Credit: Joanna Penn, Flickr (https://flic.kr/p/7uWDgw)

I’ve written quite a bit lately about the divide in the Democratic Party. The divide seems so potent, in fact, that some of the voters I am speaking of aren’t really even a part of the Democratic Party. They are progressive, they are on “the left,” but they don’t identify as Democrats. Some never did, but others have recently fled, whether over disagreements on policy, or because they feel the betrayed by the party elites.

This greatly concerns me, which is why I talk about it so often. It’s also fairly complex, and it seems to me there is plenty of both credit and blame to go around. That’s what I want to talk about today, mostly in a more general fashion.

In some ways, the divide can be framed as being between self-proclaimed progressives and self-proclaimed liberal pragmatists. Now, these labels aren’t perfect. I’m sure many Hillary voters consider themselves progressive (some certainly are, and on social justice issues they may be more progressive than many Berniecrats). Progressives may also balk at the insinuation that they aren’t pragmatic, but I think their gripe is more likely to be that the Democrats aren’t actually pragmatic either(or, alternatively, that pragmatism isn’t a virtue).

As a more concrete example, take healthcare. The progressives have fully latched on to single-payer/Medicare-for-all as their policy of choice (I favor it as well, for full transparency). Traditional Democrats don’t necessarily oppose single-payer — something like 75% of Democratic voters support it, according to polls. But just 139 Democratic members of Congress (just under 60% of all Congressional Dems) have officially co-sponsored Medicare-for-all bills. There is a disconnect here.

And inevitably, whenever a progressive policy becomes a part of the conversation — whether it be single payer healthcare, tuition-free public college, a federal job guarantee, or anything else — Democrats will claim it is too idealistic, and that we have to do something more moderate (and invariably more complicated, harder to explain, and that doesn’t fully accomplish the goal). It seems almost instinctual for them.

Their argument tends to be that things like single payer don’t stand a chance, and therefor we need to try something more likely, more practical, more pragmatic. But where is the evidence that supports this line of reasoning? Republicans don’t like the Affordable Care Act despite it being very similar to plans that Republicans used to support (Congressional bills in the 90’s, and Mitt Romney’s system in Massachusetts which came in part from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation). They don’t care whether the plan is moderate or not. It’s about how you sell it.

Obamacare and Medicare-for-all poll very similarly (both around 50%) — this despite the fact that one is well known while the other is relatively new to the public conversation. Beyond that, Obamacare’s popularity is at its peak right now . It has typically been below 50% (often closer to 40%). And, almost every Republican in Congress will vote against whatever the Democrats put forward, meaning something like all payer rate setting or a public option or other tweaks will get voted down just as easily as single payer. All that is to say I remain unconvinced of the idea that more centrist means more passable, except insofar as there are some Democratic senators who, against the wishes of the vast majority of their party, won’t support the more progressive policies. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in that way.

Now, this is largely contingent on the current political climate. For example, let’s imagine a 2021 where a bill is put forward that approximates universal healthcare, but is not single payer, and it looks like it can pass due to unforeseen republican support, then that is great. I wouldn’t stand in the way of it landing on President Harris’ desk for signing. But that doesn’t seem particularly likely.

Because of all this, it seems to me that we should be as progressive and confident as possible. Donald Trump won the presidency by promising a bunch of crazy and unlikely things. There are very few lessons we should take from the way Trump operates, but if there is one, it is that people like a strong message. They like feeling as though their leaders are truly pushing for change; they don’t want to hear about complex, wonky policy, and they don’t want politicians to laugh off big ideas as pipe dreams (as Clinton did with single payer).

I don’t mean to say that candidates should lie, or overpromise. But they shouldn’t be afraid to think big, and create a conversation around real, widespread reform. It is always possible to settle later on if it comes down to it. But we mustn’t confuse defeatism for pragmatism.