I assume we have all heard the story of Solomon’s judgement. Two people claim a baby, the judge cannot decide which is the mother, so the verdict is to split the baby in two so each can have a piece.
We are being asked to make this decision regarding single payer (or, even more modest, a public option), metaphorically splitting what we consider Democratic into two pieces. We are given a choice:
1) a politician that can win
2) a politician that publicly supports and pushes for single payer or public option
That choice is false.
It is a choice that essentially splits Democratic principles from a Democratic candidate. If a Democrat no longer supports Democratic principles, the Democrat is metaphorically dead and what remains is a naked politician without principles.
Especially telling are those that say one thing, for example a politician that says in May of 2014:
Of course I want single payer and I want a public option, but that not being in the mix, you have to prioritize what it is you want to get over the finish line.
That is understandable when our party is in the minority and explicitly in the context of raising legislation in the Congress at that time.
But, I assume when choosing what policies to include in discussion (versus legislation), single payer or public option would be near the top of the list. After all, legislation and legislators won’t happen unless there is a long, concerted lead up discussing the policies we want passed.
Sadly, that same politician said this in Jan of 2016:
Let me tell you about single payer. That’s not going to happen.
I’m sorry, but that was a gut punch. It seems to say our only choice is to split the baby.
Does anyone in this room think that we’re going to be discussing single-payer?
Claims of wanting single-payer just went out the window. If you honestly want something, you will raise it as a topic to be discussed.
Especially galling is that the question was posed to a room full of reporters. Are reporters really who you ask for advice or who you let set the terms of debate? If so, that needs to be a major topic of discussion as well.
It is a very popular idea in this country, but we have made a decision about where we’re going on healthcare.
What a perfect sentence to make clear what is going on here.
“We” is not equal to “the people” in the minds of politicians in Washington.
So, where do we go from here?
We have a pragmatic impulse that says “fight for legislation that we can get through, prioritize our resources”. Eminently reasonable, that is a tactic necessary to stay in the battle and make a difference.
We also have a naive impulse that says “because we can’t pass it today, we shouldn’t even talk about it”. The primary is exactly the time we should be discussing these topics, figuring out how to trumpet the policy throughout the next term, and move the public discourse toward our goals.
When naivete hides behind pragmatism, we get three decades of increasing inequality, decreasing voter participation, and the gutting of progressive policies. It seems our current representatives in Congress have opted to split the baby.
If a politician avoids or rules out discussion of vital, popular progressive policies during the primary, they do not deserve our support. They deserve being challenged in the primary and challenged every time they shirk their duty of representing we the people.
I’ll leave with a few words from Ezra Klein, not because I always agree with what he writes, but because it captures what we see happening today and every day for the last 30 years.
[This] reflects a kind of learned helplessness among Democratic elites.
…
This is defeatism masquerading as realism — and it's exactly what corporations want you to believe.