Accuracy in Media

The Washington Post editorial board dinged the Medicare-for-all plan proposed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for lacking “factual plausibility.”

The editorial quoted Warren and Sanders from the second Democratic debate on Tuesday as they defended their proposals after being called into question by fellow presidential candidate John Delaney.

“I DON’T understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday night, in the most notable zinger of July’s Democratic presidential primary debate. “I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the other major candidate on the field’s left wing, piled on.

While the editorial board said that ambition is essential the fact that the Democrats have embraced Obama’s “no drama” approach to governing–often defined by the philosophy “don’t do stupid s—,” they found it odd that the party would suddenly embrace “ideological grandiosity” as a prerequisite for serving as president.

The Post then hit Warren and Sanders for their unrealistic plan and warned Democratic voters to be wary of those candidates who create a bogeyman to explain away opposition to their ideas.

That means, first, that proposals should meet a baseline degree of factual plausibility — a bar that, for example, the Medicare-for-all plan that Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren favor does not clear. Ms. Warren’s Tuesday night zinger was aimed at former congressman John Delaney (Md.), who had pointed out correctly that the numbers behind the proposal simply do not compute: The senators cannot deliver a system that provides far more benefits than other single-payer systems they claim as their model while preserving the level of care and access that insured Americans currently enjoy. They should make the case for a government monopoly on health care if they want, but they should be honest about the trade-offs.

Candidates who promise big ideas should also be pressed on how they will realize them. Mr. Sanders says he will lead a revolution. Ms. Warren will take on the “giant corporations that have taken our government and that are holding it by the throat.” Then, the theory goes, they can bring about radical change.

But the United States is a vast, pluralistic country, and Congress will continue to reflect its ideological range. Big donors and billionaires may exercise too much influence, but Democratic primary voters should be wary of candidates who use that fact to explain away all opposition to their ideas. Even if you undid Citizens United and enacted campaign finance reform, sustainable policy in America would emerge only by means of principled compromise.

The next president should have a vision of progress for the nation that is expansive and inspiring. It also should be grounded in mathematical and political reality.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments