In a Biden vs. Sanders race, the obvious choice for me is Uncle Joe. But why? A review of the candidates’ websites suggests their positions on the issues are the same: reducing income inequality, higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, universal healthcare.
Of course, their rhetoric on the campaign trail is something different. Sanders is a class warrior, a dogmatic politician as divisive and out of touch as the President he would like to replace. Biden on the other hand is more pragmatic — and, it’s that word “pragmatic” that separates him from other Democrats (and Republicans). He has a long history of working toward bipartisan agreement. A great example is outlined in Bob Woodward’s book “The Price of Politics” in which the award-winning journalist describes the process by which the Obama White House reached a compromise with a Republican Congress on the budget and debt limit in 2010. Woodward’s book suggests that the joint effort on the part of Republicans and Democrats to break the impasse was floundering until Uncle Joe began working with another old Senate hand, Mitch McConnell. A series of convos and a handshake later, we had a budget compromise that lasted for years.
Sanders hasn’t achieved anything like Biden’s track record. Dogmatists rarely do. They sit in their corner certain of their righteousness and refuse to compromise. They never have to apologize because they never do anything. In a democratic republic that relies on bipartisan legislation to achieve lasting change, Uncle Joe is the guy.
So, what do these candidates want to achieve? Sanders no longer calls himself a socialist in favor of the more current label Social Democrat. He calls for the implementation of a regime of government benefits that emulates that of Scandinavian countries: free healthcare, free tuition, mandatory paid family leave and so on.
In theory, I don’t have a philosophical objection to this paradigm. In practice, I do. (I am more pragmatic than dogmatic.) Sanders proposals — Medicare for All, Free Tuition, Student Loan relief — would easily double the size of the federal budget. He says he’ll fund it by taxing corporations and billionaires. Setting aside the economic impact of those policies for the moment (and they are substantial), I have to say I don’t believe it. Ultimately, if not immediately, he’ll come for you and me — the middle class. Think about it this way: if the goal is to eradicate billionaires, the tax base will shrink. So, where will he go next?
I also have a moral objection to his approach. If we — the electorate — want government to do certain things, we should be willing to pay for those things. It’s noteworthy that the US already has a more progressive personal income tax regime than any of the EU countries. European nations offering free healthcare and college tuition impose a Value Added Tax (which functions like a sales tax) of about 20% on sales at a retail level no matter how rich or poor you are. In other words, all citizens pay for what they ask from government.
Sanders sidesteps this sticky argument by declaring the system is rigged (as does Trump). Well, yes, it’s rigged in favor of those who work hard and play by the rules. For those who think the world owes them a living, not so much. As someone who scrimped and saved so my kids could graduate from college without debt, I wonder why others should not have to. As someone who has assumed risks to my livelihood by owning a business, I wonder why anyone thinks they should reap the rewards without assuming the same risk.
I am a classical liberal not a political liberal. I believe in a freedom agenda: free enterprise, free choice and freedom to succeed or fail on one’s own merits. That makes me more libertarian than liberal and that’s how I have voted in the past. So, how do I square my beliefs with the concepts of social democracy?
What few seem to understand is that the social democracy that Scandinavians enjoy relies on free market capitalism to be viable. The remaining candidates (sorry to see you go, Mike) would impose new limits or costs on business. In making such proposals, they take our prosperity for granted. Treating corporate America like something that needs to be healed, they fail to see that every surgical cut to corporate profits undermines the attractiveness of the US economy to foreign investors, reduces available capital to invest in future endeavors and threatens to leave the patient bleeding to death. I would like to see a candidate who adopts the approach implied by the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors: primum non nocere (first do no harm).
Well said!
ReplyDelete