2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDegrees Of Progressive
Now that the primary looks to be all but settled, our attention needs to turn to reminding ourselves that we are more similar than we are different. The first step in that process is to remember that we all consider ourselves progressives. Just because someone isn't as far to the left as you are doesn't mean they are really a Republican, nor does it mean that they don't want to make the same progress you do.
When it comes to health care, we all want to work to universal coverage. Bernie proposes single-payer, while Hillary wants to expand the ACA to continue to build until we have full coverage. They are both progressive positions.
When it comes to education, Bernie wants to make college free, while Hillary wants to limit or eliminate the need to take out large debt to go. They are both progressive positions.
When it comes to taxes, Bernie has proposed increases for everyone, with massive increases for the rich, while Hillary has proposed a smaller tax increase focused solely on the more affluent. They are both progressive positions.
When it comes to the minimum wage, Bernie wants to go to $15 everywhere, while Hillary wants to go to $12 in some areas and $15 in others. They are both progressive positions.
We can go on and on with these examples, but the point is this; when you contrast this with a Republican party that wants to stall if not eliminate the minimum wage, that wants to repeal the ACA, that wants to reduce grants and loans to make college affordable, and that wants to slash taxes so the wealthy can pay next to nothing, it's an insult to compare anyone in our party to that level of human squalor.
If you are on the far, far left, that's great. We share the same ideals, but differ on how far we're willing to jump at once to get there. That doesn't make anyone a conservative. We are different degrees of progressive, which is exactly what these primaries are supposed to sort out.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Also the way she spoke on it did not come across that she would fight as hard as Sanders, who would likely speak on it at every WH press conference until it passes or its 2024.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are doing. Plus Sanders proposal is like $15 in 6 years or so. That's close to $12 in today's money.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Assuming Clinton fights for it? I fear Clinton would make one proposal and congress would quietly can it, not even vote. Then she would never say anything about it again for 8 years.
Sanders would be relentless for years until congressmen lost their seats over it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)He'd make a big show, his supporters will cheer, and the minimum wage will still be less than $8/hr.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Change takes time and hard work.
Yes congress would have to be shaken up. It will be easier with a strong leader at the helm.
%63 of Americans support $15
%82 Support automatic adjustments
If congress people do not support this then they need to lose their jobs like the case above.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Look at upstate eastern NY/western New England for example.
Local living costs are "officially" low and would seem to justify lower minimum wage. But in reality, tourism, vacation homes, migration of affluent city residents, etc. have pushed real costs of housing and living beyond the means of many people who have lived there all their lives.
Variations of that in rural areas, suburbs and inner cities all over then country.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)Is this where the salesmanship for dilution of progressive ideals so that HRC is more palatable is made?
Is this where it all starts?
My oh my... this should be hilarious
Please, continue with trying to make conservative light HRC candidate palatable to progressives, please...
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)That means Sanders position on this issue is actually centrist, not far left.
Most(all?) of Sanders' positions poll in the middle(i.e. left of Clinton)
Svafa
(594 posts)...oh wait. 
jamese777
(546 posts)is largely dependent on the make up of Congress and the Supreme Court. Has Barack Obama implemented a progressive agenda? I would say no, primarily because progressive policy initiatives were dead on arrival in the John Boehner controlled House and the Republicans' cloture-proof Senate plus a five-four conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)I have no problem with "moderates" if they're truly liberal and progressive and rowing in the same direction. I actually consider myself to be a moderate. But when moderate means conservative, and enabling excessive concentrations of wealth and power...That means we're rowing in different directions.
Healthcare for example. A lot of us believe there HAS to be a universally available and affordable (sliding scale) public coverage. It is immoral and ineffective to force people to be at the whims of private insurers. The specifics can be negotiated. It might take different forms, either total single payer, or as a universally available public option in a mixed system. But the freeing from tyranny of private insurance is something that can be compromised on if you want to call yourself a progressive.
Big banks need to be divested and made into smaller banks for many reasons, not just "systemic risk." They just have too much of the economy in their vaults, and far too much influence on the economy and political system.
Federal minimum wage.....You have to shoot for $15, even if compromise ends up at $12.....But $15 is the minimum one needs now in reality.....And you have to factor inflation in. By the time $12 or $15 would kick in, a carton of milk that now costs $3.50 will probably cost at least $5......Also remember that gentrification makes the geographic argument moot. People in "low cost" areas are getting driven out by the influence of vacation homes, neighborhood gentrification and otehr factors beyond specific local circumstance.....
JudyM
(29,236 posts)self-enrich!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Looking at health care, the Democratic approach, exemplified by the ACA, or Obamacare, has been an incremental approach that some day might cover everyone. Note the qualifier might.
But the thing to note is that this approach guarantees massive profits as well as massive government subsidies for the healthcare industry and its 1% owners.
A far better approach, truly progressive approach, would be the single payer approach that has been proven to work better than the US market oriented approach. Clinton's incrementalist approach is no better than Obama's incrementalist approach. Call it political realism, or the way we do things in the US, but it is not progressive.
As to the minimum wage, a true progressive approach would be to call for a living wage, not a $12 wage that is nowhere near a living wage.
