#212: Dems Don't Need A 'Smoke Break' To Defeat Trump
.....................
Here's the case for a 'natural', vapor-less, candidacy in 2020:
Much has been said about candidates like Bernie Sanders, who have very ambitious agendas, but who don't favor eliminating the senate's filibuster, an anachronism that would effectively prevent the implementation of their ambitious goals. What's going on? There are three possibilities:
A. Bernie's being smart, not adding to his radical image prior to an election when his biggest electoral handicap is the impression that he's a crazed, uncontrollable leftist. After all, once the election is won, Democrats can eventually kill the filibuster... over his increasingly mild objections.
B. Bernie is being inconsistent, and hasn't thought through the 'how-do-we-get-there' question.
C. Bernie has thought up a way around the filibuster problem, but hasn't announced it, or won't announce it until it's needed. This could be a modified ban on the filibuster, for example, that exempted science-based, emergency legislation to combat epidemics, natural disasters, etc.
Unfortunately for Sen. Sanders, all three possibilities point to a candidacy more interested in a solution, than in how to get to that solution. As I wrote in my Alert: Bernie Could Lose post last month (which, BTW, has turned into my all-time most popular, by far), interest in the end result, rather than the journey itself, is a particularly male problem.
So what is the case to be made for a more 'natural' theory of how change might come?
1. The easiest path to a Democratic victory in 2020's presidential election runs through Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (as opposed to Florida, where Democrats hit a wall in 2018, in an election with high voter turnout).
2. Michigan and Pennsylvania (the more urban of these states, and thus easier to win with a big base turnout), wouldn't, however, be enough on their own (Hillary's 232 electoral votes, plus MI & PA's 36 = 268; 270 needed).
3. Either Wisconsin and/or Iowa is thus the audience Democrats should be addressing, with a message that brings out the base, but that doesn't involve what I'm calling a 'smoke break'-style radical imperative.
Furthermore, the Senate map of all but the utterly impossible contests in 2020 calls out for the same approach:
Purple states: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina
Red states: Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Tennessee, Texas
To have any chance at passing progressive legislation, Dems need to focus on radical but popular policies that would be welcomed by most all voters, for example: free childcare.
The nay-sayers insist, meanwhile, that Dems need to take two steps, not one, due to Republican mendacity (here's David Roberts at Vox on one such imperative: climate change). Their thinking is that progressive change can't happen fast enough, and that street demonstrations, an across-the-board radical agenda, and general agitation are our only hope.
If we take their strongest argument, the need for immediate action on climate, it's true that the next decade will transition us from still-time-to-act to irreversible-doom-scenario; but, they're asking for a wholesale radical agenda to be placed on the ballot (a carbon tax with teeth, for one). That agenda would likely win big in blue base states that know the details on climate; it would likely lose, however, in Wisconsin and Iowa.
A more likely approach:
* Winning the House and Senate is crucial. Aim for a senate majority that is 55-45 Democratic. This would require nominating a non-threatening presidential candidate whose coattails would pull the necessary 7-8 candidates from the above list of 12 states over the finish line (the way that Obama did in 2008).
* Once in power, set the stage for a filibuster-proof 60 votes in 2022 by following through on popular legislation proposed in the run-up to 2020. This would include a Reconciliation bill (that would require only 50 Democratic votes) to reconfigure the tax code. With Senate votes to spare, a truly progressive tax structure would be possible.
* Now, to tackle Climate, set up a mechanism similar to Reconciliation that would carve out an exception to the filibuster whenever there's a near-consensus among our nation's top scientists. A dozen or so expert panels in a range of disciplines would be consulted whenever congress considers science-based legislation. Most likely, a large voter majority would find this approach acceptable, and would require only 50 senate votes to pass (both the carve out and any follow-on legislation).
An additional two factors can be expected:
** Once Trump loses--if he hasn't already been removed from office--and if Democrats are victorious in the Senate, the dynamic of obstruction, with its know-nothing, anti-science bull-dozing, would likely be dealt a serious blow (losing the popular vote in all but one of the past six elections should be, on its own, a wake-up call). This would make possible many additional progressive agenda items prior to 2022.
** Carried on in the court of public opinion, a radical-agenda based on street demonstrations and general agitation would move the conversation in a progressive direction.
So, to the extent that progressives are looking for a next step beyond Carter, Clinton, Obama..., there's no reason to feel the need for a 'smoke break'.
No comments:
Post a Comment