also, as President Obama learned, the unfortunate reality of corporate Democrats in thrall to special interest money who will do their best to thwart or water down any progressive legislation that threatens the 1%. And even if a progressive president manages to pass, relatively intact, something like Medicare for All or a wealth tax, it is more than likely that a conservative judiciary will sign its death warrant.
Recall that the Roberts Court nearly ruled the Affordable Care Act, a market-driven healthcare program inspired by a Heritage Foundation policy from the 1990s, unconstitutional. Although John Roberts opted not to strike down a law passed by majority in both houses of Congress, he did make the provision mandating Medicaid expansion in every state optional, depriving millions of Americans in states controlled by Republicans of healthcare based on the thinnest pretext. Alas, it is difficult to imagine that an even more far right Supreme Court (or, for that matter, lower courts dominated by Bush and Trump appointees) will allow Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, or tax increases on the rich to stand.
I say all this not to induce a state of despair, but to implore Democrats running for office, especially progressives who want to get big things done, to talk about how they plan to address these challenges in office. Bernie Sanders is more responsible than anyone for introducing bold, progressive ideas into the public discourse. Over the course of his campaign, he and those with similar goals must propose an equally bold plan to implement the agenda he popularized.
Starting this conversation will not be easy and it may be tempting to defer it until after the election. There is a reason why politicians, as Mario Cuomo put it, “campaign in poetry and govern in prose.” There is a reason why politicians run on abstract themes rather than the political process. And that is, first and foremost, because process is, more often than not, dense and complicated. It is difficult to incorporate into a stump speech for a mass audience. But nevertheless, it is more important now than ever for progressives to talk about not only the “what” of their agenda, but also the “how.”
This does not mean, necessarily, aiming lower or compromising on our core values and biggest policy priorities. On the contrary, Presidents Clinton and Obama relied far too much on compromise in the face of cynical, even nihilistic obstruction. No, it means articulating a compelling theory of change that combines legislative strategy, executive authority and, crucially, grassroots activism.
To be fair, Sanders and Warren have made some attempts to articulate a theory of change that include all of the above. But they have done so mostly as an afterthought and rarely gone beyond vague calls for more participatory democracy. They have addressed only in passing some of the key decisions any progressive president will have to make in order to advance their agendas.
It is of course difficult to anticipate how things will look in 2021 given the sheer number of variables. Unforeseen events and/or crises could completely scramble the political dynamic. If the GOP retains control of the Senate, even a progressive candidate with a clear mandate will likely have a hard time implementing a truly transformative agenda. The more hopeful (and interesting) scenario is unified Democratic control of government, with an expanded majority in the House and a slim majority in the Senate. While certainly ideal, this dream scenario could easily degenerate into a Tasmanian devil nightmare of Democratic infighting and self-sabotage.
To prevent this from happening, the president must, over the course of the 2020 campaign, secure a mandate for not only their policy agenda but also their theory of change. This theory must be both ideological and practical.
None of the Democratic candidates for president has thus far articulated a theory of change that addresses both of these criteria. Sanders and Warren would both do well to elaborate on their theories of change to counter the argument from the center that their policy agendas are unrealistic.
Sanders has touched on the former, calling for a mass, grassroots movement to exert pressure on wavering Democrats to support his agenda. He has not, however, laid out a legislative strategy or talked about how, beyond using the bully pulpit, he will engage with Congress and use the powers of the executive branch to implement his policy program.
Warren, on the other hand, has articulated a theory of change based disproportionately on top-down, technocratic solutions. She has not demonstrated the capacity to build a movement on the scale of Sanders nor has she explained how, if at all, she would work with the grassroots to promote and implement her ambitious good government agenda. Her comprehensive anti-corruption bill is in itself a theory of change, but she has not indicated how she plans on passing it given the certainty of massive resistance from lobbyists and special interests.
It’s not enough for progressive candidates to sell the left on great policies if the vast majority of Americans don’t think they can deliver, especially when political capital could be spent on less ambitious (not to mention less controversial) incremental reforms. This all begs the question of how progressives can convince voters that their policies have a reasonable chance of being passed. They may hope that generating momentum and popularity is enough, but we have all seen how quickly policy ideas with popular support have been dashed against the rocks of a broken legislative process and a far-right, activist Supreme Court.
One way to avoid the aforementioned obstacles is to smash them. That is to say, abolish the filibuster for legislation, which favors Republicans, and pack – or threaten to pack – the Supreme Court. To be sure, both moves carry risks. Eliminating the mechanisms in U.S. government that check the majority party could have blowback when the GOP retakes power.
But is endless gridlock really a viable alternative? If progressives truly believe that government-provided health insurance is a human right and climate change is an existential threat, now is the time to take risks. Progressives need not take seriously the inevitable Republican cries that the Democrats are violating the Constitution and subverting democracy. Supreme Court packing and eliminating the legislative filibuster are both perfectly constitutional.
And diminishing the power of the minority party to obstruct popular legislation and impose its will via the judiciary makes our system of government more democratic, not less. Besides which, the GOP has flagrantly violated virtually every democratic norm imaginable in an attempt to impose minority rule on the country, exploiting gerrymandering and natural advantages provided by the Electoral College to wield disproportionate influence at every level of government.
The bottom line is, if progressives are serious about making their long-frustrated vision a reality, they must seize the first opportunity to eliminate the obstacles that make it virtually impossible. Without a supermajority and a left-leaning Supreme Court, the Green New Deal will remain, as Nancy Pelosi derisively put it, a “green dream,” and the planet will be uninhabitable for our children and grandchildren.
Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, to their credit, have claimed that they would at least consider abolishing the legislative filibuster. Bernie Sanders has expressed skepticism about the idea. None of the candidates have thus far discussed packing the Supreme Court, despite Mitch McConnell’s theft of Merrick Garland’s seat and the GOP’s outrageous appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, an alleged sexual predator, to replace Anthony Kennedy.
No doubt the candidates have considered abolishing the legislative filibuster and court packing, as well as other aggressive moves like granting statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC, or even following Trump’s example and declaring a state of emergency to reallocate resources for, you know, an actual emergency, like climate. But such hardball tactics have largely taken a backseat to policy proposals.
Perhaps candidates (with the interesting exception of Pete Buttigieg) are considering all of the above but have decided that it is best to play their cards close to the chest when it comes to such explosive issues, at least until after they win election. This would be a big strategic mistake. The presidential campaign provides them with the opportunity to explain why such drastic moves are necessary and democratic, blunting what is sure to be an outcry from the mainstream media and so-called institutionalists in both parties.
Politically and perhaps morally, progressives must promote and move into the Overton Window government reforms with the same enthusiasm as we promote our favorite policies. If not, come January 2021, we may face the reality of a President Bernie Sanders with a mandate for political revolution but no plan for how to make it a reality through the legislative process. Grassroots energy is important, but without a well-articulated, well-thought-out inside game to channel outside pressure, the left may once again be forced to settle for a disappointing compromise.
NYC Theater News
Flatiron Hot! Pundit: Dems Must Campaign to Break the Conservative Hammerlock on Change
Reported for the Flatiron Hot! News by Eric Shapiro
After decades of Clintonian triangulation, incrementalism, technocratic tinkering and self-imposed limits, bold, progressive policies have finally found their way back into the public discourse. Movements, activists and progressive politicians like Bernie Sanders have moved the Overton window left to such an extent that transformative policies like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and tuition-free college are not only plausible, but popular. It is telling that even corporate Democrats running for president have embraced versions of these ambitious proposals, although their sincerity is, at best, questionable. Regardless, it is clear that Democrats, as well as many independents and even some Republicans, are eager for real, systemic change to address pressing issues like income inequality, the healthcare crisis, criminal justice reform and the existential threat of climate change, to name just a few examples.
This is extremely encouraging and validating for progressives; it seems that after decades of being forced to settle for market-based, incremental solutions, a substantial portion of Americans have come around to these policy priorities. But it is premature to get too excited – and not just because it is possible that Democrats could opt for a centrist like Joe Biden in the 2020 primaries or worse, Donald Trump could win reelection. Setting aside those prognostications for now, it is crucial for Democrats to consider the inevitable challenges to implementing a truly bold, transformative, progressive agenda, even in a best-case scenario.
Warren v. Sanders
That is to say, even if Bernie Sanders (or Elizabeth Warren, for those such as myself who consider her an appealing second choice) wins the presidency, Democrats preserve or expand their majority in the House of Representatives and win back the Senate, progress of the kind we are hoping for is far from guaranteed. This is in part because the Founders enshrined in the Constitution mechanisms to prevent rapid change. It is partly because asymmetrical partisan polarization and the gradual degeneration of the GOP into an extremist, reactionary cult means that no Democratic president, much less a progressive one, can count on any Republicans to support their agenda.
There is also, as President Obama learned, the unfortunate reality of corporate Democrats in thrall to special interest money who will do their best to thwart or water down any progressive legislation that threatens the 1%. And even if a progressive president manages to pass, relatively intact, something like Medicare for All or a wealth tax, it is more than likely that a conservative judiciary will sign its death warrant.
Recall that the Roberts Court nearly ruled the Affordable Care Act, a market-driven healthcare program inspired by a Heritage Foundation policy from the 1990s, unconstitutional. Although John Roberts opted not to strike down a law passed by majority in both houses of Congress, he did make the provision mandating Medicaid expansion in every state optional, depriving millions of Americans in states controlled by Republicans of healthcare based on the thinnest pretext. Alas, it is difficult to imagine that an even more far right Supreme Court (or, for that matter, lower courts dominated by Bush and Trump appointees) will allow Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, or tax increases on the rich to stand.
I say all this not to induce a state of despair, but to implore Democrats running for office, especially progressives who want to get big things done, to talk about how they plan to address these challenges in office. Bernie Sanders is more responsible than anyone for introducing bold, progressive ideas into the public discourse. Over the course of his campaign, he and those with similar goals must propose an equally bold plan to implement the agenda he popularized.
Starting this conversation will not be easy and it may be tempting to defer it until after the election. There is a reason why politicians, as Mario Cuomo put it, “campaign in poetry and govern in prose.” There is a reason why politicians run on abstract themes rather than the political process. And that is, first and foremost, because process is, more often than not, dense and complicated. It is difficult to incorporate into a stump speech for a mass audience. But nevertheless, it is more important now than ever for progressives to talk about not only the “what” of their agenda, but also the “how.”
This does not mean, necessarily, aiming lower or compromising on our core values and biggest policy priorities. On the contrary, Presidents Clinton and Obama relied far too much on compromise in the face of cynical, even nihilistic obstruction. No, it means articulating a compelling theory of change that combines legislative strategy, executive authority and, crucially, grassroots activism.
To be fair, Sanders and Warren have made some attempts to articulate a theory of change that include all of the above. But they have done so mostly as an afterthought and rarely gone beyond vague calls for more participatory democracy. They have addressed only in passing some of the key decisions any progressive president will have to make in order to advance their agendas.
It is of course difficult to anticipate how things will look in 2021 given the sheer number of variables. Unforeseen events and/or crises could completely scramble the political dynamic. If the GOP retains control of the Senate, even a progressive candidate with a clear mandate will likely have a hard time implementing a truly transformative agenda. The more hopeful (and interesting) scenario is unified Democratic control of government, with an expanded majority in the House and a slim majority in the Senate. While certainly ideal, this dream scenario could easily degenerate into a Tasmanian devil nightmare of Democratic infighting and self-sabotage.
To prevent this from happening, the president must, over the course of the 2020 campaign, secure a mandate for not only their policy agenda but also their theory of change. This theory must be both ideological and practical.
None of the Democratic candidates for president has thus far articulated a theory of change that addresses both of these criteria. Sanders and Warren would both do well to elaborate on their theories of change to counter the argument from the center that their policy agendas are unrealistic.
