Oregon Democrats are Virtue Signaling. The proposed amendment is "primarily aspirational."
They are trying to move the goalposts on what is considered reasonable and possible.
Democrats are sending a message to their left flank They are doing competitive signaling of moral virtue to communicate that the Democratic brand is consistent with the vanguard of the progressive movement. Look at how good we are!
The good is the enemy of the perfect. We see virtue signaling within political cohorts, particularly those at the vanguard of change, who jostle to greater extremes to prove the purity of their views and to stay on the vanguard.
 |
| NRA--Staying on the vanguard |
There is strong pressure for moving to the extremes because the edge of the thinkable goes on the table the moment it is voiced and a vanguard must include the thinkable.
The Democratic Party in Oregon--and nationally--has a problem. The progressive left flank in American politics, energized by Bernie Sanders, does not trust Democrats. A national party needs to be a coalition of multiple, somewhat contradictory interests. Parties are a big tent. They cannot be too pure or narrow. But a progressive vanguard has a point of view. They want to move the edge of the possible, not consolidate the muddle in the middle.
Democrats need the progressive left within their coalition because without them they lose their majority, witness 2000 and 2016.
Democrats need the progressive left within their coalition because without them they lose their majority, witness 2000 and 2016.
Virtue signaling. In the Oregon House of Representatives Democrats passed, unanimously among Democrats, a resolution to put on the ballot a constitutional amendment to declare medically appropriate health care a cost effective, affordable right for every resident of the state. It is a statement to the progressive left saying we really do want single payer health care, just like Bernie did, and you can trust us. Tina Kotek, Democratic Speaker of the House, called it "primarily aspirational."
Democrats are hoping to move the goalposts of the politically possible. The "window of discourse," described by political scientist Joseph Overton, is the range of plausibility and acceptability of policies: Unthinkable, Radical, Acceptable, Sensible, Popular, Policy.
 |
| Established representative democracy. |
That is what pressure groups do: think the unthinkable and claim it to be sensible. Democrats are moving the idea up the "Overton Window" from crazy to bold to reasonable on the way to policy.
There is a hazard here. They might win.
Democrats are taking steps to putting a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot. It may look good to voters, and they might vote their instinct and impressions. If it makes its way to the ballot it will establish a frame that could be dangerous for Democrats: Careless Democrats vs. Prudent Republicans. Or it might win. This could be very, very expensive.
Democrats are taking steps to putting a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot. It may look good to voters, and they might vote their instinct and impressions. If it makes its way to the ballot it will establish a frame that could be dangerous for Democrats: Careless Democrats vs. Prudent Republicans. Or it might win. This could be very, very expensive.
 |
| Alan DeBoer |
DeBoer: "Just politics. Just for show." Incumbent State Senator Alan DeBoer said he thought this was just taken for show. He thought it might just die in the Senate.
He said Democrats are just looking for something to put on the ballot that will place Democrats as "good guys" concerned about health care and Republicans as stinkers who want people to die.
He thought it might work as show business--so long as it was certain to fail--but it was another example of what disappointed him about life in Salem.
He thought it might work as show business--so long as it was certain to fail--but it was another example of what disappointed him about life in Salem.
His view is that it would be a disaster as actual policy, opening up the state to lawsuits from medical tourists demanding whatever medical science might devise. It would gobble up resources for every other task of the state, he said, and "destroy education." He said it would make plaintiff lawyers like Guest Post writer Thad Guyer a whole lot of money.
He repeated the statement he made earlier to the press: "It'l break the state."
1 comment:
I think your characterization of the proposed proposition is inaccurate. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, which was enacted shortly after WWII, included health care, and large numbers of nations regard universal access to health care as a primary public obligation, akin to universal public education. The latter has been a staple of US life for almost a century. The opposition to universal public health has been fostered by self-serving interests. Despite their long success in stigmatizing it as "socialized medicine," the majority of Americans favor single payer, which is what the proposition in effect demands. It is a short step from Medicare to Medicare for Everyone.
I wonder why something as mainstream as single payer strikes you as a scheme of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. I think you are hung up on "defending" the party from anything that sounds progressive because you think that progressives are to blame for the party's recent electoral losses. That is a basso continuo in your blog. Your overall analysis is probably wrong, I think, but in the case of single payer, I'm almost certain it is.
Regarding the overall analysis, you might consider why is it that the Republican Party, which has become less and less the broad tent you say a major party must be, has succeeded in recent elections?
Post a Comment