2020 Elections A Battle Of “isms”
This week’s Courier Herald column. Note, it’s a rare foray into National Politics here, as I’ve been mostly traveling the last two weeks and have let my usual State/Policy focus take a much needed mental break.
While it seems ridiculously early, the 2020 Presidential race is taking shape. That shape on the Democratic side is that of an amoeba, with about 20 candidates officially announcing thus far and perhaps more to come. On the Republican side, President Trump has consolidated support among most Republicans while former Massachusetts Governor William Weld is perhaps an answer to a question that no one is asking. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is still considering making it interesting with an independent run.
It’s far too early to handicap this race. A year from now, the candidates could all be different. It’s not too early to discuss some of the overall trends in our voting electorate that is rapidly changing as both major parties continue realignment.
Perhaps the biggest unlearned lesson from the 2016 election is that the American public has rejected the status quo of politics. This isn’t a Republican or Democratic base position, but one of the public against the establishment.
The nomination of Donald Trump to “drain the swamp” signified the Republican base’s rejection of the establishment and status quo. Lesser acknowledged was that Independent/Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders got roughly half the vote in Democratic primaries, leaving Democratic Super-delegates to give Hillary Clinton the nod.
In total, roughly half the country decided it wanted something radically different. Were they to unite with the single goal to dispose of “the establishment”, American politics as we know it would be toast.
Thus far, these anti-establishment groups remain radically divided in what they want to replace what we currently have. This brings us to the new “isms”, with capitalism seemingly under fire from the right and the left.
President Trump was able to bring disaffected Democratic voters to the Republican party with an appeal to populism. A focus on trade to “bring back jobs” and reinvigorate entire industries such as steel has allowed the GOP to reconnect with voters in key mid-western states.
Democrats are polishing socialism as “new and improved” Democratic Socialism in an all-out effort to appeal to those who like things “free”. From “Medicare for All” to “free” college tuition with elimination of current student loans, there seems to be nothing that Democrats aren’t willing to offer Americans on the promise that “the rich” will pay for it.
The perverse nature of the Democrats plan is that the underlying premise is that they would close the gap on income inequality. The problem with most “free” welfare programs however is that they are means tested. In order to receive benefits, recipients must stay under income limits. There is a direct incentive not to earn more in order to continue to receive the benefits.
While the populists have their own intrusions and limits placed on unfettered capitalism, the underlying premise of the American economy of reward for work and investment remains largely intact. The populist’s version of income redistribution is ensuring that multi-national corporations reward labor in addition to shareholders and CEO’s.
At their root, the difference between the new populists and the new socialists is how the concept of “fairness” is defined. The socialists want equal outcomes. The populists generally lean toward equal opportunity.
This poses a great question for the next chapter for the country, and how optimistic Americans remain about our future. The optimists believe better days are still ahead, and thus want opportunity. The pessimists believe the system is impossibly rigged against them thus all basic needs must be provided and shall be taken from others as necessary.
Neither side can fully claim the high road of optimism, especially when campaign rhetoric is factored in. Scare tactics are modern politics, and that’s before bringing in the really scary discussion of a $22 trillion national debt that neither side seems to care much about paying back.
“Free” remains an easy sales pitch. Those that wish to defend capitalism – even if heavily dosed with populism – need to better articulate the value of opportunity and reward, as well as the true cost of what is offered as free. Certain freedoms likely depend on it.
About Author
Charlie
Founder of GeorgiaPol.com; Now weekly columnist Very interested in Georgia and Georginas. Interest in politics is waning daily.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Independent/Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders got roughly half the vote in Democratic primaries
Losing 55% to 43% is not getting “roughly half” of the vote.
The problem with most “free” welfare programs however is that they are means tested. In order to receive benefits, recipients must stay under income limits. There is a direct incentive not to earn more in order to continue to receive the benefits.
Except the two programs you specifically highlighted aren’t means tested.
“Medicare for All” would make every American eligible for Medicare, regardless of income. So there’s no “direct incentive not to earn more” because your income plays no role in your eligibility for the program.
As for the “free college tuition,” I’d start by noting that you’re blending two distinct ideas into one. Forgiving existing student loan debt (as Elizabeth Warren has detailed in a new policy) would be “means tested” in the sense that the level of debt forgiveness would vary based upon income level. However, there’s still no “direct incentive not to earn more” because what Warren is proposing is the retroactive absolution of existing student loan debt. I guess you could argue that doctors or lawyers with large student loan burdens could choose to quit their jobs and take on lower paying gigs in the public sector once Warren is elected in the hopes of nabbing a larger degree of debt forgiveness, but the odds of that seem remote.
The other policy proposal – debt-free public college – isn’t a “means tested” program, either (at least, depending on the proposal). The central idea, however, is to treat public colleges and universities like we treat public elementary, middle, and high schools; available to all, regardless of income. Again, there’s no “direct incentive not to earn more” because, like our public high schools tuition-free education is available to every income bracket.
