[rad-green] Jim Hightower: Moderates consistently warn that progressive ideas can't win "the middle." But just look at the polls.

*https://otherwords.org/the-irony-of-the-centrist-progressive-debate/
<https://otherwords.org/the-irony-of-the-centrist-progressive-debate/>*

*Otherwords | February 12, 2020*

[image: The Irony of The Centrist-Progressive Debate]

*Shutterstock*


The Irony of the Centrist-Progressive Debate
*Moderates consistently warn that progressive ideas can't win "the middle."
But just look at the polls.*
*By Jim Hightower <https://otherwords.org/authors/jim-hightower/>*

With dozens of Democratic candidates, scores of televised debates, and
swarms of reporters and pundits descending on the tiniest blip in polls,
this campaign already feels never-ending. But at long last, we’re beginning
what matters: Voting!

This year, in addition to decisions about candidates, voters will be making
a decision about the future of our society. The question we face is whether
we will continue the same-old politics of enriching and empowering the few
at the expense of the rest of us, or will we pivot to implement
transformative structural changes.

As you would expect, Trump and his sycophantic congress critters are
howl-at-the-moon opponents of Medicare for All, the wealth tax,
tuition-free college and trade school, the Green New Deal, universal child
care, and the full package of populist policies that would begin reversing
the scourge of inequality that continues spreading throughout our land.

But what about Democrats? Sadly, many of them are opposed, too.

Not grassroots Dems, of course — not the hard-hit, workaday people who need
these reforms. But there’s a gaggle of don’t-rock-the-corporate-boat
Democrats (mostly old-line pols, consultants, high-dollar donors, and other
Washington insiders) who are declaring that the party must abandon
proposals for big systemic changes.

Why? Because, they exclaim, being so progressive, so plainspoken, so
insistent — so, well,  *democratic* — is frightening voters.

They warn that proposing major new policies to benefit everyone will let
the Trumpeteers paint their candidates as scary socialists. They lecture
that the proper course is to draw back to the corporate-centered,
Clintonesque approach of incremental minimalism: small, technocratic and
legalistic tweaks that won’t disrupt the system itself.

This is the responsible path, they assure us, for winning over America’s
moderate middle, particularly independent Republicans and white,
middle-class swing voters. Never mind that the white middle class is *not* by
and large made up of squishy moderates, but of millions of mad-as-hell,
downwardly mobile middle classers who feel abandoned by both political
parties.

Still, the establishment is trying to push the party’s candidates to
surrender their progressive ideals and just tinker around the edges of
actual change.

For example, rather than offering full-fledged health coverage for every
man, woman, and child, these minimalists say the safe political route is
simply to criticize Republicans for tampering with Obamacare and leave the
current profiteering system of “corporate care” untouched — thus leaving
millions of our families with poor to zero coverage.

It is simply a lie that people will be scared off by candidates who propose
decent health care as a right for every American. As a December *New York
Times* poll reported, *81 percent of Democrats* (and two-thirds of
independents) support the idea of Medicare for All legislation as proposed
by Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

*Hello *— apple pie doesn’t get an approval rating that high!

Or take Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposal for a tiny wealth tax on
mega-fortunes above $50 million — a tax that would finance education,
infrastructure expansion, and other crucial programs. In the *Times* December
poll, 77 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of independents, and — check this
— 57 percent of Republicans favored Warren’s tax on superfortunes.

Thank goodness such squeamish Dems weren’t able to nullify big public
solutions that Americans desperately needed in the past, such as:

   - FDR’s Social Security, labor protections, and farm security measures,
   - Ike Eisenhower’s interstate highway infrastructure,
   - LBJ’s Civil Rights, Medicare, Title IX, and anti-poverty programs,
   - and even Nixon’s EPA and OSHA.

As a South Texas saying puts it: *“A grandes males, grandes remedios”*: for
big problems, get big solutions. Obviously, our society’s problems today —
from rampant inequality to climate change — are beyond huge. But how big
will Democrats go in addressing these challenges?

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sid-l/CACKppczW9MxFZKh6-Xo%3Dhq4vRAOwf_tvGEHnFLyJfyWOb80eUg%40mail.gmail.com.

---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>