Essentially the same question as I asked conservatives (and inspired by this essay): which policy options are simply off the table because they are perceived as too far to the left?
I guess I'll leave it to everyone to define for themselves what "off the table" means. I certainly wouldn't include anything that had serious support from Democrats in Congress. If this is a serious issue, it has to be, I'd say, not just about things that lose (such as card check, or the public option on health care), but about policies that are thought to be not reasonable for respectable people to hold. In my opinion, and feel free to disagree if you think I'm wrong, that also excludes single-payer health care. Numerous Democratic politicians (and, since it's relevant here, liberal bloggers) have expressed support for a single-payer system while choosing to work to pass and now support the ACA, based on an explicitly stated judgment that single-payer didn't have the votes. But as I said, if you disagree, make your case. And, other than health care, what else?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
A trans inclusive ENDA, DOMA Repeal, Federal Mental Health Funding, Repealing the Hyde Amendment, and blowing up the Farm Bill--in private, almost everyone hates it, but no one will lift a hand against it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I'd know about an idea if it's too far left to be on the radar.
ReplyDeleteThat said, there's a contingent on the left that talks about completely cutting off aid to Israel...that never gets mentioned outside of Berkeley or Madison.
You could insert any generic "nationalize X industry" in here, as these are only ever mentioned in the fevered dreams of Glenn Beck.
I have to toss in some kind of enviro thing, so why don't we make it drastic: no more road building, only mass transit building.
Socially, the left really doesn't go off the reservation. Gay marriage, ERA, abortion...the left is close enough to the center of the conversation on social issues that I think there aren't any pipe dreams there.
Finally, you could toss in something utterly ridiculous: an end to currency and everything being done in a commune-like environment.
Again, I'm pretty much having to make things up. I'm not sure how I'd know what exists off the table.
How about the idea that the DOD budget ought to be cut drastically, not just trimmed at the margins? I haven't dug into all of the credible Congressional proposals, but Barney Frank's proposal that didn't go anywhere would have, at most, given us U.S. defense outlays representing 35% of global total and a combined NATO budget 4 times as big as Russia's and China's combined.
ReplyDeleteRepealing the Hyde Amendment, definitely. I'd add a constitutional amendment to repeal or reform the Second Amendment, also -- the notion that it's some fundamental, first-principles right to own a pistol seems ridiculous.
ReplyDelete(instead of nearly 50% and more than 5 times, I should have noted)
ReplyDeleteComedy answer: dekulakization.
ReplyDeleteSerious answer: pretty much everything actually worth pursuing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell my first shot had health care at the top, teaches me to read in full. I would say amnesty for all immigrants stands as a big liberal issue, even though economically speaking it sits at the more right end of the spectrum. Another one would have to be welfare reform, getting rid of job/marital requirements in TANF and drastically increasing the federal poverty line seem impossible to discuss.
ReplyDeleteOne area of leftish opinion that remains consistently unpopular is civil liberties. Of course, it isn't only the left that cares about this; many right-wing libertarians do as well. One unfortunate lesson the Dems drew from Dukakis's defeat in 1988 was never to nominate a civil libertarian again. On the contrary, it seems that every major Democratic candidate for president must emphasize his or her toughness on crime and terrorism, and even with the pushback against Bush's policies on detention and wiretapping, it wasn't long before Obama surrendered.
ReplyDeleteThe essay struck me as nostalgic for a time in american politics that no one should be nostalgic for. He also seems to have fallen into the trap of thinking (in, say 2006) that all those people united in hating Bush were united in agreeing with him about everything else. And I would point out that we do have a socialist senator - but Bernie probably wouldn't describe socialism the same way the author of the essay does.
ReplyDeleteThe Overton window has moved to the right on some issues (economic structure, for example) and to the left on lots of others.
And you've turned it into a trick question (I can't name a "sane" issue that is truly outside the an Overton window that you control), so I'll pass. :-)
I'm a little confused by the question, but I think Chris has the right answer - it's rather shocking, especially given the costs and exhaustion of recent wars, that large cuts to military spending are broadly seen as illegitimate proposals.
ReplyDeleteI like the Hyde Amndt. answer too, but I think relatively more people would be willing to "put that on the table" (though it's still a smaller number of people than one would think).
I would say it's gun control. A Constitutional amendment that recognizes how much more dangerous firearms have become since the 18th Century seems like a good idea, but the culture in this country, and the power of the NRA, is such that nobody who wanted to be taken seriously would suggest it.
ReplyDeleteNah, see, I think single-payer is the best example of what you're talking about here. I mean, I know there's ideas that are further to the left, but they've been turned into so few concrete proposals, and have so few serious advocates that, I dunno, why bother? I can scarcely name any that, at least SOME time in the last few years weren't seriously put on the table.
ReplyDeleteBut single-payer seems tailor-made for this discussion; you've got a lot of politicians who admit it's their "Perfect World" solution- including the President!- but all of them admit that they don't pursue it right now because of politics. That's not like immigration or labor, that gets all the way to the bill-writing stage before getting pulled, and it's not like- jeez, this is tough...Kucinich's Department of Peace?- that only one person really advocates, and is never even seriously explained. Single-payer is right in that sweet spot, where there's a viable proposal out there, but it's not seriously considered JUST because it's considered too far left.
