OK, just for instance, lets take the $15 minimum wage. It is not so much the thing itself but the intent of the thing. What are we trying to accomplish? To relieve the burden on our less affluent citizens, obviously. To put money in the hands of people who will spend it, a little less obvious. The kind of intent that ought to gladden the shriveled hearts of corporate America, or at least those smart enough to realize that a consumer economy depends upon consumers having money. Très duh, mais non?
Can we sell it? Obviously, we can sell it to people who are working full time for less. And, of course, there are a lot of people who don’t see it that way, who only see it as drastically raising the pay of laggards and lay-abouts. Lets just suppose, for the sake of our hypothetical, that theres so many of them, selling the program becomes impossible. Not saying it is, just saying “what if?”.
The* intent* is to make life easier for our people, with the added benefit of spurring our economy. Is there another way, one that might be more attractive? Well, ok, how about subsidized child care, make it easier for parents to work and be rewarded? Also, leaving more money in their hands rather than putting more there. Selling benefits for crumb-snatching rug rats is an easier sell. So, maybe.
How would we know, who can we ask? Academic economics is one source, but is often questionable. As time has gone, the progressives have a stronger case to make, social democracy is functional, and in many ways, more efficient than rat-race based economics. But academic economics is not something divorced from politics, one cannot embrace an economic opinion as fact. How many economic academics are funded by people like the Koch Brothers, who already know to a certainty what the truth is, and seek intelligent persons to teach it. Anyway, utterly reliable expertise is not available.
We are going to be guessing, to some degree or another. So, if we can’t have both subsidized child care and a major advance in minimum wage, can we cobble together a bit of both, a compromise we can sell? And if we can sell it, and gain the power advantage necessary to implement it, can we adjust it if it falters?
Yes, we can. If we win. If we lose, we can’t do much of anything except cuss and spit teeth. Don’t say “$15 an hour or bust!” say, “We should raise the minimum wage!” Don’t say “Medicare for all!” say “We may need to expand and adjust the ACA”. Of course, we have every intention to doing exactly that, but we may need to! Because we already need to, but no reason to bore people with lengthy explanations.
I have a maxim: Cold mind, warm heart. Examine the situation ruthlessly, distill the facts down to the cold nuts. Use that information to inform your heartfelt goals, so that you may proceed to progress in the most efficient ways possible.
If I thought a Cornell West/Bernie Sanders platform would sweep the Progressives into power, I would love it. Kinda do anyway, that’s where my sentiments lie. But I am not convinced we can sell it. And if we can’t, its little more than a self-righteous exercise. Fuck that shit!
There is great confusion under Heaven, and the situation is excellent, as Herbert Hoover once posted on Facebook. The Goddess, in Her sublime wisdom, has placed the opportunity in our hands, a chance to kick the Forces of Darkness right in the 'nads. We should act in classic liberal fashion: demand the impossible, settle for the probable, swear we will never ask for anything else again, and start laying the groundwork to do exactly that.
Brothers and sisters, pals and gals, forward!
