Is it dishonest to refuse to tell a murderer where his next intended victim is hiding and instead to explain how we can reduce murder rates? If someone did reveal such information to a murderer, would Senator Warren’s critics applaud them for “at least being honest about their plan?” The effort to discredit Elizabeth Warren’s candidacy by attacking her framing of her approach to health insurance reform would be intellectually dishonest under most conditions, but in a race to decide who will take on the worst, most corrupt and dishonest president in American history, it is also absurd and dangerous.
If “admitting” that taxes will rise is necessary to attract Bernie Sanders supporters, then they are truly nuts and cannot be reasoned with. Frankly, any voter who doesn’t want to vote for Trump but would do so over Warren because she refuses to say a particular phrase is way too stupid to even find their way to a polling place. So, why exactly are so many politicians and pundits insisting that Senator Warren must cave here? For journalists and pundits, it’s a story they are obliged to tell. For politicians there is only one possible motive…to defeat Warren. For her Democratic rivals to play this card knowing full well that it isn’t truly a mark of Warren’s character or competence is inescapably selfish and short sighted. In a “normal” race it might be defensible, but with Trump in the Oval it is entirely indefensible!
I am fine with journalists asking the question over and over and over, as long as they provide their audiences with context and make her substantive answer just as important to the story as is the linguistic stand that makes it a hot topic. I’m not fine with Democrats who fail to see the present moment with clear and sober vision. Warren’s rivals for the nomination have all basically indicated that they understand Warren’s framing, but fear that voters won’t. This is VERY disingenuous. Warren’s rivals for the nomination should be asked to describe the voters they are worried about here. Who, exactly, do they think will be moved toward supporting Trump by Warren’s rhetoric on this? What persuadable voter will be moved by GOP claims that Warren’s dishonesty makes Donald Trump the better choice?
Senator Warren always couches her comments about this issue in “values” terms. She has not provided great details about her plan because doing so makes zero intellectual or political sense. Only a candidate with no understanding of how a bill becomes a law or any respect for the intelligence of voters would propose such a huge policy change with all the details from soup to nuts. Candidates who do so either lose or perpetuate voter ignorance and cynicism when reality catches up with their over-promises. Bernie Sanders isn’t running for president. He’s running for icon status among progressive activists and ideologues who hate politics. There are not enough of these folks to win a major party nomination for president, but unfortunately there are enough of them to complicate the efforts of progressive politicians who understand that politics isn’t a necessary evil, but rather an important requirement for any political system aspiring to be a democratic one.
If Senator Warren’s insistence on characterizing her approach to health insurance reform in terms of costs and benefits to average Americans, rather than in the intentionally de-contextualized vacuum of a black and white, up or down, tax “debate” isn’t a politically savvy and intellectually honest move, then American politics is in even worse shape than we already think.
Postscript: After posting this piece I saw Mona Charen’s piece at NationalReview.com. It is a perfect example of an argument that misses the forest for the trees. In Cheron’s case this may be intentional misdirection, but because of her anti-Trump pose some readers may be fooled. Cheron writes, “Warren, like Bernie Sanders, is an ideologue, enamored of government regulation of everything.” This would be an embarrassing reductionist claim were Cheron not used to writing to the prejudices of conservative readers. The most interesting thing about Cheron’s clumsy argument is her effort to claim that Warren is both an unwavering ideologue and a forked tongue pol. In Warren’s health insurance issue framing Cheron sees garden variety intentional rhetorical distraction, not an intellectually honest effort to defeat an intentional rhetorical distraction. Presumably, Cheron wants readers to believe that there is a more moderate Democratic alternative that is neither a progressive ideologue or just another lying pol. To the degree that her perspective on Warren is a product of her fear that Democrats will alienate moderate voters enough to re-elect Trump (as opposed to her love for an unregulated insurance industry), I feel her pain, but Elizabeth Warren is no Bernie Sanders.
Your attack on Bernie Sanders supporters / the left is not only unwarranted, it appears to intentionally misrepresent *who* is going after Warren on this. It’s so the so-called “moderates,” whom I like to refer to as conservative Democrats. Sanders has not touched this. He and his supporters characterize Medicare for All the exact same way as Warren has. Meanwhile, for example, Pete Buttigieg has launched an attack ad on this very issue. Why not mention him or another “very serious” conservative Democrat?!
I definitely wasn’t trying to imply that Sanders or his supporters were the primary culprits here, and I appreciate your alerting me to this appearance. I disagree with your claim that Sanders and Warren are characterizing their plans exactly the same way, however. Sanders relevance to my point is his position to the left of Warren as well as his attitude about electoral politics. The reason (IMHO) Warren’s stand on this is important is that she is progressive, but not cynical about partisan electoral politics. Sanders thinks being right means being above partisan politics, and that is not only wrong but self defeating. Buttigieg is just one of many included in my characterization of Warren’s critics on this issue. Singling him out didn’t seem useful or important to me.
‘If “admitting” that taxes will rise is necessary to attract Bernie Sanders supporters, then they are truly nuts and cannot be reasoned with.’
You singled out Bernie Sanders supporters. They have not been the ones demanding that Elizabeth Warren admit she will raise taxes — it has been conservative Democrats like Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg ran an ad on it! If you were to single out one candidate and/or their supporters, Buttigieg would have made the most sense as his campaign is running on the contrast! In addition, both Sanders and Warren have characterized the cost trade offs in the exact same manner during the debates, so I am quite confused as to your insistence that they have not. Both insist that the majority of households will save money, and that that is therefore the correct frame. You appear to have moved beyond this distinction and into the realm of general ideological and temperamental differences, which most definitely exist. For instance, there is much skepticism among Sanders supporters about whether or not Warren will stand by Medicare for All. However, I thought this was a discussion about Warren’s refusal to step into the “raise taxes frame” that conservative Democrats are trying to establish to derail Medicare for All?! If that’s the case, there’s no substantive difference between the Sanders and Warren in this regard at this juncture. The jab at Sanders supporters is not only unwarranted, it misleads with regards to who has actually been attacking her — to repeat, it’s conservative Democrats.