So, Cornel West has revamped his platform a bit since I last went over it. Last time he just had like 6 vague points in it, and now he has something that has a more solid framework for policies. To my knowledge he still lacks specifics for implementation, but we do know far more about his priorities than we did before. And I feel....mixed about it.
I mean he definitely has a lot of positions I'd expect from a leftist candidate like himself, and even talks big about going beyond them in the long term. In some ways I think some of his positions are bonkers, he supports a $27 minimum wage. My own position is that the highest sustainable minimum wage is likely closer to $18 an hour. And he supports things like a "habeas corpus healthcare system" (free healthcare to all residents of the US including, presumably illegals), "ensuring family sustaining and living wages for all disability benefits" (which I assume would equal his $27 an hour minimum wage, we're talking $4680 a month at that rate which is nuts), and "ending wall street mass real estate holdings", which I don't necessarily oppose in principle but logistically this sounds like the kinds of property seizures a communist would do....and yeah. He's really trying hard to be the far left candidate. And while he has a lot of planks that I do like to varying degrees, his rhetoric indicates extreme positions that would likely be very expensive and potentially unsustainable.
And then there's his position on UBI, which I wanna focus on:
"Establish a federal Universal Basic Income commission"
At first, I was thinking, wow, this is what I've been waiting for, a position on UBI. And it looks encouraging. He wants a commission on UBI. Except....then I read some comments from my fellow UBI supporters on it, and I kind of have to admit they're right.
Basically, a commission on UBI isn't the same thing as a UBI. it's basically promising to study UBI. Even though we know UBI works. And at the end of the day, one comment mentioned how he would probably conclude that we can't afford it, and drop it as an idea.
And you know what? That dude is probably right.
Leftists...have a very tenuous relationship with UBI. A lot of them are UBI-curious, meaning they're intrigued by UBI, they like the idea, they think it should be investigated, but the second anyone puts to paper any actual idea of accomplishing it...they often turn against it. Because they don't like how much it costs, and they dont like the compromises to the existing safety net or other ideas that they support. UBI just gets crowded out on progressive wish lists like this, where ultimately, when forced to choose between UBI and other priorities, other priorities gets the nod.
It could even be said that the main reason for my divergence from greens and other similar leftists IS over this UBI divide. I myself have studied the budget, how much these proposals cost, and I kind of came to a stark conclusion. We can either have UBI, and some cheaper progressive ideas like free college and building more housing, but on expensive priorities like a green new deal and medicare for all, some compromise is needed. We could afford something like build back better with a UBI, but a green new deal....eh...not so much. Medicare for all, I'm mixed on. I myself support it in principle, and I've attempted to fund it on top of UBI, but I admit it kind of pushes the maximum levels of taxation I'm willing to accept, and it might be better to pursue a public option program with a UBI. I don't know. I support M4A in principle, but I could easily compromise to a proper public option push comes to shove.
I could compromise my UBI plan around these other proposals, but doing so would...make my UBI smaller. Something like 50-75% of the poverty line rather than 100%, and most people would still be forced to work under that approach. This might be acceptable for job happy leftists, but my own version of economic justice means being free from coercion to work, meaning that UBI is the centerpiece of my economic vision and primary goal. All other goals end up being moved around UBI based on what we can afford and what the priorities are. Medicare for all (or a public option) healthcare system is my second goal. My third goal is free college/student debt forgiveness (relatively cheap), my fourth is the climate (and I tend to prefer build back better over a green new deal), and 5th is housing.
I feel like listing my priorities in such a sense is important because it also explains to people in which order I prefer things. What I consider most important and what I consider least. With leftist wish lists like West's platform, you're kinda left guessing. But honestly, I suspect, like many other leftists, it's a lower priority. Most of the dude's platform is wedded to more traditional leftists goals. He supports a jobs program, and a $27 minimum wage, and a "habeas corpus" healthcare system (basically free healthcare on demand for everyone, including illegal immigrants), and not only a green new deal, but a full on global climate initative. And then he has a "commission" to look into UBI. Yeah okay.
It seems obvious that this guy is not gonna take UBI very seriously. Again, most likely outcome? He studies it and shoots it down because he's spending so much on other stuff. Medicare for all would likely require $2.4 trillion in new funding based on my estimations (although it's possible it could be lower due to savings of shifting to such a system). A green new deal could cost anywhere from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. And he seems to gravitate toward ideas that sound very expensive. And UBI would require around $3.5 trillion in new funding. I'm just going to say it. UBI, M4A, GND. Pick two AT MOST. One can can do with breathing room, two we can do but it will be tight, we CANT do all three. Of those three which do you think west is most likely to give up on? Probably UBI.
With me, what would I give up on? Green new deal. hands down. I'm perfectly fine with the build back better frame work and after looking at the wide array of climate plans out there, it ranked among the top I looked at. So with me, you can see that I'm all in on UBI, I'll fund medicare for all if I can, but if not I'm fine going with a public option like medicare extra for all, and then a build back better or yang 2020 style climate plan.
As such, I don't necessarily see eye to eye with leftists like west, williamson, etc. on priorities, which is why I'm not very keen on supporting them this time around, especially when donald trump is a literal threat to democracy, and biden ain't half bad himself. I might go third party if a candidate arises that prioritizes issues the way I do and has plans to boot, but I'd expect at best Cornel West's budget to mirror something akin to what Howie Hawkins proposed. Basically, he went all in with his climate plan for $3 trillion a year, supported some NHS style healthcare system, and his UBI was...an afterthought. it was an NIT that cost only $200 billion a year, which tells me he either didn't actually study the math on the issue, or he expected his green new deal and related measures to keep people busy and working with decent pay checks where they wouldn't "need" a UBI.
So basically, don't be fooled by west wanting a commission on UBI. it does slightly improve my favorability toward him, but not by much. Only a point or two on the metrics I did earlier this year. In other words, it changes nothing, I'm still inclined to pursue Biden, and yeah. I'm sorry, but I'm not in a protesty mood this year where just saying "basic income" on a platform (at least without being serious about its implementation) is enough to draw me toward the leftist candidates. I don't really agree fully with the leftist vision of the economy, and while it's better than Biden's on paper, it's not so much that I would actively stop supporting the democratic candidate to support a third party candidate given the existential issues democracy itself is currently going through.
No comments:
Post a Comment