Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Democratic lawmakers today that if they did not back the public option, there would be Democratic primaries in their district in the next election, according to the Huffington Post. His threat, which would represent a major problem for lawmakers long accustomed to utilizing the advantage of their incumbency to be handed victory after victory, signals a major shift in the tactics of American political parties. For far too long, the two major political parties have merely acted in a symbolic fashion, performing their obligations but never really wielding much power.
However, Dean’s announcement changes all that. The Democratic Party has not advocated a party line in this manner in decades—if ever. While the Democrats certainly trend to the left of center, there are various factions within the party, such as the Blue Dogs, who have significantly different political views than the more leftist Democrats. While the party can rely on their support on some occasions, when it comes to major pieces of legislation that would require them to vote against their beliefs, their backing is not always assured.
The debate over health care reform has already exposed major rifts in the unity of the Democratic Party, and three distinct party-within-the-party lines have emerged. The most left-wing Democrats support the government run or “single-payer” option, which would largely replace our current health care system with one more akin to those of Western Europe, where the government provides the vast majority of the populace with health care, while those who choose to pay for private insurance can do so. The “single-payer” option, while requiring a raise in taxes, would mean larger paychecks for American workers and cheaper health care, as it would remove the profit-gouging and consumer rape regularly performed by insurance companies, and is really the only solution that can be honestly described as reform.
The current Democratic Party line, and the reform option supported by the President, the majority of the Democratic legislators, and a great deal of voters who call themselves Democrats, advocates a system where the government would own and operate an insurance company, which would not only guarantee insurance to those Americans who do not currently have it, but would also compete with the privately held companies, thereby forcing them to lower their costs. While this option would certainly be leaps and bounds better than whatever we call a ‘health care system’ now is, it is also an enormous compromise made by the legislators of the Democratic Party in the face of their greatest Fear: the Fear that their sweet supply of campaign cash, which is regularly injected into them by the capitalist swine and their lobbyists, would be cut off if they supported a plan that called for tax increases.
The Blue Dogs, as well as other Democrats who are more fiscally conservative, have shied away from both of these plans, preferring to mutter softly to themselves and pretend they are still the hippies they were in college as they pine about “health care co-operatives.” While the leftist Democrats will vote for the public insurance option, the center-right Democrats have shown little willingness to budge. In the past, their resistance would have sunk any chance the bill had at passing, and the legislators would not have batted an eyelash. They knew that they would be guaranteed the Democratic nomination for their next election, and by not “compromising their beliefs,” they would likely be re-elected by their constituents.
Now they face an enormous challenge if they do not follow the party line: They will actually have to campaign during the primary season, which is not only costly but hugely time-consuming and stressful. Hopefully the Democrats, who have long languished in their moderate positions and palled around with their other Blue Dog buddies, will finally have to choose between voting with their party and keeping their seat or being thrown in the pool with the other sharks.
…while requiring a raise in taxes, would mean larger paychecks for American workers…
Larger until the increased taxes are taken out, you mean.
For the vast majority of Americans, I’m sure the tax increase would not be nearly as large as the income gain. The government would likely let the burden of paying for healthcare on businesses as well as individuals who have too much money.
For the vast majority of Americans, I’m sure the tax increase would not be nearly as large as the income gain.
You may be sure, but I’ll need some hard evidence on both the gain and cost first. The truth is that this is all speculation based on a program that hasn’t even taken on a final form yet.
…individuals who have too much money.
“Too much” according to whom? And why is it anyone’s right to relieve them of this supposed excess in the first place?