Moderate Democrats (also liberals)

Well I don't accept the notion my position is incoherent. The ongoing, heated political struggle in the UK baffles me a bit - lots of conflicts over the details of the deal and their consequences, but no direct attacks on the idea of BREXIT itself (at least none I'm aware of). Meanwhile it would be difficult to accuse the EU officials of being at all cooperative and at all interested in future cooperative relations in the process so far.

I'm not a particular fan of Brexit as such, but I do believe that this event is a predictable outcome of some uniquely British characteristics , and the recent trajectory of EU governance.

It's worth recalling that British voters defeated proposals for EU membership after the transition of the brilliantly successful Common Market, to a rather poorly defined leap to "ever closer union" under an EU governing apparatus with virtually unlimited legislative and judicial power over member states. Following that. and a change of mind of the British Government, French President de Gaulle, twice I believe, rejected British applications for membership, based on his expressed conviction that Britain was not naturally a part of the continental Europe political union they were seeking, and would ultimately find it unsatisfactory. Recent events may have confirmed his prescience.

Brexit is not the only area of tension within today's EU. There are economical and political divides between north and South and, as well, East and West elements of the EU family. Resentment is visibly growing in Poland, Hungary Greece, Italy and recently Spain, towards the Franco-German duopoly that appears actually to run the EU. Critics say this duopoly is held together by France's desire for both leadership and a continuation of generous agricultural subsidies from the EU. In a similar manner Germany is seen to be driven by analogous drives for leadership and power, and a need to sustain a Eurozone that ties Germanys principal export markets to its currency ( a significant subsidy itself) and detailed technical rules that make it difficult for her customers go anywhere else.

The EU is and has been a remarkably ambitious and successful political experiment that has undeniably addressed the centuries of wars and destruction that afflicted Europe. It has also been very effective in restoring economic and political activity in the former states of the Soviet Empire. However during the last three decades a number of issues and resulting tensions have arisen , many regarding the limits of member states to manage their own affairs, both legislative and judicial, and the corresponding limits on these powers of the governing, very large and wide, Union. Brexit or no Brexit these issues will have to be resolved for the continuing health of the EU.

I'm a sympathetic spectator in all this and take no sides in the issue. For whatever its worth, my parents were Irish immigrants who as children experienced the Irish Rebellion and civil war that followed. They were no fans of British rule, and were regular contributors to IRA fundraising events.

Klobuchar will be headlining a CNN townhall at 10:00pm ET tonight. Can’t wait to watch it.

It is incoherent for an alledged incrementalist to support such a big jump in the unknown. That much should be obvious to anyone able to reason logically...

I am also a big Brexit fan. The UK has never genuinly adhered to the idea of European solidarity. They are so 'unique', as you say, and too smart for the rest of us, evidently. I wish them a pleasant journey into the unknown... :-)

Here is her townhall. She did very well I thought. I can't wait to see her in a debate.

Unfortunately have to wait until June.

Now I better understand the connection with your incrementalist arguments. They certainly apply but they are not the only or key issues here.

Brexit is indeed a big step. It is interesting to note that the UK has sought a less decisive break and the ability to remain within several EU Trade and economic structures. It appears to me that a somewhat offended and angry EU is insisting on an all or nothing option instead. I regard that as an unfortunate result for both parties , and, to use your terms, would have preferred a more incrementalist approach by both in the Brexit negotiations, and a subsequent effort by the EU to address its continuing internal problems.

With respect to the larger issues we discussed , the difference then appears to involve whether you wish a good or bad outcome for the UK after a BREXIT. I don't wish a bad outcome for either party in a dispute that, as it appears to me, involves real issues, capable of solution, in a so far very effective political union resulting from British objections that are shared (albeit to different degrees) among other parties in the EU as well.

From what I read about the forthcoming elections for representation in the EU Parliament, there is a strong likelihood of the election of a substantial, but likely powerful minority from several EU nations (including France) representing revisionist viewpoints similar to those that apparently motivated the British. This could be a major change for a Parliament that heretofore appears to have merely been a rubber stamp for the governing EU bureaucracy.

If this is truly the case, then a BREXIT will leave the UK out and dealing with an uncertain future; and an EU with the same unsolved fundamental issues, now involving other internal parties, and fought out more intensely, both in a heretofore passive EU Parliament, and in the various National governments. It's very hard to see that as a net gain for anyone.

I see it as missed opportunity for the EU.

I'm not going to comment on Brexit because really I don't much care what they do with their government. My gut tells me that I would have voted remain if I lived there, but I don't.


I do take objection that because someone finds incrementalism to be the preferred course of action in most instances that it's some how illogical to support drastic change in other instances (it is a nice straw man though, I'll give you that). Just about every policy comes with a set of facts, knowns, and unknowns and each of them should be considered before supporting a course of action. Sometimes, these facts may mandate a drastic action be taken. Sometimes, they won't.

I personally am not an absolutist in just about anything. I don't know many people who are.

