Yesterday, the crotchety limitations of American legislative procedures once again came into relief, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled his tactical resolution of the current brouhaha, which is to say, no real resolution at all. He'll seek the killing of House Democrats' $2,000 checks by combining them in a bill authorizing a commission to investigate nonexistent 2020 election fraud and the removal of liability protection from social media outlets. The latter two measures would cleanly annihilate the former's passage, since Senate Democrats would never accede to them.
The underlying wisdom of cutting such checks is, however, questioned even by some libs and progs. For example the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell objects that "the biggest problem with the U.S. fiscal response so far is not the overall amount of aid nor the generosity of our nearly universal stimulus checks; it’s how inefficiently many of those dollars have been allocated. And expanding direct stimulus payments … would only make this problem worse…. These funds come at the expense of more targeted relief measures — such as expanded unemployment benefits," which "is not a terribly efficient use of resources."
Progressives William Barber II and Liz Theoharis, co-chairs of the Poor People’s Campaign, implicitly agree with the liberal Rampell. In their Christmas Day, NYT op-ed, which I commented on here, they specifically advocated "immediate relief targeted to the Black, Native, poor and low-income communities that have suffered most from Covid-19" — not two grand in cash going to six-figure earners.
And here's my larger point. Liberals and progressives rarely disagree on major policy objectives. Where they clash is on the almost instant legislative feasibility of enacting those policies.
Returning to Barber and Theoharis, they say that in addition to "immediate relief" for poor communities, once we somehow cancel Republicans' assorted voter suppressions we must also immediately guarantee "every American access to quality health care, a $15 minimum wage, the right to form and join a union, and access to affordable housing,… [plus] begin a federal jobs program, forgive student loans, honor the sovereignty claims of Indigenous tribes, secure quality public education for all and pass meaningful immigration reform."
Just like that.
Offhand, I can think of no liberal Democrats — that is, center-lefties — who oppose Barber and Theoharis' social advancements. Carry on, they say. What liberals do point out, however, is that vast leaps into a kind of progressive utopia are just not achievable — certainly not under the constitutional and congressional mechanisms of legislative pluralism and the many opportunities they allow for obstruction, such as what McConnell is doing to those relief checks, wisely conceived or not.
Thus I'm rather perplexed as to why progressives are forever belittling center-lefties who steadfastly agree with them on the aims of sociopolitical progress, but who merely, logically and sensibly add that we can't have it all tomorrow. Progressives further argue that liberals lack the will to power — an old bugaboo ominously tainted by far-right fulfillments — which casually dismisses its cement roadblocks entrenched in the U.S. Constitution.
My perplexity diminishes when I recall NYT columnist Tom Wicker's observation of Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential stumping. "The big trouble with the so-called liberal today," insisted the senator, "is that he doesn't understand simplicity," adding, "those who don't have … courage want complicated answers." Noted Wicker: Goldwater spake like a "child..., with a child's directness and lack of complexity."
What still befuddles, though, is why any adult would want to join Goldwater's childlike, anti-intellectual ranks.