Memo From Washington (George, That Is) to Our Wisconsin Revolution “You Need the Votes … You Need to Convince More Folk”
The Broadway musical “Hamilton” is wonderful theatre and good politics, with timely advice for us thrown in. In response to Alexander Hamilton who has a plan to fundamentally remake the nation’s financial system, Washington tells his Treasury Secretary, “You need the votes.”
Hamilton replies, “No, we need bold strokes. We need this plan.”
To which Washington responds, “No, you need to convince more folks. … Figure it out, Alexander.”
The debate between Hamilton, the visionary, and Washington, the tactician, also divides Democrats today. The visionary anticipates what a victory would look like. The tactician contemplates the steps that have to be taken to get there.
Our Wisconsin Revolution (OWR) takes the role of Hamilton in its weekly newsletter. “Business as usual will not do.” “The cycle of incrementalism” has to be broken. “We need a political REVOLUTION!”
To which Washington would reply, “No, you need to convince more folks.”
OWR’s vision is summarized in a 72-point platform.
Included are: fully paid family leave, universal childcare, universal long-term care, Medicare for all, free tuition at all public universities and technical colleges, public financing of political campaigns, and more money for public schools, in-home care, assisted living, roads, public transportation, broadband, affordable housing, and public defenders. Also, a state bank, a state retirement plan for private workers, automatic voter registration, a national popular vote for president, the possibility of a state minimum income guarantee, and more.
It would appear that in the room where the platform was put together no suggestion was turned down. There is no indication which ideas have priority. No strategy for implementation. No acknowledgement of the difficulties. The Revolution, it seems, will come automatically when political leaders renounce the influence of money and boldly reject incrementalism.
Revolution – defined by Merriam-Webster as a “sudden, radical or complete change” – is not that easy. They are not common for good reason. Most people, even though they may complain about their specific circumstances, are not comfortable with the prospect of complete change.
What Machiavelli wrote some 500 years ago is still true. “There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success … than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.”
Opponents attack at “every opportunity” with the “zeal of partisans”. Supporters are “halfhearted” because they “do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it.” (Think Obamacare)
Revolution is difficult. OWR implies otherwise. Voters are “hungry for real change”.
It is relatively easy to find support for a concept – health care for all and a single payer system, for example. As long as the focus is on the substantial benefits, people are on board. The difficulties and disagreements start when the concept has to be operationalized and funded. Costs must be considered. Not just benefits. The numbers must add up. A system has to be created. Choices made. There are winners and losers. Somebody must pay. Support erodes.
In 2011, Vermont passed Act 48, the first law in the nation to provide health coverage to all state residents. Although hailed as a success it was just an outline of benefits. Despite strong political support and a lot of work over the next three years, the effort to make the promise real failed. The math said that the total state budget would have to almost double.
This past January, single payer legislation in California was not called for a vote in the State Assembly when the sponsor determined there was not enough support for the plan, the cost of which was estimated to be some $350 billion a year.
We all suffer from the human condition. We like stuff. Paying for it, not so much. Proposed programs poll well. When it comes to taxes: “don’t tax me, don’t tax thee, tax the one behind the tree.”
Election results also tell us voters are not ready to embrace Revolution.
Joe Biden, probably the most moderate of the candidates, won the Democratic presidential primaries in 2020. In recent mayoral elections, the more moderate candidates won in Minneapolis and New York City.
On ballot initiatives in 2020, California voters, who if any might support Revolution, voted not to raise property taxes on commercial and industrial property to fund schools, not to expand rent controls, not to repeal cash bail, and not to end the ban on affirmative action. They gave the green light to companies like Uber and Lyft to exempt their drivers from state labor laws.
If California voters are not ready for Revolution, it is not likely Wisconsin voters are. This is not to say significant change should not be pursued. It is to say that one should be clear eyed about obstacles and the steps necessary to overcome them. “Being bold” is not a strategy.
We all have a tendency to see what we want to see and believe our own propaganda.
After the last election, OWR wrote, “There's this false narrative out there that when Democrats offer bold approaches to big problems they lose,” pointing out that of the 136 Democratic members of Congress who sponsored Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, only one lost.
“Voters in swing states and even in red Republican states showed their support for progressive ideas. … Acting boldly on the biggest problems facing our country not only is the right thing to do, it's good politics and a winning strategy.”
The problem with that conclusion is Democratic winners in swing and red states came from the heavily Democratic districts in those states. (In Wisconsin, think Madison and Milwaukee.) Of the 136 sponsors across the country, 105 came from districts that are more than 60 percent Democratic.
There is work to be done. More votes needed. More folk convinced.
There is natural conflict between the number of voters needed and a Revolution to bring “real change”. The more changes, the broader the support necessary. On the other hand, the more people involved, the fewer things everyone agrees with. To gather enough votes, you have to actually give up something you may want badly.
Revolutions not based on force, but on support from a majority of voters, necessarily arrive in increments.
Convince more folk. It is harder work than talking about REVOLUTION. Make a plan. Get specific. How many voters needed. Who are they. Where are they. How can they be convinced.
It’s “folk” who have to be convinced. Not legislators. Not opinion leaders. Not the media. Folk. When folk are convinced, the others follow.
Douglas Kane is the author of "Our Politics: Reflections on Political Life" published in 2019 by Southern Illinois University Press
[subscribe2]