I’d also throw in, as an aside, that this line of thinking assumes people want to be poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Because of my line of work, I’ve had a lot of contact with folks who are living off of Social Security disability payments or working minimum wage jobs and receiving Medicaid, food stamps, and other forms of government assistance. Not a single one of them has been proud of their station in life. Being poor isn’t a choice people make, it’s a reality they are thrust into. I would encourage anyone thinking folks are electing not to earn more money to step outside their bubbles and spend some time volunteering at food banks, homeless shelters, community health clinics, etc. Get to know the less fortunate in your communities.
At their root, the difference between the new populists and the new socialists is how the concept of “fairness” is defined. The socialists want equal outcomes. The populists generally lean toward equal opportunity.
I think this point is both lazy and inaccurate. Going back to the two programs you’ve elected to highlight: Medicare for All and debt-free college, the whole goal of both of those programs is “equal opportunity.” “Rich” parents enable their children to complete college without student loan debt. My parents aren’t even close to sniffing the tax brackets Warren has proposed taxing and they still put me (and my two younger siblings) through college without any of us having to take out a student loan. Yes, the HOPE Scholarship helped (well, for me at least, one of my younger siblings wasn’t so lucky) but even with HOPE, not everything is covered. Covering the cost of college assures everyone the same opportunity to go to school without the excess financial stress of being able to afford your tuition, books, meals, etc. and without taking on a large debt burden that has significantly higher interest rates than the current market and can’t be discharged in bankruptcy.
Wasn’t “equal opportunity” the point of the HOPE Scholarship in the first place? No matter how much your parents made or what neighborhood you grew up in, if you got the right grades, you’d get a free ride at any public college or university in the state. I don’t see a lot of the people gnashing teeth about “SOSHULIZUM” acting all that upset at their kids getting free tuition at UGA.
Debt-free college levels the playing field even more. Instead of making eligibility dependent upon grades and SAT scores – something that studies have definitively shown are easier for folks with money to game (through test prep, private tutoring, etc.) – making everyone universally eligible insures that a poor kid from Moultrie has the same access to public college as a rich kid from Marietta.
Do better.
The goal of socialism is communism. — Vladimir Lenin
Socialism is a concept that only works until you run out of other people’s money. Then the government owns and runs everything and all the proletariat are equal alright – equally poor and uneducated. If you yearn for that, Venezuela and Cuba are ready when you are.
As for Medicare, it was established as an age tested program, and so was Social Security. Americans paid premiums into both out of their paychecks for the duration of their working years, in order to have an annuity income (S/S) and prepaid basic health insurance (Medicare) when they reached 65. The reserve funds of both would have kept them strong into perpetuity. They were basically insurance products administered by the federal government and should have been held to the same reserve fund security requirements as insurance companies are. Remember Al Gore’s campaign promise to put Social Security reserves into a lock box? That was when the sluices were really opening up.
In recent decades Washington politicians have scurrilously raided those reserve funds and given away in welfare programs to any and all ages of recipients with no requirement of having paid premiums. For example, when a government disability program was established, it should have been self-funding as a program under Health & Human Services. When the feds decided to give payments to spouses regardless of age and children up to 18 of people who have previously served in the military when they died, that should have been funded out of the military monies – not civilians’ Social Security and Medicare payments. These are just a couple of ways the government has wrongfully drained money from those two self-funding programs and created the financial problems both now face.
And in the doing, the government also created this entitlement mentality among any and everybody, as if the money would just keep coming from thin air. But even Bernie Sanders now admits publicly that his “Medicare for all” would be much more expensive than today’s healthcare, and would cost Americans a lot more in taxes. Too many voters today do not understand US government and our nation’s history, nor the fact that capitalism is the system that established all the good things they now want just given to them.
The Constitution guarantees us the Right to pursue happiness — not to have it handed to us on a silver platter as a result of capitalism’s achievements.
95% of quotes on the Internet are fake. — Abraham Lincoln
Not all socialists are communists, not all socialists are Leninists, not all socialists are Maoists. “Big S” “Socialism” refers to a broad range of ideologies. Cuba and Venezuela represent different ideologies from one another. They represent starkly different ideologies from Germany, Denmark, China, or Canada.
Even here in the US we’re a little bit socialist. Medicare is “socialist.” Social Security is “socialist.” Public schools are “socialist.”
As for Medicare, it was established as an age tested program
So, by Charlie’s logic, Medicare creates a direct incentive to get older?
“Medicare for all” would be much more expensive than today’s healthcare
Except what you’re saying is a lie. We already pay for the cost of our healthcare (and other people’s healthcare) through private insurance premiums. M4A costs basically the same as our current system while providing more coverage. Here’s a summary of the data on that:
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/29/blahous-m4a-would-not-change-total-national-health-spending/
Again, for what we already spend on healthcare we can cover the 30 million Americans still without insurance and provide every American with dental, hearing, and vision coverage as well.
The Constitution guarantees us the Right to pursue happiness — not to have it handed to us on a silver platter as a result of capitalism’s achievements.
We hand out free K-12 education on a silver platter. We hand out fire departments, police forces, roads, bridges, tunnels, and waterways on silver platters. Part of living in a society entails contributing resources (i.e. taxes) for the common good. If you sincerely believe that sick people dont have a right to see a doctor, just say so.
