I argued in a couple earlier posts that Democrats are most likely to nominate a progressive candidate this election cycle, which is the opposite of what they need to take on Trump. This has nothing to do with their arguments and everything to do with math. If you tally up the support in polls for progressive candidates and “moderate” candidates, hard-left ideologues have well over half the vote. If you assume that their support will consolidate under some like-minded candidate as the primaries go on, that will be a progressive. It doesn’t help that their top “moderate” candidate is calling his campaign the “no malarkey” tour and showing early signs of senility.
Of course, Democrats don’t really have a moderate campaigning this cycle. Even Biden, who has been in Washington DC longer than I have been alive (and I am not exactly young myself) changed his position on abortion to please millennials, a fact that led to a priest in South Carolina very publicly denying him the Eucharist. Some might call Nanny Bloomberg a moderate, but he’s running on gun control. He’s also sort of beyond classification. He loves the free market, but he also loves taking money from Communist China and regulating Big Gulps. And don’t get Bloomberg started on talking about how the poor are incapable of thinking clearly about what’s best for them. He thinks you need to tax the poor into making good decisions. Both Biden and Bloomberg are opposition research goldmines.
Nancy Pelosi (incidentally, another person who is Catholic in name only) has spent most of her tenure since midterms trying to rein in the far-left wing of her party. But there’s every indication that she has accepted that they are the Democratic Party now and she’s giving up fighting them altogether.
She gave up fighting them on impeachment. She gave up trying to persuade them that the president should only be impeached with bipartisan support. She gave up trying to persuade them to come up with something more than “President Trump is a big meanie” to go with.
Well, she’s given up another fortress now too, which was trying to talk her party out of Medicare for All. You will remember when Obamacare was enacted, Democrats swore up and down and side to side that Obamacare was not designed to destroy private insurance and that fully socialized medicine was not ultimately Democrats’ goal. Well, that is so yesterday. Now Pelosi supports not saying anything that will undermine their future nominee’s platform, no matter how financially bonkers that platform is going to be. The nominee is going to be insane, so let’s all agree to be insane.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday said that the Affordable Care Act could “be a path to Medicare for All” after previously expressing dislike of the health care proposal favored by progressives.
Asked her opinion during an appearance in a CNN town hall on presidential candidates who support replacing former President Obama’s signature legislation with Medicare for All, Pelosi said, “I’m not for doing away with ObamaCare.”
She did say, however, that the 2010 bill could be improved upon.
“There are improvements that can be made once you see the implementation of legislation, so I would rather call for health care for all Americans,” she said. “As we improve the Affordable Care Act, it may lead to Medicare for All.”
The top House Democrat proposed comparing proposals to see which is the best way to go.
“Put it all on the table, see what the benefits are to the consumer, to the patient, and when you do so, then compare it to what other options are,” she said. “I think the Affordable Care Act can be a path.”
“But whatever you want to eventually have, I don’t think you should do away with the Affordable Care Act to get there,” she added.
This is a reversal from the position she took only a month ago, which was that Medicare For All was not feasible or desirable. (The cheapest estimate of the cost of Medicare for All is $32 trillion, which is multiples of the United States gross domestic product. Meh, details.)
I find these new developments fascinating. The Democratic Party went all-in on identity politics trying to defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 election. They drove their own people insane, such that they kept moving incrementally further and further to the left. And Trump egged them on in this the entire way. The Democratic Party became the party that was against whatever Trump was for, and he exploited that. They couldn’t stop jumping in the water to fight Aquaman.
I have said many times that the biggest problem Democrats have is not acknowledging that Trump is, in fact, a moderate Republican. He’s not some totalitarian nightmare. He’s not Hitler. He’s a normal industrialist with sane beliefs on the economy and trade that have been highly rewarded. But the party cannot move beyond its own caricatures and, really, they can’t move beyond the behavior of manufacturing caricatures to fight with. They truly are the party that exists only on social media, where everyone they encounter is an avatar with fake social capital to spend or destroy.
Now the party cannot produce a single moderate candidate, because any moderate candidate will be destroyed by the left’s social media mobs. So what are establishment party leaders doing? Changing their own positions to be even more extreme. It’s quite the downward spiral. And it was so avoidable too. In some alternate universe, Democrats decided to work with a moderate Republican instead of build The Resistance At All Costs mob, and they are going into this election with a normal, coherent platform that people across regions can relate to some aspect of.