As readers of this blog - all 25 of them - know all too well, I am what you call a pragmatic progressive. No, that isn't an oxymoron, like friendly fire or military intelligence. There actually are people like me who want a progressive future for the country, but also realize that sometimes you have to settle for what you can get.
For instance, you may not believe it, but I want a European-style healthcare system in this country that caters to human beings instead of the bean counters at Blue Cross and Aetna; I want an economy that produces millions of jobs in renewable energy instead of the same fossil fuel industry that is slowly destroying the planet; and I want a living wage for American workers instead of subsidies for companies that deliberately depress workers salaries.
For me, it comes down to how best to achieve those results. For the Left, the answer is simple. Only bold initiatives will work. But bold initiatives, while attractive to the base, more often than not, are politically unviable. The headwinds are simply too strong.
Take healthcare, for instance. Progressives wanted Medicare for All in 2009. But even with overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, the best Democrats could do was a hybrid law that left millions of Americans uncovered and without access to affordable health insurance. Though imperfect, it was a step in the right direction. Incremental progress, however distasteful it may be to progressives, is still better than no progress at all.
Which brings us to the current issue at hand: infrastructure. After a contentious last few days in which a handful of moderate Democrats threatened to withhold their support for a $3.5 trillion budget resolution unless Nancy Pelosi agreed to allow a vote on the $1 trillion Senate bipartisan infrastructure bill, a deal was struck that gave progressives the vote they wanted on the resolution while setting a hard date of September 27 to vote on the bipartisan bill.
But while the compromise was seen as a victory for moderates, Pelosi is not out of the woods just yet. That's because everything hinges on House Democrats being able to convert the budget resolution into a bill that first passes the House and then passes the Senate BEFORE the House takes up the bipartisan bill. In other words, both bills are still coupled together, which means we're right back where we started.
Let me be clear here. There is only one actual bill. The $3.5 trillion budget resolutions that passed both chambers along party lines are not bills. They're frameworks only. It's analogous to setting aside $50 thousand for a kitchen remodel. You know what your budget is; now the fun part begins. You have to go out and choose the cabinets, countertops and appliances, and then find a contractor to install it all.
On the other hand, the $1 trillion Senate infrastructure bill - the one that got 19 Republican votes - IS an actual bill. We know what's in it, we know how it's going to be paid for and, more importantly, once it passes the House, it can be signed into law by President Biden. There is simply no excuse for holding it up. None.
There's an old saying: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Allowing a bill to languish for weeks while progressives attempt to push through a bigger one is the definition of political malpractice. So many things can go wrong. Let's start with the obvious. Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and Pelosi are all in their 80s. With a pandemic still raging in the country, it's not inconceivable that the slim majority Democrats have in both houses could be wiped out by just a handful of catastrophic illnesses.
This is the sort of reckless move Pelosi is known for not making. As Speaker in 2010, she willed her caucus to pass a watered down version of a Senate healthcare bill that did not have a public option. She knew that any amendments to the bill would kill it, along with any hope of passing meaningful healthcare reform for the foreseeable future. So she convinced progressives to bite down hard and swallow. That resolve led to the Affordable Care Act, and eleven years later, it stands as one of the most consequential pieces of legislation since Medicare.
Pelosi needs to harness that resolve once again. She can not allow progressives in her caucus to sabotage not only Biden's agenda but the party's prospects in the midterms in the naive belief that somehow Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema will reverse course and vote for the most ambitious piece of legislation since the New Deal. They're not going to. The fact is both are centrists, and nothing - not even the threat of a primary challenge - is going to intimidate them. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade and move on.
It is imperative that Pelosi bring the bipartisan Senate bill to the floor now. Assuming all 28 Republicans in the Problem Solvers Caucus vote yes - and I know that's a big if - Pelosi could afford to lose up to 30 members of her caucus and still get the bill through. It's a gamble, I know, but it's better than waiting a month for an outcome that only an incurable optimist thinks is possible and only a fool would wager any money on.
Look, every NFL team wants to score a touchdown when they're in the red zone. The best teams usually do. But when it's fourth down and long they kick a field goal. Why? Because three points is better than no points, and coming away with no points is unacceptable. Bottom line, you take what the defense gives you. Period.
It's high time the Democratic Party got that through their heads.
P.S., In addition to agreeing to hold a vote on the bipartisan Senate bill, Pelosi also agreed that the House will not pass any bill that cannot get all 50 Democratic senators to vote yes. But that could be more problematic for the Speaker as progressives may hold off support for the bipartisan bill as leverage against moderates. The plot thickens.
Comments