There is some concern that the newer far left members of the party, who are in the minority btw, might be a problem for the Democrats to get much done. Some have compared them to the far right minority, aka, freedom caucus in the Republican party. Any group who is way outside of the norm for either party can make it difficult to get anything done. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that compromise is the only way to move forward?
But on a brighter note, I read that one of the new members of the more liberal group, has already admitted that she now realizes that compromise is the only way to get anything done, when you have to consider what 435 people want. I just don't remember her name, because I read too many news articles.
It doesn't take neoliberalism to make compromise. That is a false narrative put forward by centrist and corporate neoliberals. Compromise on legislation is good politics, provided the compromises reflect the values of all parties involved.
This labeling of "far right" and far left" is a method of justification in leaving groups behind in the process, which is what is pissing people off. The path to compromise is not as easy, but it is possible.
I'm not talking about neoliberal or any other type of liberal or conservative. All I'm saying is that when you have 435 people that have the power to make laws, things need to move toward the middle if you want to move forward. I'm a little left of center. I want far less military spending, a higher minimum wage, a more reliable safety net and regulations that protect our water and air, etc. I don't consider myself neoliberal, but I'm reasonable enough to know that what I might want in an ideal world may be the complete opposite of what someone else wants in their ideal world. In order to get a little, I have to meet the other side somewhere near the middle.
Here's an example. Prior to 2006, Medicare didn't pay a thing towards the RX. drugs that people used at home. I was a home health RN in the late 70s, 80s and 90s. I remember having to help my patients decide which of their meds were the most important to have filled, since doctors would rarely cooperate with me in decreasing Rxs. or ordering less expensive meds. Many of my patients were poor and could only buy a few of their most important meds. Then the congress past Part D, the part of Medicare that pays for drugs. I and many Democrats would have loved it if Part D didn't involve insurance companies, but the only way to pass Part D was to compromise and allow insurance companies to manage the plans and get paid monthly premiums for the plan that was chosen by the recipient. Was that a perfect plan? Absolutely not, but because of it, my patients after 2006 were usually able to afford their medications and doctors were more willing to change to a cheaper drug if the patient's drug wasn't covered by their plan.
You can be rigid and say that unless the Part D is free, you won't support it, or you can compromise and say that it's better to help most Medicare beneficiaries be able to get all or most of their drugs at an affordable cost, despite the fact that insurance companies are receiving premiums for this benefit.
As a Medicare beneficiary myself, I think Part D leaves a lot to be desired, but it's far better than the time when Medicare didn't cover Rx. drugs at all.
Does that explain what I mean when I say that compromise is needed to get anything done?
Actually Part D was passed in 2003, but took effect in 2006.
