When she pushed her plan in 1994-it wasn't single payer but was close to it-she was savaged for it by both the GOP and the Hillary hating press.
The GOP remains absolutely apoplectic about destroying ACA. Yet-they are actually defending Bernie's single payer plan last night from her attacks.
The Beltway too seems now to be single payer ideologues all of a sudden.
But actual liberal economists-Krugman, Ezra Klein, and Jonathan Chait-are not praising Bernie's single payer plan. Krugman calls it what it is in this political context-a distraction.
Those who have supported ACA are see Bernie's theatrics as a distraction. The GOPers who have spent the last six years in a Holy War against Obamacare see it as a pretty good idea, it turns out.
And the media which has done what it can to repeat the GOP talking points against ACA are suddenly in rapture to Bernie's proposals as well.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/krugnan-on-single-payer-and-art-of.html
Could any of this be a coincidence?
It must be easy when you're Bernie Sanders. You never have to forget your lines as the answer is always the same: it was the banks faults, and they need to be broken up. Also, we need campaign finance.
Bernie is a one note hedgehog, while HRC is an incrementalist fox.
"The answer highlighted a difference between Clinton and Bernie Sanders that the debate format accentuates: She is far more comfortable addressing a wide range of topics than he. In a sense, their difference calls to mind the famous essay by political philosopher Isaiah Berlin about the fox, who knows many things, and the hedgehog, who knows one important thing. Hillary’s the fox, of course; Bernie’s the hedgehog. Asked how they’d work with Republicans, both cited instances when they had successfully done so, but Sanders then circled back to the irrefutable fact that in addition to being polarized, Congress is also intractably compromised by its obeisance to big money. In his stump speeches, this is a theme he elaborates with forceful logic; in the debate format, where he repeatedly invokes it in the 30-second sound bites that the format requires, he can come off a bit like Charles Dickens’s Mr. Dick in David Copperfield, who somehow turns to the topic of King Charles’s severed head no matter what he’s discussing."
"Sanders is right that reducing the power of the super-rich is essential both to rebuilding the middle class and to restoring a more functional democracy, but there’s more to heaven and earth than that, important though it may be. Sanders owes his success to his ability to identify the rise of the plutocrats as the primary cause of what ails us, and to credibly make the case that no figure in American politics, not to mention in the presidential field, will work harder than he to diminish their sway. But he also needs—both as a debater and, if elected, as a president—to be a little more of a fox. A senator can choose the central focus of his career more easily than a president can, and it’s the presidency that Sanders is seeking."
The GOP remains absolutely apoplectic about destroying ACA. Yet-they are actually defending Bernie's single payer plan last night from her attacks.
The Beltway too seems now to be single payer ideologues all of a sudden.
But actual liberal economists-Krugman, Ezra Klein, and Jonathan Chait-are not praising Bernie's single payer plan. Krugman calls it what it is in this political context-a distraction.
Those who have supported ACA are see Bernie's theatrics as a distraction. The GOPers who have spent the last six years in a Holy War against Obamacare see it as a pretty good idea, it turns out.
And the media which has done what it can to repeat the GOP talking points against ACA are suddenly in rapture to Bernie's proposals as well.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/krugnan-on-single-payer-and-art-of.html
Could any of this be a coincidence?
It must be easy when you're Bernie Sanders. You never have to forget your lines as the answer is always the same: it was the banks faults, and they need to be broken up. Also, we need campaign finance.
Bernie is a one note hedgehog, while HRC is an incrementalist fox.
"The answer highlighted a difference between Clinton and Bernie Sanders that the debate format accentuates: She is far more comfortable addressing a wide range of topics than he. In a sense, their difference calls to mind the famous essay by political philosopher Isaiah Berlin about the fox, who knows many things, and the hedgehog, who knows one important thing. Hillary’s the fox, of course; Bernie’s the hedgehog. Asked how they’d work with Republicans, both cited instances when they had successfully done so, but Sanders then circled back to the irrefutable fact that in addition to being polarized, Congress is also intractably compromised by its obeisance to big money. In his stump speeches, this is a theme he elaborates with forceful logic; in the debate format, where he repeatedly invokes it in the 30-second sound bites that the format requires, he can come off a bit like Charles Dickens’s Mr. Dick in David Copperfield, who somehow turns to the topic of King Charles’s severed head no matter what he’s discussing."
"Sanders is right that reducing the power of the super-rich is essential both to rebuilding the middle class and to restoring a more functional democracy, but there’s more to heaven and earth than that, important though it may be. Sanders owes his success to his ability to identify the rise of the plutocrats as the primary cause of what ails us, and to credibly make the case that no figure in American politics, not to mention in the presidential field, will work harder than he to diminish their sway. But he also needs—both as a debater and, if elected, as a president—to be a little more of a fox. A senator can choose the central focus of his career more easily than a president can, and it’s the presidency that Sanders is seeking."
http://prospect.org/article/bernie-and-hillary-hedgehog-and-fox
Yet, one thing Bernie may well be wrong about is when he claimed last night that if only we had campaign finance there would be lost polarization in Congress. The opposite may actually be the case. There may be other good things that campaign finance may do but one of these things apparently is not to reduce polarization. The effect may be the opposite:
One of the more compelling arguments for campaign finance reform has long been that it would undermine partisanship. After all, a great deal of money goes to political parties. Cut off the money to them, and you undermine their influence over candidates and elected officials, right?
"If these issues concern you, I strongly encourage you to read Ray La Raja and Brian Schaffner's new book Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Their approach has been to examine the American states that have been experimenting with campaign finance restrictions on parties over the past few decades. What they have found is not that the reforms have been ineffective—rather, they've achieved the opposite of their goal. Those states with campaign finance restrictions on parties have seen more rapid polarization of their state legislatures than states without such rules."
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/how-campaign-finance-reform-contributed-to-polarization
P.S. We see some more interesting reactions to last night's debate. There are mixed reactions some think Bernie won, some Hillary. I agree Hillary won.
Yet, one thing Bernie may well be wrong about is when he claimed last night that if only we had campaign finance there would be lost polarization in Congress. The opposite may actually be the case. There may be other good things that campaign finance may do but one of these things apparently is not to reduce polarization. The effect may be the opposite:
One of the more compelling arguments for campaign finance reform has long been that it would undermine partisanship. After all, a great deal of money goes to political parties. Cut off the money to them, and you undermine their influence over candidates and elected officials, right?
"If these issues concern you, I strongly encourage you to read Ray La Raja and Brian Schaffner's new book Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail. Their approach has been to examine the American states that have been experimenting with campaign finance restrictions on parties over the past few decades. What they have found is not that the reforms have been ineffective—rather, they've achieved the opposite of their goal. Those states with campaign finance restrictions on parties have seen more rapid polarization of their state legislatures than states without such rules."
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/how-campaign-finance-reform-contributed-to-polarization
P.S. We see some more interesting reactions to last night's debate. There are mixed reactions some think Bernie won, some Hillary. I agree Hillary won.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/hillary-wins-again-with-assist-from.html
But then again, I'm very partial to her incrementalist fox approach. For me Bernie is a hammer who sees every problem as a nail-which would be great if they really were all nails.
Some don't find her approach inspiring enough. I guess different people are inspired by different things. To me the idea of consolidating and building on the President's achievements of the last 7 years and putting the Supreme Court back in Democratic hands is very inspiring.
It seems to me that what inspiring means in this context is how to get people who have never voted before-kids are large in this group but not the whole of it-or who have never been interested before to get in to it.
I mean there is nothing inspiring about what Bernie does as saying it doesn't make it so-never have. Indeed, Chris Hayes tweets underscore why you shouldn't bank so much on just frothy campaign rhetoric.
Ironically, isn't the lesson of the 08 primary that granular health policy disagreements don't actually matter? Remember HRC & BO spent *months* debating the mandate (HRC was pro, BO anti). Krugman wrote dozens of columns about how BO's health plan was reactionary. and then BO got the nomination, entirely reversed himself on the mandate and signed the ACA into law."
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes
But then again, I'm very partial to her incrementalist fox approach. For me Bernie is a hammer who sees every problem as a nail-which would be great if they really were all nails.
Some don't find her approach inspiring enough. I guess different people are inspired by different things. To me the idea of consolidating and building on the President's achievements of the last 7 years and putting the Supreme Court back in Democratic hands is very inspiring.
It seems to me that what inspiring means in this context is how to get people who have never voted before-kids are large in this group but not the whole of it-or who have never been interested before to get in to it.
I mean there is nothing inspiring about what Bernie does as saying it doesn't make it so-never have. Indeed, Chris Hayes tweets underscore why you shouldn't bank so much on just frothy campaign rhetoric.
Ironically, isn't the lesson of the 08 primary that granular health policy disagreements don't actually matter? Remember HRC & BO spent *months* debating the mandate (HRC was pro, BO anti). Krugman wrote dozens of columns about how BO's health plan was reactionary. and then BO got the nomination, entirely reversed himself on the mandate and signed the ACA into law."
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes
This is what I hate about new voters and kids voting for the first time. They think that the frothy campaign rhetoric is what matters. You can see that in Hillary vs. Bernie numbers. He leads 2 to 1 among the 18-24 age group, they are tied in the 25-34 range and then her lead gets bigger and bigger beyond that level.
I guess I'm stuck praising those a little older in that they vote out of a sense of civic duty rather than demanding to 'fall in love' with a passion so deep that it levitates them to the voting booth.
I guess I'm stuck praising those a little older in that they vote out of a sense of civic duty rather than demanding to 'fall in love' with a passion so deep that it levitates them to the voting booth.
Garry wills did these great analyses and what history shows is that if you want someone to end slavery, have them vow not to do so-Lincoln-to do the New Deal, have them vow to balance the budget-FDR-to go to war, promise to not go to war-Wilson in WWI and FDR again in 1940.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0385089775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1453159198&sr=1-1&keywords=garry+wills+confessions+of+a+conservative
In a way, Trump is even right-you never really 'telegraph' your moves-not just that you don't want to but you really can't; once you are in office there are all sorts of contingent factors that you can never hope to anticipate-your moves and you see Bernie himself nit wanting to get too into specifics. But you do have the responsibility to not make promises you have no ability to keep.
P.S.S. I do find it very curious that while most Democratic insiders think Hillary won, most Republican insiders think the opposite, which suggests that just as we are Trump Democrats, many GOPers are becoming Bernie Republicans.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/who-won-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-217935
P.S.S. I do find it very curious that while most Democratic insiders think Hillary won, most Republican insiders think the opposite, which suggests that just as we are Trump Democrats, many GOPers are becoming Bernie Republicans.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/who-won-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-217935
No comments:
Post a Comment