Isn't that still a lot better than what we have today? Why does it have to be all or nothing? The ACA didn't go as far as should've. It's still led to improved mortality rates and health outcomes for millions of people.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
New York Magazine - Biden Is Planning an FDR-Size Presidency
- Thread starter Deleted member 5666
- Start date
FDR was a racist, a bigot and anti-semite. He could have saves hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from death camps. He put Japanese Americans in prison camps, voted against anti-lynching laws and put a KKK member on the Supreme Court (who also upheld the right to intern Japanese Americans).
Yeah, Biden realizing that he has to think big is great news. Already has has made some nice outreach to Bernie and Warren and I'm glad that he is starting to realize what he needs to do as President to tackle the problems left in the wake of coronavirus.
He won't have any other choice. By November, the country is going to be unfathomably broken. We will need everything FDR did and more to start over. This future is bleak with any other plan.
Biden certainly has issues with the 90s crime bill support. And while he did strongly support it, it's also not like subsequent politicians have done much to correct it. Obama got the closest with some reforms on drugs. But Trump? He lives for stoking racial fears and resentment in the US. He has people feeling as empowered as they have since the KKK was openly roaming the US. He's encouraging every institution to maximize pain and suffering anywhere he can.
He's also done nothing to correct the crime bill or any sort of significant justice reform outside of a few splashy pardons and commutations for the cameras. Biden's track record isn't good. But Trump has dialed it up to 11 with glee. And I'd still trust Biden more to recognize his mistakes and work to reform over Trump at this point. It also overly simplifies the complexities of the bill and that fact that it had wide support even among many minority leaders at the time.
But yeah totally fair to scrutinize him there and push for better approaches to the realities of incarceration, crime, and social support in this country.
If he gets the senate they need to have shit lined up day -30. They can't risk losing a majority at midterms.
I think when you give an expectation and it's met and you continually create another expectation while not acknowledging the recent one being met, then you're full of it, simple as that, but I'm not going to debate with you particularly or further veer off topic, (just saw the staff post too) so cheers.
This is historically false.
When FDR was campaigning for president, he was not fighting for universal health care. Healthcare was not part of FDR's 100 days plan, it wasn't part of the New Deal, it wasn't part of Roosevelt's Social Security policy. Some in Roosevelt's administration suggested it could be part of the social security act, but it wasn't because it was a contentious issue that FDR would have lost support on and prevented the Social Security act from passing. Ultimately, FDR prioritized unemployment benefits and old-age benefits, not universal healthcare. This passed in 1935, mid-way through Roosevelt's first term.
Universal healthcare in the progressive era (~1900-1932) was also a contentious issue. The health insurance conversation in the progressive era was not universal care, but a program more similar to medicaid, a program that would provide health insurance for unionized workers. Ultimately, though, the AFL opposed the policy because they thought it weakened the union. This was in the teens and 20s, and by the time FDR would campaign for president, universal health insurance would not be a winning public policy argument.
Universal healthcare would again come up in late new deal bills, but FDR did not support it in either case. Infact, FDR opposed the Wagner National Health Act of 1939, a bill that didn't provide universal health care either but would have enabled states to setup their own mandatory health insurance programs (similar to what Massachusetts would establish while Mitt Romney was governor, and used to be the template for Obamacare). FDR opposed the Wagner act of 1939. It would become moot anyway with the onset of World WAr II, and then the red-baiting that would follow the war. By the 1940s, the governor of California -- REpublican Earl Warren (who is now much more well known for being Chief Justice Earl Warren) -- unsuccessfully fought for universal healthcare for all Californians, failing like the early 20th century progressives did because it didn't have union support or Am. Medical Association support, and it was politically costly in the aftermath of WOrld War II.
So, even while you derailed the thread away from what is in the OP to just a kneejerk "I know FDR and Biden is no FDR," your statement isn't true -- FDR did not fight for universal healthcare. Biden and FDR are actually much more similar when it comes to universal care than they are different, though Biden is more progressive on universal care than FDR.
I guess I just don't see your point, then? The missing 3% isn't universal. Ok. Don't think he said it was universal, so it's a weird thing to point out.
This is cool and all, but we need the Senate if any of this is going to happen.
And lol @ people in this thread evangelizing FDR. Dude was a piece of shit, too.
And lol @ people in this thread evangelizing FDR. Dude was a piece of shit, too.
I think that's called being a good citizen and forcing a politician to do what you want!
Because "Good enough" won't do if millions can't afford insurance.
It's like saying the Civil Rights Act was good enough when we still see racial discrimination in 2020.
biden is an intelligent old man, leathery and cynical, he's never done much beyond standard issue democrat politics
- if we give him the benefit of two doubts- that he's just a creepy guy with serious space issues - and that he's a moral but pragmatic incrementalist- he wouldn't need to be FDR to implement dramatic foundational changes- but he would need vastly more power and advice than he's currently slated to get.
Now just as I don't need to be Einstein to ask nasa to research light speed travel- Joe can intellectually get to the right questions or ideas - but Without two thirds in some senate and house matters- with a vastly undermined judicial branch at the local, circuit and supreme courts - He's s ability to pass those easily available ideas is where his lack of FDR is rubber hitting the road.
my light speed example isn't really hyperbolic- but it may end up being an apt metaphor because twenty years from now NASA may come back with- "well it's not actually possible sir- unless we change the laws of physics." Biden's laws of physics are a Congress in the pocket of inertially immovable money interests. C is for Citizens United...
oh and an aside- apart from a credible accusation of rape that has to be taken seriously- we also haven't even seen Burisma/HunterGate for a hot minute.
I suspect Hunter was paid a stipend for proximity and access to his father during the Obama latter years- and the same thing for China (although that's better documented and the timeline is less problematic - a soft investment in potential future access and a Chinese cultural expression of "princeling " nepotism) but like"her emails " it's a nothingburger in the grand scheme of things- but it's based on a kernel of disagreeable truth- rich powerful people put their kids trivially in beneficial situations unavailable to most of us- Hillary's emails were harmless but she flouted an IT security protocol we'd be yelled at for doing.
Republicans have proven since Carter that they can weaponize strengths- let alone weaknesses- John Kerry lost the election because the GOP framed everything from his erudition to his currency-ready patrician bone structure- to his action movie actual war hero antics as negatives and the press breathlessly repeated all of it.
The GOP also stole votes and committed massive voter fraud. They will swiftboat and email and birther Biden and the media will allow and amplify it because they're institutionally unable to present it as falsehood. And I haven't even mentioned Russia or Barr or Kavanaugh (and punished Roberts).
biden (any mildly intelligent candidate really) absolutely could approach the presidency with FDR ideas and ideals- but will he have the votes and the seats? Because FDR had the charisma, a public united and willing to experiment in the wake of war and depression (and pandemic) and we've seen time and time again that the American public will only vote when angry or enthusiastic. We're angry but not united. 35% of us are angry about a wholly fictional reality.
the right wing and other forces rallying behind Reade don't care about her story or her welfare - in fact they're supporting her in order to secure victory for their own credibly accused rapist. They don't care about what's true. They care about sowing divide and confusion and dampening enthusiasm. They're weaponizing our empathy and morality. And we're not just letting them, we're practically helping them. Because we believe women and we're better than them and because we have principles and beliefs. Those all create internal conflicts. The republicans have no principles and that gives them unity.
If Reade's accusation is proven true tomorrow- we've probably left it too late to replace Biden with a unifying figure - but replaced he must be. If Reade's accusation were withdrawn or even disproven tomorrow- the damage may already have been done.
Regardless of candidate we'd have an emails or a Swiftboat or race baiting or misogyny or gun grabbing- Biden's history means there's more material and enough confusing or troubling receipts to look like there's a "there there."
I hope the country comes together and says enough in November and that we see a peaceful transition of power- but does anyone see two thirds majorities in floor votes to do FDR things?
of all the candidates able to create excitement or enthusiasm and some tattered glimpse of red/blue unity- the one I think could have maybe done it —disqualified himself by actually taking a principled stand that he knew would end his chances of even a future presidential bid. And his strengths were really just force of personality and charisma and youth.
I'm extremely pessimistic about November but I do see passionate young people entering politics and one day soon we might see another Obama or Kennedy.
Great news. He's an imperfect messenger, but he's what we've got.
It's going to be an interesting contrast with 2016/2020 trump. Maga vs rebuild America.
It's going to be an interesting contrast with 2016/2020 trump. Maga vs rebuild America.