Sanders has touched on the former, calling for a mass, grassroots movement to exert pressure on wavering Democrats to support his agenda. He has not, however, laid out a legislative strategy or talked about how, beyond using the bully pulpit, he will engage with Congress and use the powers of the executive branch to implement his policy program.
Warren, on the other hand, has articulated a theory of change based disproportionately on top-down, technocratic solutions. She has not demonstrated the capacity to build a movement on the scale of Sanders nor has she explained how, if at all, she would work with the grassroots to promote and implement her ambitious good government agenda. Her comprehensive anti-corruption bill is in itself a theory of change, but she has not indicated how she plans on passing it given the certainty of massive resistance from lobbyists and special interests.
It’s not enough for progressive candidates to sell the left on great policies if the vast majority of Americans don’t think they can deliver, especially when political capital could be spent on less ambitious (not to mention less controversial) incremental reforms. This all begs the question of how progressives can convince voters that their policies have a reasonable chance of being passed. They may hope that generating momentum and popularity is enough, but we have all seen how quickly policy ideas with popular support have been dashed against the rocks of a broken legislative process and a far-right, activist Supreme Court.
One way to avoid the aforementioned obstacles is to smash them. That is to say, abolish the filibuster for legislation, which favors Republicans, and pack – or threaten to pack – the Supreme Court. To be sure, both moves carry risks. Eliminating the mechanisms in U.S. government that check the majority party could have blowback when the GOP retakes power.
But is endless gridlock really a viable alternative? If progressives truly believe that government-provided health insurance is a human right and climate change is an existential threat, now is the time to take risks. Progressives need not take seriously the inevitable Republican cries that the Democrats are violating the Constitution and subverting democracy. Supreme Court packing and eliminating the legislative filibuster are both perfectly constitutional.
And diminishing the power of the minority party to obstruct popular legislation and impose its will via the judiciary makes our system of government more democratic, not less. Besides which, the GOP has flagrantly violated virtually every democratic norm imaginable in an attempt to impose minority rule on the country, exploiting gerrymandering and natural advantages provided by the Electoral College to wield disproportionate influence at every level of government.
The bottom line is, if progressives are serious about making their long-frustrated vision a reality, they must seize the first opportunity to eliminate the obstacles that make it virtually impossible. Without a supermajority and a left-leaning Supreme Court, the Green New Deal will remain, as Nancy Pelosi derisively put it, a “green dream,” and the planet will be uninhabitable for our children and grandchildren.
Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, to their credit, have claimed that they would at least consider abolishing the legislative filibuster. Bernie Sanders has expressed skepticism about the idea. None of the candidates have thus far discussed packing the Supreme Court, despite Mitch McConnell’s theft of Merrick Garland’s seat and the GOP’s outrageous appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, an alleged sexual predator, to replace Anthony Kennedy.
No doubt the candidates have considered abolishing the legislative filibuster and court packing, as well as other aggressive moves like granting statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC, or even following Trump’s example and declaring a state of emergency to reallocate resources for, you know, an actual emergency, like climate. But such hardball tactics have largely taken a backseat to policy proposals.
Perhaps candidates (with the interesting exception of Pete Buttigieg) are considering all of the above but have decided that it is best to play their cards close to the chest when it comes to such explosive issues, at least until after they win election. This would be a big strategic mistake. The presidential campaign provides them with the opportunity to explain why such drastic moves are necessary and democratic, blunting what is sure to be an outcry from the mainstream media and so-called institutionalists in both parties.
Politically and perhaps morally, progressives must promote and move into the Overton Window government reforms with the same enthusiasm as we promote our favorite policies. If not, come January 2021, we may face the reality of a President Bernie Sanders with a mandate for political revolution but no plan for how to make it a reality through the legislative process. Grassroots energy is important, but without a well-articulated, well-thought-out inside game to channel outside pressure, the left may once again be forced to settle for a disappointing compromise.