The Progressive Dilemma

Paul Krugman has one element of the Edwards voter’s dilemma down: what to do about healthcare? Clinton has cloned the Edwards proposal in her healthcare plank, but Edwards’ voters aren’t sure she’ll be able to sell it—or be willing to fight for its passage without watering it down. Obama looks like a fighter, but his healthcare proposal will be dead in the water as is. It’s not a mandatory coverage plan and without covering everyone, it doesn’t actually have much of a prayer of success.

Universal coverage, if enacted and properly constructed, would be a major step forward for the US. Getting healthcare into the category of basic rights would move the country into the world’s mainstream and would heal a major division between the haves and have-nots in America on a family and individual level. If Clinton could be counted to pass her plan, would it be worth backing her to achieve it?

The healthcare issue mirrors the larger question about the remaining candidates for progressives. Which one will fight harder and more effectively for real economic and political change to the power structure? Both candidates are creatures of that power structure and neither can be expected to actually threaten it, so it’s more about nuance than sweeping change. Obama walks and talks like a change duck, but his policies are less clearly about change. Clinton’s policies look well-developed, but she’s shown herself willing to throw the baby under the bus (on Iraq) when it suits her own political needs. Trust is hard to come by with these two.

In the end, it may be more a question of deciding which aspect of each candidacy is more critical to win the White House back and to have it matter. Do progressives want a campaign about big ideas— ideas that may not actually come to pass as policy measures, but move the country towards a progressive agenda? If so, Obama is the man to back. Or would it be better to hope for a campaign about specific policies, even while those policies may not get past the triangulation of a general election against a conservative who talks like a centrist? If Clinton can be believed about stances like her healthcare plan, she might make more legislative headway if elected. On the other hand, she doesn’t inspire a sense of confidence in her word as her bond.

Edwards has talked about ongoing conversations with both campaigns, but one gets the feeling that it’s unlikely that the Clinton campaign is willing to deal seriously with him. If Obama and his people are willing to move on healthcare towards real universal coverage, it would certainly make a huge difference to Edwards voters— and to progressives in general. We’ll see soon whether Edwards is convinced that Obama means what he says about change. Then it will be up to progressives to decide whether they believe it as well.

(See Memeorandum on Edwards, and also read Krugman for discussion)