Democratic Debate Feb. 19, 2020

The highlight of the Feb 19 debate was the stand-off between Sanders and Bloomberg, Bloomberg getting so frustrated by Sanders that he practically called Sanders a communist: "They had socialism in Russia only they called it communism."  As Sanders pointed out, we have socialism now but it is socialism for the rich.  And, of course, we have public schools and public libraries, socialism of a sort.  I think one of the reasons Sanders is doing so well is that he sticks by his positions both practically and theoretically, saying that health care is a right, while everyone else waffles on the issue, saying that millions are happy with their health insurance and we shouldn't take it away, though even if they are happy (which I doubt) they can't change jobs because they and their family need the health insurance.  Sanders continues to point out that there are thousands of bankruptcies every year due to health care costs even though those who go bankrupt have health insurance.  It is an unacceptable conflict of interest that the more insurance companies turn down routine claims the more they make in profits.

I would support any of the candidates on the stage except for Bloomberg, especially considering his contributions to the increasingly higher cost of living in New York City and his attitudes toward women and minorities.  All the candidates have positive and negative reasons why they can or can't beat Trump:  Biden stumbles, Klobuchar and Warren have to overcome misogyny (see Caroline Fraser's article in the March 12 issue of The New York Review of Books), Pete Buttigieg is relatively young and inexperienced, Sanders is a socialist, and so on.  I do think much has changed since McGovern ran against Nixon in 1972, but has it changed enough to replace a con man with a person of integrity.

State of the Union 2020

The President's state of the union address was, predictably, a dispiriting and depressing affair, full of dissembling and dubious assertions.  He also used incendiary language, referring not only to so-called "illegal aliens" but also to the horrors of public schools, which he referred to as "government" schools, presumably to demonize them compared to the private and religious schools he prefers to subsidize.  When the president lied he lied big, referring to an "ironclad" promise that he would never allow those with preexisting conditions to be denied insurance while his administration fights for exactly that in Congress and the courts, as well as fighting against providing any medical care for the uninsured.  He accuses the Democrats of planning to take away the health insurance of 180 million Americans who are "very happy" with their insurance (not true; I have never met anyone happy with their health insurance and its high deductibles, co-payments, and constant denial of benefits) while failing, of course, to mention that the replacement, a single-payer system, would be inclusive and effective.
And so it went, as a grinning Trump paused after almost every sentence to wait for applause, led by whack-a-mole popping up by vice-president Pence and the Republicans.  Ever the con man and showman the president filled the gallery with heroes, including the military and families who had members killed by immigrants, while the president bragged that he would never interfere with anyone's second amendment right to carry a gun, though some thought he went a little too far giving a medal to the homophobic and misogynistic Rush Limbaugh.

Incidentally, some have criticized me for not reporting on the last two Democratic debates, which I felt added nothing of substance that had not already been rehashed in the earlier debates.  I am hopeful that this week's debate will break some new ground, including discussion of how to encourage unions and what to do about foreign policy.  Meanwhile, on the latter subject, I recommend Jessica Mathews's article "Do the Democrats Have a Foreign Policy" in the Feb. 13th issue of The New York Review of Books and Adam Shatz's "The Death of Qasem Soleimani" and Patrick Cockburn's "Blundering into War" in the Jan. 23 London Review of Books.

Democratic Debate Nov. 20, 2019

Once again there were few differences among the candidates who made the cut; rather, it was a question of emphasis:

Tulsi Gabbard emphasized her objection to "regime-change wars."
Elizabeth Warren emphasized her wealth tax and all the things it would pay for.
Cory Booker emphasized housing and the problem of gentrification.
Amy Klobuchar emphasized her ability to win in red and purple states.
Pete Buttigieg emphasized his distance from Washington and its inability to accomplish anything.
Joe Biden emphasized his experience, especially as a member of the Obama administration.
Bernie Sanders emphasized his battle against "corporate interests."
Andrew Yang talked about his children and his proposal for family leave.
Tom Steyer continued to emphasize climate change.
Kamala Harris talked about the importance of black churches and labor unions.

With little policy differences among the candidates does it come down to who can defeat Trump, assuming Trump is still in office next year, or who can get a progressive agenda into law?  I am leaning to Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg and Yang.  They all show intelligence and the ability to analyze and think things through.

Democratic Debate Oct. 15, 2019

Again, there was little actual debate this time.  All twelve candidates support (among other things):

Impeaching Trump

Single-payer healthcare

Codifying the right to abortion

Making it easier to unionize

Subsidized childcare

Making college tuition-free and eliminating student debt

Stopping gun violence with background checks and eliminating assault weapons

Prosecuting purveyors of opioids.

