Last weekend I wrote two diaries about how John Kerry was not representing his constituents in the most liberal state in the Union, Massachusetts, on health care due to his refusal to clearly come out for Medicare for All.
The basic argument is that given that a likely majority (~47-59%) of the public nationally favors Medicare for All, and given that the Massachusetts Democratic Party's official position is single payer health care, and given that Massachusetts Democrats were displeased enough with Kerry to try to primary him via Medicare for All supporter Ed O'Reilly in 2008, that Kerry is by any reasonable definition a sellout on health care.
Why write a third diary? Two reasons. First, some of the responders to my last posts raised some points that I think need to be cleared up. Most obviously, the question is: what exactly is Kerry's position on Medicare for All? The answer seems to be that he would favor it if we were starting "from scratch," whatever that is supposed to mean. This is exactly what Obama says, so it's not credible to claim Kerry is a Medicare for All supporter.
Secondly, I think this issue is a symbol of crippling problems afflicting the movement for health care reform today, and a symbol of what needs to be overcome in order to present a credible challenge to corporate America, the teabaggers and the right wing.
We should start with Kerry's position on Medicare for All. Here's what he said on this blog.
Been working very hard on the Finance committee to try to see it included. Harder slog than it ought to be. I ran for President with a public option as an anchor off my health care plan, want to see one now that we get to do reform. Would do Medicare for all if I could start from scratch, so I’m a definite supporter of a strong, national public option. We’ll see what we can do. Glad to see HELP Committee passed out a bill with one today – EMK and Dodd, you couldn’t have two better leaders on this issue.
That is pretty clear. Has he ever contradicted it? We can watch the first few seconds of this video to find out.
The relevant part is where Kerry says, "I personally would start with single payer on a personal level, but we don't have the votes." What does this mean? One irate Kerry staffer told me it meant Kerry favored Medicare for All, and that my whole argument was dishonest as a result. But given his statement on this blog, that is very premature. Reasonably, we could interpret his statement in the video to mean either of these two possibilities.
- I would start with single payer from a blank slate only (not now)
- I would start with it at the negotiating table and work from there
The problem is that we really do not know what he meant in this impromptu response, and without any other knowledge it could be either one. Given his statement on this blog, though, the most likely possibility is that it was #1.
Kerry's response shown here to a woman demanding a non-profit health insurance system only strengthens this view:
Kerry smoothly disagrees with her assertion that we need a non-profit health insurance system in the United States. His entire response is simply a rationalization for keeping the current for-profit privately owned system. (There is only one other industrialized nation that allows for-profit primary care insurers to my knowledge. This is the Netherlands, and its system looks nothing like the US employer based one.) This makes it even more difficult to believe he is a single payer supporter.
What we really need is a clear pledge like Jeff Merkley has given in the far less liberal state of Oregon:
"I will support a single-payer plan if we can get it to the floor."
But given the evidence right now, we have to take Kerry at his word that he only favors Medicare for All starting from scratch, exactly the same as Obama.
It's clear that Kerry's position is utterly outrageous. To understand why, consider what would happen if Mike Enzi (the Senator from Wyoming, which is about as Republican a state as Massachusetts is Democratic) was unclear about whether he would vote against the public option. This is actually a considerably less extreme example than Kerry being unclear on Medicare for All, because at least Enzi would be in line with national opinion if not local opinion if he did so, since national opinion favors a public option by about 56-62% according to Nate Silver. But by not favoring Medicare for All, Kerry is not only out of line with opinion in his state, he is probably opposing opinion nationally too!
It seems safe to say that many on the right wing in Wyoming would immediately go from being Enzi's friends to being outraged critics if he refused to clearly oppose a public option. To put it differently, they would jump on him like a wild hyena!
Should we on the left be weaker?
Kerry is also defying his own state's Democratic Party on health care. Consider Massachusetts Democrats' health care platform:
HEALTH CARE
• The Democratic Party gave the country the original single payer systems: Medicaid, Medicare, and the Veterans Health Administration.
• Massachusetts Democrats continue to advocate for a single payer health system for all citizens.
• We believe that healthcare is a fundamental right.
• We support a constitutional amendment that affirms the right to universal coverage and to quality healthcare.
Is it too much to ask Kerry to support the principles of his own state's Democratic Party?
Most of Massachusetts' representatives in the US House have also endorsed HR 676, The United States National Health Care Act, which would create a single payer system. Representatives with an X are cosponsors:
Rep. Olver, John [D] X
Rep. Neal, Richard [D]
Rep. McGovern, James [D] X
Rep. Frank, Barney [D] X
Rep. Tsongas, Niki [D]
Rep. Tierney, John [D] X
Rep. Markey, Edward [D]
Rep. Capuano, Michael [D] X
Rep. Lynch, Stephen [D] X
Rep. Delahunt, William [D] X
That makes seven out of ten representatives for Massachusetts who cosponsor HR 676! Is is too much to ask John Kerry take a similar step and cosponsor S. 703 in the Senate? Is it so much trouble to simply represent your own constituents?
