...or, How Are You Supposed To Fight the Establishment If It Fights Back?
The Editorial Board at the Washington Post has a few things to say about the campaign of Bernie Sanders:
SEN. BERNIE Sanders (I-Vt.) is leading in New Hampshire and within striking distance in Iowa, in large part because he is playing the role of uncorrupted anti-establishment crusader. But Mr. Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it.
They take issue with Bernie’s analysis on the Bad GuysTM:
Mr. Sanders’s tale starts with the bad guys: Wall Street and corporate money. The existence of large banks and lax campaign finance laws explains why working Americans are not thriving, he says, and why the progressive agenda has not advanced. Here is a reality check: Wall Street has already undergone a round of reform, significantly reducing the risks big banks pose to the financial system. The evolution and structure of the world economy, not mere corporate deck-stacking, explained many of the big economic challenges the country still faces. And even with radical campaign finance reform, many Americans and their representatives would still oppose the Sanders agenda.
They are saying that the story is not just the Banksters and Everybody Else; there’s also the fact that the world has changed a lot, and continues to change, and also that Bernie’s views on this far from a uniformly-held consensus across the whole country. I have a lot of Republicans in my family, and they sure don’t see things this way.
I agree that the point about Wall Street already having undergone a round of reform is silly. Dodd-Frank was just a beginning (hurray for the CFPB, or do we hate that now too?). Much more action is needed on that front. Both Bernie and Hillary have plans to do this, the merits of which are open to debate, but that’s not the issue here.
They they register the skepticism that has been expressed many times before by now about Bernie’s plans for single-payer:
Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want.
This, I think, is correct, and my biggest beef with the campaign to date. It’s one thing to think big, but it’s another thing to expose the fact that you have failed to engage with any of the very real complexities of such a plan, as I think this has the potential to damage the brand that Obama has been building for eight years now, one that encompasses both aspiration and competence. I also agree that Sanders has yet to be real about the fact that he is talking about cutting doctors’ pay, many of whom shoulder several hundred thousand dollars in student debt and are in some cases killing themselves over it. I am not saying that many doctors aren’t overpaid; they most certainly are. But if cutting the pay of doctors is going to be necessary, and it is, no two ways about it (doctors on Medicare are paid substantially less than doctors reimbursed through private insurance, some refuse to accept it for that reason), then you have to let people know that that is what you are proposing.
And he doesn’t talk about the whole rationing thing, which European countries do:
He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.
Then there’s his leaning on voodoo economics:
Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending “will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation.” This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves — and is equally fanciful.
Then there’s the whole millions-of-people-rising-up-to-make-mean-faces-at-politicians thing:
Mr. Sanders tops off his narrative with a deus ex machina: He assures Democrats concerned about the political obstacles in the way of his agenda that he will lead a “political revolution” that will help him clear the capital of corruption and influence-peddling. This self-regarding analysis implies a national consensus favoring his agenda when there is none and ignores the many legitimate checks and balances in the political system that he cannot wish away.
And then there’s the fact that Sanders is expertly playing to his audience of white liberals in Iowa and New England:
Mr. Sanders is a lot like many other politicians. Strong ideological preferences guide his thinking, except when politics does, as it has on gun control. When reality is ideologically or politically inconvenient, he and his campaign talk around it. Mr. Sanders’s success so far does not show that the country is ready for a political revolution. It merely proves that many progressives like being told everything they want to hear.
This diary has been a public service. If you are a Sanders supporter, I am sure you want to know what arguments are being made by the Editorial Boards of major newspapers like the Washington Post, so that you can think about how to counter them. Or maybe you don’t give a shit about what newspapers say, because they are the Establishment and Just Don’t Get It.
In any case, I’m sure that many of you will have very vehement feelings about what the Washington Post Editorial Board has said here, and will want to express those feelings in the comments below. Feel free to do so. I won’t necessarily be engaging with all of you about all of these feelings, but I am sure there are others in the community who will be happy to do so. Or you may want to let the Washington Post Editorial Board know your thoughts and feelings about their assessment of Senator Sanders’ campaign.
