The Washington Post's editorial board observes what an army of commentators has already observed: that Bernie Sanders' free college and student-debt cancellation proposals are "a formula for a massive upward redistribution of the nation’s limited resources."
It's well-nigh impossible to dispute WaPo's assessment. "The top 25 percent [in earnings] owe 34 percent of the money," writes the board. "People with graduate and professional degrees — usually high earners — accounted for 26 percent of borrowers but 48 percent of debt." Furthermore, the Urban Institute, notes the Post, estimates that "less than 8 percent of the benefit would go to those with household incomes of less than $35,000 a year."
Thus Sanders the democratic socialist is, ironically, catering to America's well off. "In short," says the Post, he "is running on a plan to bail out doctors, lawyers and their children to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars."
The Post also argues that those hundreds of billions in government spending would come at the cost ($2.4 trillion, in fact) of, for example, poor children's pre-K schooling or higher-education financial assistance for the disadvantaged only. In economics this is known as an "opportunity cost" — an unfavorable one, as the Post and many others see it, although that particular cost comes attached to every legislative spending proposal.
The political question is, Why did Sanders double down on education spending with his debt-relief plan — and thus go too far? The answer is: He was drowning in Democrats' progressive pool of proposals, most notably Elizabeth Warren's, and needed to somehow re-shine.
Related to that is this: The cause of Sanders' political undoing is another irony that doomed the Populist Party of the late 19th century: success.
For years the populists tub-thumped for progressive measures: among them, railroad regulation, a graduated income tax, and the direct election of U.S. Senators, rather than by state legislatures. Its reforms were indeed popular enough that both the Republicans' T.R. wing and Democrats' W. Wilson wing assumed the essential priorities of the Populist Party, which killed it.
Historically, such has been the function of third parties: They propose innovative ideas, the ideas become electorally popular, one (or both) of the two major parties then incorporates the ideas into its platform, and consequently the third, innovative party loses its distinctness — and dies.
That, in large part, is what Independent Sen. Sanders has done for democratic socialism, as an informal third party. He successfully has moved the party of Jefferson and Jackson to the left, and in the process, suffocated democratic socialism as a distinct movement.
Even though the Vermont senator's various proposals have a chance of congressional passage roughly equal to that of Trump's thorough reading of War and Peace, liberal Democrats should at least be thankful to Sanders for having broadened their party's ambitions, with all due politically appropriate modifications.
Idealistic third parties serve the salubrious purpose of enhancing major parties' principles and thereby invigorating their bases. Rather substantially, Warren has been possible because of her 2016 progressive predecessor. Sanders warmed up the left, and Warren is smartly exploiting his labors. (As for her being a "capitalist" and him being a "socialist"? Remember, even democratic socialists are in favor of market economies.)
As long as the Dems sell their progressive products as mainstream thinking, as an outgrowth of traditional America, their leftward thrusts and parries should be of benefit. Any outright "socialist" move, however, would bury them at the demonic hands of Donald J. Trump & Co.
That would be exactly how you do that. I have seen much speculation, including such august speculators as Paul Krugman, as to why Warren held up her hand to the question of ending private health insurers. The consensus seems to be that she needed to suck the wind from Bernie's progressive sails. And that later, if elected, she would back away from this commitment. I think they are mistaken to this degree. If she wants to be the candidate she'll need to start hedging that commitment a lot sooner.
On the plus side progressives have almost always been the incubators of progress. I don't think anyone knows the ratio of good ones to loopy ones when it comes to policy. It seems to vary. But when the time is ripe and the public is ready for a good one then the progressives have the joy of watching more centrist politicians swoop in and steal their thunder. And all those poor progressives can do is stand there and say "you Centrist Bastards, here we go again!"
Posted by: Peter G | June 27, 2019 at 02:07 PM
Yes Peter, the progressives may steal an idea here and there but they can't embrace the whole programme because it can't be funded. Bernie Sanders is a match for Jeremy Corbyn...they seek utopia and ignore reality at their peril. As we have just found out in Australia, you can suggest great stuff which will enable funding for schools, hospitals and mental health services..and most people say that it sounds great. All the polls told them that Labor would romp home. It didn't happen because all those nice people who're comfortably well-off would like all this stuff to happen by magic, but they don't wish to pay for it.
Posted by: Mary | June 28, 2019 at 12:32 AM