I reviewed the Democratic Party platform for 2024 and found something interesting: When it comes to economic policy, this year’s platform is less progressive and less ambitious than it was four years ago. Democrats have tacked right or retreated on health insurance reform, drug prices, Medicare and Social Security expansion, poverty, labor, taxes, Wall Street, and the minimum wage.
(I didn’t review military policy, since David Swanson has done that, as have Stephen Zunes and Matthew Petti. Schuyler Mitchell has reviewed its handling of immigration and policing.)
Why become less ambitious on economic issues, especially when public confidence in the economy remains low? Is it the influence of big donors? Is it the willingness of the party’s internal left to back its candidates without first demanding policy concessions? Is it both?
Democrats are less likely to win it with a platform that reflects the politics of caution—which, for voters, means the soft despair of the status quo.
Lobbying certainly played a part. 2024’s scaled-back health proposals, for example, are a big win for the for-profit health sector and its massive lobbying investment. Health corporations spent $751,540,000 (more than three-quarters of a billion dollars) on lobbying in 2023 alone. They employed 3,344 lobbyists, which is more than six lobbyists for every member of Congress. (Source: Open Secrets, using Senate records.)
My economic views are well to the left of the Democratic Party’s, even in its best years. But these changes don’t just repudiate the left. They defy public opinion on one issue after another, driving the party backward even as U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris runs as the candidate of change.
Party platforms aren’t exactly binding contracts, of course, and this one was written while President Joe Biden was still the presumptive nominee. Vice President Harris has already proposed several changes, including a $6,000 tax credit for the first year of a child’s life and a first-time homebuyer’s credit of $25,000 instead of the platform’s $10,000. But her changes have not been substantial, at least so far.
The platform still matters. It represents the consensus view of the party’s leadership and, despite the references to reelecting Biden, was adopted just this week at the convention.
This year’s platform also undercuts a favored argument from the Democratic Party’s left wing: that Biden has been “the most progressive president since FDR.” That’s always been debatable. Biden has been anything but progressive on military issues (including the Gaza genocide). By contrast, Lyndon Johnson’s domestic achievements included Medicare and Medicaid, major anti-poverty legislation, and the Voting Rights Act.
Biden did notch some progressive achievements, however, and would have had more had he not been hamstrung by Congress. A party in this situation wouldn’t normally lower its ambitions. It would raise them, pledging to do more if given full control of Congress.
Again, why? Democrats may be operating under the misguided notion that these proposals are “too far left” for voters, which polling tells us is wrong. It may also feel that it no longer needs to appease its own left flank, which is probably true. But even if the party’s internal left has fallen in line behind its leaders, key voting blocs still need and want more than this platform offers.
The race is still close. Democrats are less likely to win it with a platform that reflects the politics of caution—which, for voters, means the soft despair of the status quo.
That’s the end of commentary. What follows is a list of policy differences between the 2020 and 2024 platforms, together with public opinion polling on each policy area.
Health Insurance: The “Public Option”
The 2020 document offered a proposal for the so-called “public option.” While it fell short of full health reform, it was ambitious in today’s political context. The section, entitled “Securing Universal Healthcare Through a Public Option,” included the following text:
It goes on to say:
That’s not Medicare For All, but it’s genuinely progressive. This public option plan also provided coverage for low-income Americans in states whose Republican governors had refused to expand Medicaid. Significantly, it would also have allowed people to enroll in Medicare (rather than employer-provided plans or other coverage) at age 60, rather than waiting until they reach the current eligibility age of 65.
What does the 2024 platform say about the public option? Nothing. The phrase doesn’t appear anywhere, and neither do these proposals. (According to a quote-tracking service, President Biden stopped using the phrase “public option” the month after he was elected.)
Public Opinion
Healthcare costs were the third-highest concern of American voters, according to recent polling, with 57% of those polled saying these costs are “a very big problem” and only 2% saying they were not a problem at all. The 2020 proposal would have helped address those concerns.
Drug Prices
Democrats included a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allowing Medicare to negotiate prices on a limited list of medications. While that provision was cut back significantly during congressional negotiations, it was a step forward. The IRA also permits Medicare to demand reimbursement when pharmaceutical corporations raise prices faster than overall inflation. It will also cap out-of-pocket costs for seniors, beginning next year, albeit at a level that’s still onerous for some.
These are all positive, if incremental, steps. But activists disappointed by the final bill’s limitations were told that this was only the beginning and that more action was coming. Not so, according to the 2024 platform.
The 2020 platform proposed empowering Medicare to negotiate drug prices “for all public and private purchasers—for families and businesses, as well as older Americans—no matter where they get their coverage.” It pledged to “prevent the price of (all) brand-name and outlier generic drugs from rising faster than the inflation rate,” and to ensure that treatment for chronic health conditions would be available “at little or no cost.”
All these 2020 proposals would have expanded the IRA’s cost provisions and extended them to everyone, including people on private insurance. All of them—enabling Medicare negotiate drug prices for everyone,........