Who said 'good enough'? I'm saying that given the choice between getting ZERO progress or some progress, why wouldn't you pick the latter? The ACA wasn't good enough, but it made an enormous difference in millions of people's lives for the better, and there's a wealth of statistics to back this up. Actually, scratch that: the choice isn't between zero progress or some progress; it's between NEGATIVE progress or some progress. The only people who would prefer negative progress are misguided accelerationists.
Sure thing, You're free to your opinion. Mine hasn't changed. Moving along.
The thing is that those scary weird ideas of the US left are the imagined boogymen of the right wing media machine.
Something relatively simple like Universal Healthcare turns into 'death panels' and 'THEY WILL MURDER YOUR DOCTORS'.
Or how in right now "Nuns being forced to pay for abortions!" is going viral when it boils down to religious orgs trying to argue they don't have to follow Cali's rules with employee healthcare having to provide coverage contraceptions and yes, abortions, like any other employer.
But hear em tell it? "Nuns forced to pay hitmen to wack pregnant women in the belly with baseball bats!".
All the progressive ideas floated around this election cycle with the candidates, even the 'weird' ones, are very much within the capitalist framework an would work well in it, even universal basic care (cause that money goes right back into the economy)
What constitutes scary weird stuff? Taxing the ultra rich?
You understand that the most popular ideas out of the left, and especially Roosevelt have been socialist in nature?
I never realized until this thread, but Trump can't use "Keep America Great" as his re-election campaign slogan due to the pandemic.
Your posts are confusing me more and more. The first post I replied to was specifically talking about universal healthcare. They used the word "universal" and everything.
No, that would mean you're assuming people would just stop trying to make more progress. Which might be a thing. But that's simply saying that given the political realities in the US, getting to 97% is a massive improvement and solves a lot of problems over what we have now- even if it isn't perfect.
Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act were revolutionary, massive improvements, and critical pieces of legislation to be passed. They weren't perfect, but stood as solid frameworks to keep working on. But like many things, it requires constant engagement and support to maintain and improve. Dems were kicked out of office by 1968 and that allowed major laws to begin to be eroded. The minute citizens get complacent and start sitting things out, the opportunity exists for other actors to stop progress and eventually reverse it. But that doesn't mean working to pass the best thing politically possible at one point, means you don't also want to continue to see progress in the future.
That's an excellent point, people forget how flawed some past presidents were.
FDR was a product of his time and a reflection of the USA as it was then. Nit really fair to compare, the US has progressed since those days.
Biden is a product of his era as well, for better or worse. It really comes down to whether he will do the right thing.
I'm glad certain online posters are the authority on damage to the black community and not actual black voters.
This kind of reads largely like a puff piece concocted together with Biden campaign. Nowhere does it actually get into significant detail, just a lot of "Biden is musing..." rhetoric.
Sure he will. And his cult, unflinching, will march forward ensuring his evil is done.
I mean, I'm an actual black voter, so I don't know about this one chief.
Yeah and you said well because 3% won't be covered, he's against universal coverage. The plan he has isn't universal. But that also doesn't mean he's morally opposed to it or something. You can propose a plan that you think would be more likely to pass and be accepted, while recognizing there may be more perfect policies out there but won't be passed.
Yes ideally, everyone has universal, affordable access for healthcare. I'm for that. But at the same time, I can support polices that actually have a chance at passing. That doesn't mean I'm "against" universal healthcare.
A New Deal, but not racist/exclusionary of minorities is what America should be hoping for.
I'm a black voter, and I certainly have my reservations...but I know what the other options are, and the best one seems like "New Deal 202x: Return of the Public-Private Partnership" to me.
I'm a black voter, and I certainly have my reservations...but I know what the other options are, and the best one seems like "New Deal 202x: Return of the Public-Private Partnership" to me.
As am I, which is why I get puzzled when online segments of the community try to speak for all of us.
So...
You must have read the entire article, considered everything in it very carefully, and came away with the strong urge to forcefully claim, "NUH, UH!" a whole two minutes after the thread started, eh?
Because, that doesn't seem reasonable.
At all.
It is, but get ready for the bloodletting because bringing FDR style politics into a 2020 America means war with the Tea Party/Trump right wing, and they have their court appointments to back them up.
