Bipartisanship - bad idea for Democrats in 2019

Paul Starr has a good summary of how the experience of Obama's Presidency provided very practical refutation of his no-red-America-no-blue-America feelgood bipartisahip pitch. Starr calls that framing a "theory of change". (2020 and the Democrats’ Theory of Change American Prospect 03/21/2019)

He explains it this way:

Even cleverly interpreted, however, the theory of change that Obama espoused as a candidate in 2008 has long ceased to be tenable. He did get important things done, notably the Recovery Act in the depths of the Great Recession, the Affordable Care Act, and financial reform—but none of them thanks to bipartisanship. Republicans refused to be partners in governing even in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Depression. The only reason Obama had significant legislative achievements is that for his first two years Democrats had control of Congress, including a filibuster-proof Senate majority for about six months, which is what enabled the ACA to pass. [my emphasis]

Unfortunately, he goes on to stress that Democrats should avoid advocating Medicare for All or reparations for slavery. The latter is an issue that hasn't been seriously discussed in a way that has engaged a large audience. And few American voters would quickly idenify it with any current programs. It goes without saying that the Republicans would stigmatize it as "welfare," but they do that anyway with every program that doesn't brings special benefits to oligarchs. Still, it is such a complicated and confusing concept right now that a Democratic candidate would have to possess unusual finesse to use it effectively as an issue.

But that is not the case with Medicare for All. Medicare is a program that people understand and know that it works. People who aren't yet 65 know people who are. Or have parents or other relatives who are, and they know it works well. That doesn't mean that there aren't a significant number of voters who would abolish even the present Medicare systems if FOX News and Donald Trump started pushing the idea actively. But it does mean that Medicare for All polls very well, even among Republicans. And it's actually more straightforward to explain than the ACA is. Democratic timidity or vapid hopes for Bipartisanship shouldn't dominate the Party's use of this issue.

And just to be clear: Medicare for All is not just a good campaign issue, though it is that. It's also an excellent policy.