Can we call these presentations debates when there's such substantial agreement on the important issues: climate change, immigration reform, single-payer healthcare? On July 30 some candidates want to proceed quickly --especially in combatting climate change -- others want to proceed more slowly, in stages, some even advocating constitutional amendments to correct some of the more absurd Supreme Court decisions. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are the energetic elders, while Beto O'Rourke and Pete Buttigieg are youthful insurgents. The other potential candidates are more cautious because, apparently, they think caution necessary in order to win. Pete Buttigieg correctly says they will be called "socialists" no matter what they advocate; the only question in my mind is whether the fear of socialism can be stoked by name-calling in a population that seems quite comfortable with social security, Medicare and public schools.
In the July 31 debate it was Biden versus the crowd. Everyone had a gimmick of one kind or another: Biden wanted to build on what Obama had done, Yang wanted to give everyone $1000 a month (shades of Upton Sinclair), Inslee wanted to focus on climate change, Gillibrand on women's issues, Bennet on segregated schools, Gabbard (the only veteran on the stage) wants to stop the endless wars, De Blasio wants to "tax the hell out of the rich," Harris wants to stop predators (especially the one in the White House) as she did in California , Booker and Castro want to stop divisiveness Generally there was little disagreement about issues such as healthcare and immigration, with different plans for getting to single-payer healthcare and citizenship for immigrants. Biden stumbled a bit in defending his votes in the Senate and his role in the Obama administration while no one in the second debate offered the compelling progressive alternative that Sanders and Warren did in the first.
No comments:
Post a Comment