They already have several bills passed in the house, they are ready to roll but people seriously need to get out there at the very least secure the senate. RBG is on her last breath.
Has Biden said he supports universal healthcare and is just being bound by pragmatism on this issue. I seem to remember him fear mongering socialism and how much universal healthcare would cost. Further, who actually cares what he believes if he isn't going to act on it?
I just wanted to come by and say that I also did not read the article or anything about policies for that matter.
I think there's a certain fetishization of authenticity that's crept up in recent politics where it doesn't matter what you're doing if you don't really believe it, which prevents a lot of people from accepting that Biden and others like him 100% don't believe what you believe, but they're still tools who can be used to get things that you want, precisely
because they don't really have strong ideological commitments.
To a lot of people, that Joe Biden is not a committed leftist means he must be a committed centrist, dedicated to the cause of stymying the left at every turn, because they don't really accept the existence of people who aren't strongly committed to certain views. But most people are pretty wishy washy about everything, normal people and politicians alike, and yeah, you if you can construct the right narrative around the situation, and you have the the necessary power in Congress and all that, you can probably squeeze a lot out of someone like Biden. He's not committed to the cause, but he's not committed to it's destruction either. He's just someone who goes how the wind is blowing.
Making yourself willfully blind to that, insisting that he's a centrist and therefore must be lying, just leaves you in a position where if it happens, you made no show of being part of influencing/coercing that change, and get none of the credit. You can build the narrative that the left used its power to effectively make Biden its pawn, or you can let some sort of myth of Biden as the FDR of the 21st century, some world-historical titan, take hold.
And the degree to which people see that as impossible, because surely some joker like Biden could never equal the great FDR, shows how effective that sort of myth-making can be. Anyone can be that if the situation allows for it. A wealthy quasi-aristocrat who interned the Japanese and worked hand-in-hand with Southern segregationists can be that, and so can a probable rapist who spent years supporting draconian crime laws and defending every skeevy Delaware financial industry. People like their history happy, and will eat up a narrative that Uncle Joe saved them from the Orange Man and delivered the promised land of some paid leave and a better minimum wage if you aren't there making it clear this is happening at the behest of a movement separate from him, that he is merely part of something larger and not the rock on which the entire new American order is to be built.
Or you could gamble that he's doomed to fail, even with your support, and therefore better to keep your hands clean, which is a legitimate strategy, but seeing how four years of Trump only pushed people to look for more safety in Biden, rather than radicalizing them, and given the current crisis, this seems like your best shot. You'll never have as big an excuse for change, especially around how we treat labor and our culture of work, as we do right now with corona, and honestly there are good odds that any further GOP success only makes people even more timid, makes people even more certain that the only road out from here is concessions to Trump's rural white base after they didn't respond to Bernie's theory that they just needed a bit of economic populism to come around, and you're doing it all in a world where the courts are even more conservative, where they get to re-gerrymander everything in 2021. It feels kind of like you have to take your shot now, even if it's not the shot you wanted, because you're not getting a better one.
Him acting or not really depends more on the Senate. If Dem voters can't flip the senate, then it's game over anyway. As for the healthcare, I'll take 97%. Ultimately it doesn't matter too much to me if we can at least get there and whether he's explicitly said he'd oppose or support universal coverage too.
Right now the choice is a possibility of 97% or the complete destruction of the ACA as a whole and tens of millions more kicked off coverage. Given that, yeah, I'll take the 97%.
I only speak for myself and my own perspective when I post, but the numbers tell a clear picture, and Joe Biden did our communities a lot of damage. Older black Southern voters were willing to overlook this (Biden's chief primary opponent also voted for the crime bill, to be fair).
This shit is so fucking silly.
You either get good enough, or you get nothing.Pick one.
Black people figured this shit out centuries ago. It's time for you to do the same.
The misinformation about universal healthcare really is damaging our basic ability to have discussions about it without doing this song and dance ad nauseum.
Medicare 4 All is a proposed solution towards getting universal healthcare. Medicare For America is another proposed solution towards getting universal healthcare. Biden is not opposed to universal healthcare, in fact he's for it. He prefers a path that's more in line with Medicare For America and mirrors other EU countries.
It's going to be refreshing hearing the conservative media call a Democratic president a socialist, and see him actually pass enough policies to at least somewhat earn the title.