Calling Kerry out on this has provoked some bizarre responses. For example, consider this accusation:
Apparently, Khin thinks there should be some sort of ultra-progressive purist litmus test here on which we all must agree.
Demanding that elected leaders actually represent their own constituents is deemed an "ultra-progressive purist litmus test," an extremely radical position.
Or how about this response:
If he were going against "public opinion" in Massachusetts as badly as you seem to believe him to be, his approval rating among that state's population would not be as high as it is.
In this case, certain people claimed that because Kerry's approval rating in the state was high, voters necessarily wanted the same health care policies that he advocated in the Senate. But this is clearly a false argument, and we can immediately see that it is false if for no other reason than that the majority of Massachusetts representatives favor HR 676. Clearly, either Kerry or the representatives must be in agreement with public opinion, not both, and one would tend to trust the representatives more since the US House is more democratic than the Senate.
In fact there are many reasons why voters might have chosen Kerry over Ed O'Reilly in the 2008 primary that have nothing to do with policy at all: Kerry is without a doubt a brilliant individual, a former Presidential candidate, has a lot of name recognition, and also a lot of campaign contributions. Coming from progressives, this argument is really shocking for being a catch-all rubber stamp on the US government as fairly representing its constituents. We know that isn't the case.
A similar argument holds that politicians have no obligation to obey their constituents if there is no way legislation will pass this session.
if you cannot make Single Payer viable [this session], I think it is the senator's prerogative to use his political capital in support of health care reform that will actually pass.
Of course, the exact same argument could end up rationalizing tyranny by saying that politicians have no obligation to represent their constituents as long as other politicians refuse to agree. It's not even an argument for agreeing with the majority view nationally, because there is no evidence that the views of most other US senators represent majority US opinion on health care. This argument is fundamentally opposed to the most basic principles of democracy.
Republicans like Mike Enzi also feel no similar restrictions. It's clear that abortion is not going to be completely outlawed during this session of Congress, but that does not deter Republicans from almost uniformly wanting to outlaw it. It's clear that privatizing Social Security is not going to happen during this session of Congress, but many Republicans continue to advocate it. So why should Democrats be weaker? It seems like the real root of these arguments lies in Democrats standing to lose more campaign contributions from favoring Medicare for All. But obviously that is not an acceptable excuse.
Make no mistake: we will not succeed in pushing this country onto a more economically progressive course, including on health care, if we do not call out politicians like Kerry. One of the aspects of the teabagger movement that really strikes me is that they are unbridled and basically unafraid to challenge their elected leaders. Look at the reaction of Republicans:
Republican officials said privately that they were pleased by the turnout but wary of the anger directed at all politicians.
We can learn from the teabaggers' strategy. In order to win, we have to make politicians fear us, not just blindly defend them when their policies are inadequate. Politicians who do not fear the anger of their constituents and are secure in the knowledge that they will never be swept out of office will never take the bold steps necessary to enact change. As long as progressives are following elected leaders rather than calling on elected leaders to follow them, then there is no hope for a humane economic system in this country. A successful movement must put its principles first, favoring leaders only insofar as they represent those principles, and standing ready to replace them with others if it becomes clear that they are rejecting those principles.
Why have I kept dwelling on Kerry, though? After all, Kerry is one of the more liberal Democrats in the US Senate. Why not pick a conservative one? However, the problem is that it is not just the absolute level of liberalism that should attract our attention, but rather the difference between politicians and their constituents. We might call this the "selling out meter." Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the Union, so the difference between Kerry and his constituents on Medicare for All is possibly the highest in the country.
It also occurs to me that if we cannot elect loyal politicians in Massachusetts, then we probably cannot expect to elect loyal politicians anywhere. That is what makes this situation so extraordinarily frustrating!
In my view, if Kerry does not turn completely around and not only pledge to support single payer, but actually cosponsor the Sanders single payer bill in the same way that most of his state's representatives have cosponsored HR 676 in the House, then we need a repeat of the Ed O'Reilly campaign in 2014.
Let's wrap up this diary with a more immediate suggestion: support Mike Capuano for Senate in 2010. He is probably the only single payer supporter in the Massachusetts special election, though I cannot find explicit information for any of the other candidates. He was apparently trailing badly according to Rasmussen earlier this month, but at that point he had not even announced his candidacy and several competitors have since declined to enter the race. If we cannot successfully elect a single payer supporter in Massachusetts, in a Senate election with no incumbent, then prospects for change are dim indeed. I will most definitely be writing more about this election in the future because I feel it is a kind of "last stand" against the domination of corporate America in politics on this issue. | |
Write to your congresspeople about HR 676, S. 703 and the Weiner and Kucinich amendments!