It's also, in my mind, not so much as preferring incrementalism as it is not being ideologically opposed to incrementalism as so many progressives seem to be. They appear to view incremental change as bad, and I don't.

What you are saying is ideoligical rather than factual. Eg on the EU being unflexible. It's just not true, it's a prejudice, and you will not be able to find a single fact supporting this. The EU has had a very clear negotiation approach, while the UK still cannot articulate what they collectively want.

I don't wish them harm or anything like that. I just want them out of the EU, because I see them as a liability for the rest of us. They have never been enthusiastically pro-European, as a nation. The dominant discourse in their political circles and media is generally prejudiced, narrow minded and inward looking. It's always about them them them. (or about French and German bashing) They never tried to contribute positively to the European project.

I agree with that, although it's not just the facts as they presently are, it's also what you want to do about them, your level of ambition.

The problem with worshipping increments is that it is self defeating. It leads to a static, non-functional democracy because any significant change is seen as reckless. It's obvious to me that universal health care is a case in point. You guys will never have a simple, universal system of coverage because you're afraid of jumping there. Many European country as well as Canada have made the jump a long time ago, while you guys hesitate forever.

I don't think anyone is doing that.

What I am doing is simply stating that incremental improvement is not a bad thing. That some progress is still progress. That incremental improvement is better than no improvement.

65% of Americam citizens don't want Medicare 4 All (single payer/no insurance company version of M4A) according to a recent study I've linked to before. They do want incremental improvements like expanded Medicare down to age 50/55 and increased subsidies for lower incomes. You may say that politicans don't have the ambition to do what needs to be done....but American citizens don't even agree on what needs to be done, so why blame the politicians?

If we have a non-functioning democracy, it's because our population can't agree on a solution, not because there is an obvious best solution that our elected officials just can't manage to figure out.

I think, incremental steps for health care is the ONLY way you'll be able to implement a single payer system that will gradually get American citizens to support. Remember how conservatives hated Obamacare and all those changes...at least until you tried to take those changes away.

I believe this is the only realistic way.

I agree about the continuing turmoil in the UK government about what does or does not constitute an acceptable set of goals for the Brexit negotiations. Their Labor party appears dysfunctional, and the Torys, disunited. The EU appears (to me) to have been well organized, but remote and unwilling to make any meaningful concessions - no significant ones I'm aware of. There may be more to this than I know, but it appears to me to be headed to an unfortunate outcome for both.

Your expressed views on the British as members of the EU appear to match those of Charles de Gaulle, who as President of France vetoed their entry twice. However, I suspect there are two versions of the story regarding British cooperation & contributions, and the degree other openness they received from the Major continental powers. There's certainly a very long history there involving British exceptionalism in dealing with the major powers of Europe, and it would likely be wrong to assume the forces behind it aren't still at work today. History isn't over.

In any event it appears there will be no winners in this game.

In your OP you stated:


That's four "credo" about increments, and none about bolder changes. It certainly gave me an impression that you are worshipping a mere tool, as if it was infinitly superior to other tools.

I've seen polls where a majority of interviewed Americans favored a simple, universal system. In any case, to lead is not the same thing as to follow the polls.

It's not about "winning". It's about maintaining a functional common market.

What "meaningful concessions" did the EU reject, pray tell?

My OP was about how my "credo" differs from progressives. I believe there is a huge difference between moderates/center-left and progressives/far-left on what the beneifts/downsides of incrementalism are.

I was calling out what I viewed to be distinctions, not my entire belief structure. Even at that, I only spent a few minutes writing the OP, it's not meant to be my all-encompassing manifesto.

I value bold inspirational goals, but only so far as they serve as a directional tool.

I think marching down the American football field 4-7 yards per play is more likely to get a touchdown than throwing 70 yard hail mary's. The ultimate goal though is to still score a touchdown (this is even beginning to mention the strength of the defense and slowing down progress).

None of this is "worshiping" anything, mind you. Merely laying out preferences. You're trying to insult me I guess (or at least dismiss my preferences) by saying I'm worshiping the wrong tool, but that's not what's happening and I'm not insulted.

Yes.

This poll asked them further questions such as, 'what if M4A system meant that you would lose your current insurance and be in some version of Medicare?' --- that support quickly dwindled down to 34% in the strongly favor category .

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-january-2019/

If you see any other polls that go further into what M4A is, I'd love to see something to compare to.

I'm not trying to insult you, just saying that there are situations where a bold move forward can work better than a series of small increments...

To which we agree. There are situations where that is true.

We just appear to disagree on what those situations are.

Could you provide an example of a reform or domain where you would favor a bold move forward rather than a series of increments, then?

Sure. Medicare for all.

I personally would love the USA to jump right into that. If I had a magic wand, I'd make it happen. If I had a genie and 3 wishes I'd use one on healthcare for the world.

Climate change is another. I'd favor a bold move on that too.



If only I was all powerful and could make what I favor into law.

I'd love it if all of my beliefs could be boldly made into law.