By choosing to co-sponsor an updated version of his healthcare plan, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ rivals for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination are foolishly elevating him as the party’s leader on healthcare policy.
This is a mistake that reveals that opponents are taking Sanders too seriously in one sense and not seriously enough in another sense.
When Sanders unveiled the latest version of his vision to eliminate standard private insurance and replace it with a single government-run plan, the bill was co-sponsored by four of his opponents: Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Much of the commentary on this has focused on whether Democrats are getting ahead of their skis in endorsing socialized health insurance given that the idea polls terribly when voters learn about the trade-offs involved, making it a big fat target for President Trump in the general election.
But there’s another aspect to this, and that’s the question of why rivals would want to sign on to somebody else’s signature proposal rather than emphasizing that they’re going to release their own, better, healthcare plan.
In the 2008 Democratic primaries, the three leading candidates — then Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards — all released similar healthcare proposals that essentially worked toward increasing insurance by expanding Medicaid and subsidizing the purchase of private coverage, with an optional government-plan. But there were some differences that they could argue over — most famously, Obama opposed an individual mandate, which Edwards and Clinton endorsed. These differences allowed them to stake out their ground in the race. It would have been odd had Edwards and Obama simply signed on to the Clinton plan, deferring to her as the healthcare guru.
It was understandable, back in 2017, that senators with presidential ambitions would want to sign on to that year’s Sanders proposal. At the time, it was unclear whether he was going to run, and so it made sense to associate themselves with the 2016 runner-up who still had a loyal following among a good share of the Democratic electorate.
But now that he’s running, it makes much less sense to be so deferential. All it does is reinforce the idea that he’s the one who has been out in front on the issue. He could argue, why not vote for the original product rather than the copycat? After all, you can’t beat the real thing.
If Sanders’ opponents want to show they support the principle of creating a free national healthcare plan, they could say that, and then argue that they aren’t signing on to his bill because they prefer a different path. Then they can release their own unique plan. That way they can look like leaders rather than followers.
At the outset, I reflected that it seemed that his rivals were both taking him too seriously and not seriously enough. Here’s what I mean.
Candidates may be overestimating the necessity of embracing his specific version of socialized health insurance. Democratic voters may want to continue to expand coverage, but there could ultimately be a strong constituency for a more narrowly targeted plan focused on the 9 percent of people who remain uninsured, as well as making existing subsidies more generous. Also, even if a candidate wants to push for a socialized health insurance system, there are many alternate paths to take. The activist energy demanding a full on socialized health insurance, which would also uproot coverage for the rest of the population, may not represent the will of the broader Democratic electorate. Even polls showing support for “Medicare for all” in the abstract doesn’t mean that voters will only consider a candidate who embraces the specific Sanders vision.
On the flip side, co-sponsoring the Sanders legislation is a reflection that maybe Democratic rivals don’t see him as much of a threat to win the nomination. They’re still trapped in the mentality of 2017, thinking it’s good to be associated with him so as to be in a strong position to pick up his voters when he isn’t ultimately the nominee. For instance, none of Harris’ rivals co-sponsored her LIFT Act aimed at the middle class when she introduced it in January. Why? Because they view her as ultimately the more serious threat than Sanders. This, too, is a mistake.
Sanders’ chances are being dismissed for the same reasons Trump was being dismissed in 2016. People think it’s ridiculous that he would be the nominee. In the 2016 GOP race, candidates including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ted Cruz of Texas spent a lot of time early on pummeling each other rather than Trump, because they knew he simply couldn’t be the nominee, and they wanted to be the one to capitalize when he collapsed. In the process, they ignored all polling data and objective metrics pointing to Trump as the one to beat.
By objective metrics, Sanders’ chances should be taken seriously. Sanders has consistently been in second place in most polls nationally and at the state level — well ahead of the third place candidates — and vulnerable front-runner Joe Biden hasn’t even formally entered the campaign. He also has a massive lead among Biden voters asked about their second choice. And he raised $18 million, more than anybody else.
So Democratic rivals may come to regret the day when they helped elevate him rather than staking out their own path.