I think nationalization of the banks was the same way, at least in early 2009. I think even Krugman or Stiglitz or someone put out a plan for "quick-and-dirty" nationalization, but I don't think the White House or Congress devoted any time to it.
Tactically, primary challenging moderate Democrats is seen as off-the-respectable-table for those on the left but (perhaps) not so for those on the Right.
ReplyDeleteReforming the damage from the Telecommunications Act, public option on health care, reinstating Glass-Steagall
ReplyDelete1) Real action on climate change. I have no sense that anyone in the blogosphere or in politics is willing to discuss taking real action to limit carbon emissions. On the right we get militant action against even the idea of taking action. On the left we get hand wringing and "oh, it would be so nice if we were to do something." No one suggests actually not building more coal fired power plants while significantly ramping up solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal production. Much less anything like seriously looking into harnessing power from ocean tides or something like that. An Apollo like commitment would be necessary (probably bigger than that) and I have no expectation it will even be discussed, much less happen.
ReplyDelete2) Transforming our transportation infrastructure. Our model of distributed internal combustion powered vehicles can't last more than another hundred years or so, and perhaps even less time than that, but we show no signs of moving towards something that could, like trains. Just getting commuter oriented light rail is a major effort in any metropolitan area. The idea of expanding it so that cars would be unnecessary is not even discussed outside of the letters section of alternative weeklies. The fact that we move all our freight by truck rather than by rail is essentially absurd, but the unfair restrictions put onto Amtrak, along with the shoddy management of it, essentially moved rail out of the area of reasonable discussion.
3) I agree with others about the Farm bill. Pretty much everyone knows it is disasterous, and pretty much no one will discuss it in polite company.
4) I also agree about gun control. The repeal amendment is getting non-sneering attention. Could you imagine that of a repeal the second amendment movement? (I will note of course that the reason this doesn't get any play is that the Dems have learned it is a true political loser)
I agree with all the posters above but I'd like to add increased public transportation and other sustainable development issues. There is broad agreement among liberals and leftists concerned about these issues, that America needs a lot more intra-city and inter-city public transportation in order to ween Americans off car culture, which is seen as undesirable for various reasons. There isn't a lot being done to build more light rail, commuter rail, and high speed rail systems though.
ReplyDelete"Tactically, primary challenging moderate Democrats is seen as off-the-respectable-table for those on the left"
ReplyDeleteI think Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Blanche Lincoln- and hell, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore- would challenge that assertion (to say nothing of non-incumbents/quasi-incumbents like John Morrison in MT, Jim Langevin in RI, and Paul Hackett in OH). And if you think it's trend that's run it's course, I'd ask you to keep your eye on CT for the next two years...
Jon, I think your question backfired - no offense to everyone else, but I don't think most of these responses are full of policy ideas that, instead of being too far left for mainstream sensibilities, are just mainstream liberal ideas that don't have the votes to pass. Most mainstream pro-choice liberals are comfortable talking about repealing the Hyde Amendment, and most progressives openly support ending the Farm bill (which would actually be a free market conservative/liberatarian policy, theoretically), so you could put those in the same category as single payer health care. Same goes for mass transit investment, cutting defense spending, and banking reform. And what liberal doesn't support gun control? Gun control is a prerequisite for Intro-to-Liberalism 101 (even though JCordes' mention of repealing the 2nd amendment is pretty radical). Maybe I'm misinterpreting your question here, Jon, but what I thought was your intent was to probe where there's a disconnect between the mainstream (DeBoer's "Neo-") liberal and a more radical leftist. Quite frankly, I think you got a lot of mainstream ideas that are just unrealistic in a 60-vote Senate. But maybe that was the crux of the essay - that even mainstream ideas are attacked as too far left.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the mentions of climate control and environmentalism; I think that's one topic where there's a clear "mainstream-to-radical" spectrum of ideas in the blogosphere, from cap and trade/carbon tax (mainstream) to more deep ecological movements (radical).
I also liked Matt Jarvis' mention of those who advocate cutting off Israel, which is pretty non-mainstream. But are they taken seriously by academics at all, or are they thought of as kooks?
Lots of good answers here already, so some of mine overlap. Anything resembling a WPA/CCC effort to reduce unemployment. Nationalizing the health care delivery system. Requiring closed union shops for direct or indirect receipt of federal funds. A return to pre-1980 (much less 1950s) top marginal income tax rates. Aggressive national gun control (just short of violating Scalia's ruling). Oh, and renaming Reagan National Airport.
ReplyDeleteElectoral reform, potentially along the lines of Australia's compulsory voting system. Heck let's just go ahead and start chatting about getting rid of the Senate while we're at it.
ReplyDeleteMaking the Senate work by majority rule. Even Bernstein himself dismisses it out of hand for unclear reasons and reducing the number of votes for cloture (even to something like 55) amazingly isn't even being considered as part of the rules changes.
ReplyDeleteMost of what I see listed above falls into the same class as single-payer health care - ideas that are actively discussed in the liberal blogosphere, but are 'off the table' for purely electoral reasons.
ReplyDeleteMy response to the linked essay would be to ask what 'left' even means anymore? Does anyone even in European socialist parties talk about ownership of the means of production? There is quite a bit of sentiment for restraining capitalism in various ways, but for replacing it?
Peace.
ReplyDelete