Okay, I’ll say it.
Sick people don’t have a right to see a doctor. One who is sick may have a need to see a doctor, or a desire to see a doctor, but nobody has a right to demand to see a doctor.
And regarding what I said about “Medicare for all”, that came directly from Bernie Sanders, as indicated in my post. You took it out of context. Take up your disagreement with Mr. Sanders.
The items you listed were infrastructure items necessary for our civilized nation. Public education is actually not a necessity – but it is desirable for our society to function at a level more than that of a 2nd or 3rd world country. My parents actually paid for me to attend kindergarten. Until a couple of decades ago, only grades 1-12 were offered in our public schools. As a basic, everyone had to learn to speak, read, and write the King’s English in order to freely communicate in the public square as a cohesive nation. Math and science skills were provided, along with high school training offered for various trades and occupations. Anyone can earn a living who earns a high school diploma, and the taxpayers have done their job.
Post-secondary education is not a necessity for anyone. While it may be a desirable luxury to some people, it does not serve a public purpose as do primary and secondary education. Indeed, people who work their way through college and/or keep grades up for scholarships, learn to value cause and result of good honest work. And not everyone wants or needs to go to college – some people are much happier in a trade or skilled occupation.
It is good old American capitalism that even allows the discussion of socialism. But it’s obvious you and I are never going to be on the same page, so I will stop here. Charlie is on target with his column, and I hope you have a nice evening.
Congress actually granted a statutory right to emergency medical treatment in 1986. So, the right does exist in that manner.
So, the better question is: Should it exist on a broader level?
Because we have the power to, you know, theorize, and make our world our own.
But I’m guessing you (Sally) don’t believe that health care should be a universal human right, even if it cost $0.
And maybe you’re right. Maybe it shouldn’t be framed as an individual right, but rather as what it may truly be– a responsibility. A responsibility for individuals within a community to find a way, and do their best, to protect the safety and welfare of citizens and all that. (Note: The authority to provide for safety and health/welfare of citizens is a traditional power vested in all state governments.)
And if you don’t think that it’s incumbent on us, as a community, state, and nation, to find the best way to provide care for those in need, then that at least clarifies that the issue might be a lack of compassion. Because where there is compassion, the responsibility would be easier to realize.
But some ppl may still prefer to have our world based upon medieval power structures and cutthroat principles. Until, of course, they are the ones that need help.
So, the trick is finding the best way to provide care. One that maximizes care and minimizes costs, with all the appurtenant incentives. That’s what real public policy is all about.
Not Lenin. Because outside of a handful of undergraduate economics majors (and maybe those who use Lenin as an ideological foil) no one cares about Lenin’s vision.
Or the concept of “equal outcomes”. We Americans all know the power and diversity of individuality, and how that shakes out in terms of the jobs we do.
I think a more common vision is one that sees poverty as being a rare or transitional state, and that every American has the opportunity to achieve, and does achieve, a life with at least some basic quality. And among the basics: nutrition and health care.
btb, if it didn’t cost anything there would be no discussion about funding! Compassion is not the problem. The problem is forcing you to pay for my medical expenses, even if I cause my own illness by smoking, alcohol, junk food diet, never getting off my butt to exercise, etc. of my lifestyle choices. I should not have the government force you to let me into your pocket.
I quoted Lenin to make it clear where the chant for so-called Socialism really leads – to Communism. How ironic that the Dems screaming about Russia meddling in our elections (which that country has been doing since forever) are now promoting Russia’s political philosophies here in America for them. The social turmoil created by hatred of our current POTUS and lack of respect for the Constitutional OFFICE of president, no matter who its occupant, has Americans doing Russia’s bidding for them, while they sit back with popcorn and watch.
My big concern is What happens to government healthcare when it also has to cover the unmanageable and overwhelming flood of humanity into the US from countries all over the world? Every 2nd and 3rd world country is full of people who want to live in America, and all they have to say is “I want asylum” and come on in. We do not have endless money, and America will sink. So it’s obvious that our broken immigration system is a major factor in preventing every American from having the opportunity you describe.
Charlie, thanks for your thoughtful commentary on what is shaping up to be a struggle for the heart of America next year.
So, it’s a bit confusing when on one hand you say compassion is not the problem, but on the other hand, you claim you’re being “forced” to pay – in essence- taxes. Bc compassion would not lead to feeling forced. The payments would happen voluntarily.
So perhaps your challenge is, based upon other things you mention, that you don’t trust the policymakers to design the right incentives to maximize health care and minimize costs.
Bc the ACA, and likely every other future piece of health care law and regs, will find a way to punish or disincentivize smoking, and incentivize and reward exercise and preventive health.
Hint: It won’t work perfectly. But: It will work for many. It’s all def still a work in progress, but if you trust the process, we can realize what is essentially economically efficient compassion.
The problem is forcing you to pay for my medical expenses, even if I cause my own illness
You already do pay for my medical expenses. What do you think your insurance premiums are for?
Gosh, I don’t know how all that bolding happened just then! I gotta go to bed.