So, it's been no secret of mine that I've been liking Dean Phillips more and more lately. I mean, recently, I even liked him a bit more than Marianne Williamson, if only because he gave a nod to UBI. But, it wasn't until now that we saw the two go head to head and got a good contrast between the two.
Now, this debate was pretty good and I was impressed with both candidates in different ways. Dean Phillips in particular showed foreign policy expertise, and experience in Washington, but Marianne Williamson had an economic firebrand vibe that is not all that dissimilar to Bernie Sanders. For much of the debate, I liked both candidates, and I thought both were pretty solid. I really struggled to choose one over the other, as both have their strengths and weaknesses.
But, there were a couple moments that swayed me toward one candidate over the other, and as such, I think I made up my mind who I'm supporting for 2024. And that candidate is Marianne Williamson.
It wasn't really anything Marianne Williamson said or did that made her stand out. More, it was things Dean Phillips said or did that kind of alienated me.
First of all, Dean Phillips mentioned putting republicans in his cabinet and wanting to be bipartisan. Wrong move, Dean. While Americans are divided, the answer isnt just to split the difference between both sides and to listen to both as if they had equal merit. One side seems more entrenched in the idea of truth and justice than the other. One side seems pure evil to me, and the other is various shades of flawed. I dont believe the GOP should be given any serious consideration when they don't even live in reality. Bipartisanship needs to stop being treated as a virtue in elections. I dont value bipartisanship when one side is objectively right and the other is objectively wrong. I'm sorry. I don't.
Marianne Williamson on the other hand understood that she wasn't going to please everyone, and she didn't even try. Like FDR, she basically welcomed the hatred of those who didn't. And I respect that. We need someone with that kind of conviction in the white house. Im not saying that they cant listen to opposing opinions, mind you. Theres a balance to be had. I just dont wanna be listening to REPUBLICAN opinions. I want someone who will welcome the GOP's hatred and meet it head on. So Marianne wins there.
The second major mess up Dean made was going after Marianne on fiscal issues. He literally went all debt hawk on her, claiming we can't pay for her grand ideas, and that we needed to be fiscally responsible. Marianne fired back talking about how we shouldnt run the country like a fiscally responsible business, but a fiscally responsible family. In a sense, I kind of agree.
Look, I support some level of fiscal restraint. Still, I believe that a grand progressive agenda is economically feasible. I've run the numbers on bernie sanders' 2020 plan, and Williamson's agenda is basically that, and should come out similar to that.
I support similar levels of spending increases as well. My big difference from leftists like Williamson is how that money is allocated. I prioritize different. My #1 priority is a UBI, with healthcare second, and a green new deal can be scaled down to something more moderate.
For phillips to go after Williamson fiscally like this tells me that he plans to govern very moderately on economics. He has some progressive ideas. He supports medicare for all, the same as williamson, but then he talked about supporting more moderate ideas in congress. What form of healthcare DO you support, Dean? I mean, even I waffle on this, given I support a $4 trillion UBI, can we afford both? Im not sure. But if you arent embracing UBI and going in a more moderate direction, to be weaker on other policies is inexcusable. My excuse for waffling on medicare for all is because I want to fund some sort of healthcare plan on top of UBI and recognize i might need to scale it down to make the numbers work. But if you dont have those constraints, you should go full stop.
Heck, him supporting M4A was what made me more seriously consider him anyway.
This isn't to say Dean Phillips isnt a very good candidate. Much of the debate rehashed what I knew. Dean phillips has leaned strongly into housing, but has been weaker on stuff like student debt forgiveness. Williamson has a well rounded bernie-esque economic agenda, but lacks a UBI plan. Phillips kinda sorta gave a nod toward UBI, but hasnt really embraced it full on. On foreign policy, I think phillips has a much stronger foreign policy case, while williamson seems to support weird feel good ideas like a department of peace.
I mean, all in all I'd be happy with both. I just think those two things kinda betrayed dean as a far more moderate candidate on economic issues. I dont want to listen to republicans saying we shouldnt be funding big social programs because we should have lower taxes. I don't want Dean distancing himself from progressive proposals because he doesnt think we can afford them. Dean Phillips is trying to live in two worlds at the same time. He's trying to be both an establishment moderate, and a progressive, and is kind of sort of failing at both. If I felt his convictions on economic justice were more sincere, I might take him a bit more seriously, but after the debate, I think williamson won. Well, I dont think either won objectively, but williamson won ME over. I think she's stronger on my top priorities, so I'm going to go with her. Dean Phillips is a very close second on paper, although I do question his commitment to progressive policies after tonight's debate. And for me, that's the deciding factor. Dean phillips started off as more down for me, came up through apparent support for policies i support, but he's kinda showing some signs of waffling. So yeah. I think I'm gonna endorse williamson at this point.
We need a new FDR type candidate. Im not saying it HAS to be williamson, or they have to take that specific mold. Honestly, my ideal candidate doesnt really exist. Yang kinda sorta went in that direction in 2020 but also kinda waffled more than I liked (and it cost him my endorsement in 2020), and now Phillips is doing the same. The sad thing is if i had to redo 2020 i probably would've went yang this time around. But phillips is weaker than yang. Just as williamson is weaker than bernie. But given how much priority i give to UBI and how phillips has refused to full on embrace it like yang did, he just doesn't have as much of an edge as yang would have had if he ran again. So that's another way of looking at this too.
Still, I will say this. Both Williamson and Phillips are decent candidates in their own right. I would take both over Joe Biden. Still, I think williamson just edges out dean phillips for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment