A majority of Americans now support impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office, he has never had an approval rating that surpassed 50%, his recent decision to remove troops from Syria has been attacked by members of his own party, including some of his biggest defenders. And yet he still has a good chance at winning reelection next year.
How can this be? How could America make the same mistake twice and give a second term to an obviously corrupt, impulsive and perhaps even mentally unstable president? Part of it that his base are completely unwavering in their adoration, with the president casting a cult like spell over his followers that no impeachment trial can shake. Proof of this is seen in the fact that while his approval ratings may never get above half of the country, they haven't gone down as the impeachment proceedings have been going on and further evidence of his corruption have become apparent. Trump also has the power of the incumbency, which allows him to drive the agenda more than a challenger, plus he will benefit from a strong economy that probably won't tank before election day, and he's also amassed an enormous financial war chest and will probably run a far less chaotic campaign then his first one. Another advantage is that, as with the last election, he can win the electoral college without winning the popular vote just as long as the right voters in the right states turn out for him. These are all strong reasons why we may suffer through four more years of disastrous leadership.
But there's another reason. In the mad scramble to gain the Democratic nomination that has left us with no less than twelve candidates only a year away from the election, the candidates have all made promises to the progressive base of the party, promises that may push away the moderate swing voters needed to win the White House.
The most prominent promise made by most of the candidates is Medicare for all, essentially a nationalizing of our health care system. In principle, I totally agree with this idea: every other industrialized nation in the world has a national healthcare system. Americans spend twice as much per capita on healthcare than people in those countries, and still tend to be less healthy and have shorter life spans. But the details of the program are going to be difficult to sell to the American public. In some ways, "Medicare for all" is the same kind of promise for progressives that "Build a Wall and get Mexico to pay for it" was for conservatives, that is, a base rallying cry that could prove far easier to say than carry out. First, it must be admitted that the Democrats will never be able to pass such a plan in congress if they don't retake the Senate, which might not happen. Even if the Dems do get a majority, they won't have enough to break a filibuster, which the Republicans will certainly use against such a plan. So the filibuster will also have to be tossed out (something I think should happen).
But even before a Democratic president could try to get the plan passed, he or she would have to win the White House, and the boldness of the Medicare for all plan might intimidate some swing voters. Right now, most Americans get their healthcare through their employers. A switch to a national plan, even one that may be better, could be jarring to some people. And it will result in higher taxes for many people, even those in the middle class. Now, Bernie Sanders to his credit, has pointed out that for most people the rise in taxes will be less than the current cost of premiums and prescription drug costs, but a tax increase is a tax increase, a fact that the Republican party and Trump will scream to the high heavens. Also, our massive healthcare industry employs hundreds of thousand of workers, most of whom are not wealthy CEO's, and all of whom will face unemployment if the plan is passed.
So, again, while I agree with the principle of Medicare for all, I think phasing it more slowly than the two year switch that it's proponents call for might be a wiser path. More moderate candidates are pushing for passing a public health care option that allows people to choose, rather than a massive switch, which makes sense to me. Also, I think considering lowering the age of Medicare eligibility and increasing the expansion of Medicaid would be good alternatives.
While the anger and horror that president Trump's horrendous presidency has inspired and inflamed progressives in this country, letting the left wing of the Democrats push the party to a point where many moderates will go with the devil they know (even if that devil is Donald Trump) is a possible and frightening idea. Trump holding onto to the White House for another four years will be a terrible outcome for both the country and the world, and the Dems must avoid that outcome at all costs, even it means scaling back ambitious progressive plans that probably won't get passed anyway. The stakes are too high to blow this election.