Working with and supporting our allies around the world.

Of course there are differences about how to accomplish these things.  Warren and Sanders want single-payer healthcare with no private insurance while others, especially Pete Buttigieg, want to keep private insurance and offer a public option.  I recommend the article in the Oct. 21st issue of The Nation, "The Public Option is a Poison Pill" by David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, which details how private insurers have become expert at gaming the system and using their lobbying clout to undermine attempts to rein in their abuses.  This year private insurers will take in $252 billion more than they pay out, thanks in part to those of us who have repeatedly received claims returned stamped "claim denied" or "not in network."  Elizabeth Warren's suggestion of a wealth tax to help finance healthcare was met by Andrew Yang's claim that it was something tried by European nations and eventually repealed.  The reason it was repealed in several countries was because of the numerous exceptions the wealthy were able to achieve; it still exists in Norway, Spain and Switzerland.

Each candidate made a personal appeal, not so much on the issues as on their personality and experience.

Joe Biden played an instrumental role in the Obama administration.

Elizabeth Warren created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Bernie Sanders wrote the Medicare-for-all bill.

Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg are from the Midwest, crucial to beating Trump

Tom Steyer was among the first to urge impeachment.

Cory Booker has important urban experience.

Tulsi Gabbard was in the army for 16 years,

Julian Castro is an expert on housing.

Kamala Harris was a tough prosecutor.

Beto O'Rourke is from the red state of Texas.

Andrew Yang is a knowledgeable entrepreneur.

I would support any of them.  But who can defeat Donald Trump, whose re-election campaign is well under way?

Democratic Debate Sept. 12, 2019

It seems a little strange to call this a "debate," since there was very little difference among the candidates.  One slight difference is that, though everyone agrees on single-payer healthcare there are some differences about how exactly to get there.  Some candidates say that if one likes one's health insurance you should be able to keep it, for instance.  Warren, however, said "I don't know anyone who likes their health insurance" and I concur; anyone who "likes" their insurance usually means that it could be worse.  Those of us who have health insurance through an employer know about high deductibles, co-pays and many things not covered.  Private health insurance is something of a scam whereby the "insurer" charges as much as possible and pays out as little as possible, often denying coverage in order to increase their profits.  This is a clear conflict of interest and there are many, many stories of those who have had to file for bankruptcy because of their medical bills and most of those people have health insurance. As Sanders says, "healthcare is a right."

To distinguish themselves each of the candidates found some way to be unique.  Everyone said, "I am the only one on this stage who:

"served in the Obama administration"  Biden
"served in the armed forces" Buttigeg
"voted against the Iraq war" Sanders
"started a business and a non-profit" Yang
"lives in a black/brown neighborhood" Booker
"is a Senator running from the Midwest" Klobuchar
"has been a public schoolteacher" Warren
"is from Texas"  O'Rourke
"has served in the Cabinet" Castro
"has been an attorney general" Harris

I think any of these candidates would make a good President and, at the moment, my favorite is Warren; Biden is too befuddled and has too much for which to answer and Sanders is sometimes too strident in his repeated (and justified) denunciations of Wall Street and corporate interests.  Warren makes her positions clear in a forthright manner, including precise ways of financing single-payer healthcare and paid family leave.

Democratic Debates July 30 and 31, 2019

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.

Democratic Debates June 26 and 27, 2019

My continuing complaint:  no mention of unions whatsoever.  A number of candidates made references to the current state of inequality and stagnant wages but no one mentioned one of the biggest reasons:  the decline of unions.  I think a minimum wage of $15 is fine but I don't think that takes the place of active unions that fight for their members and I would like suggestions about how to reinvigorate unions.

As for the candidates themselves there was little disagreement on the major issues:  single-payer healthcare (though there were various suggestions on the best way to get there), immigration (Sanders made the intelligent suggestion that we make a much greater effort to improve life in Central and South America) and a path to citizenship, major efforts to combat climate change, support our allies and avoid wars.

As for the individual candidates;  I think Biden stumbled considerably in attempts to defend his record on busing and his vote for the Iraq war (his touchy-feely campaigning and Anita Hill were not discussed).  For me the most articulate and intelligent candidates were Warren, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg, who was even willing to admit "I couldn't get it done."  Sanders inveighed against Wall Street and the insurance companies but did not have many specific proposals while Warren had quite a few.  Gillibrand and Harris were the most articulate about family leave and subsidized daycare. Booker, de Blasio, and Castro were passionate about what they had done and what they could do and de Blasio was particularly articulate about speaking to the working class, as was Buttigieg about not forgetting those who do not go to college in the rush to eliminate college debt.