Why Bernie can win it (and Corbyn couldn’t)

He’s facing none of the personal or contextual adversities that led to Corbyn’s electoral wipeout

With less than two weeks left before Super Tuesday, the single most important day in the US’s highly convoluted and highly un-democratic primary elections, Bernie Sanders has consolidated himself as the candidate to beat, particularly following a very strong showing in Nevada and polls that show him gaining an ever greater share of national support. There are, of course, still obstacles to his nomination. Michael Bloomberg (the 9th richest man in the world) could still find ways of ad-blitzing his way to the nomination with his virtually unlimited cash. Or the Democratic establishment (namely the so-called Super Delegates) could end up voting for someone else in the event of a contested convention, even if Sanders gets the most delegates. Suffice to say that that the Democratic establishment is not keen on a Sanders candidacy and will continue doing everything it can to derail his chances at securing the nomination.

But even as the Sanders steamroller continues to get stronger, one of the most frequent criticism I hear about him is that he can’t beat Trump, and that if the Democrats are unwise enough to select a radical leftist, they will suffer a similar defeat like that which Corbyn faced in December 2019 in the UK. Trump, after all, continues to enjoy the support of a rabid, fired-up support base, Republicans are united behind him, and the prospect of the country that pretty much invented modern capitalism voting for a self-declared socialist seems almost preposterous. Well, for starters, the polls show otherwise. Even in 2016, polls showed Sanders having much wider leads in match-ups against Trump than Clinton did, because both represented anti-establishment figures willing to take on entrenched elites (only one of them, Sanders, clearly meant it). This time around, polls also show Sanders ahead of Trump and I suspect the difference will keep getting wider as his campaign continues to strengthen. Continue reading

Healthcare: a uniquely American tyranny

Economic liberals and libertarians should love universal healthare. This is why they don’t

One of the most shocking aspects of anyone who has spent any amount of time living in the US is its lack of public healthcare provision. It is the only industrialized economy not to offer either a universal healthcare service like Britain’s NHS, or a universal healthcare insurance scheme like that which is provided in countries like Germany and France. Even most of the richer developing countries offer services that the vastly wealthier US lacks: in my country, Mexico, you have access to the main public healthcare system with most formal jobs and even those in informal jobs have some limited coverage from a separate public scheme. Worse still is that the cost of private insurance in the US is horrifically expensive: the average monthly premium is estimated at over $300 a month for individuals and over $800 for families. Then there’s the copayments and the fact that insurers may decide not to cover you at all for a myriad of reasons.

However, there is another aspect of the US’s dysfunctional and inhumane healthcare system that is arguably the most troubling. That it exists solely for the purpose of private profit is problematic in itself but its nature as an instrument for labor’s subservience to capital is much worse. This is because for the grand majority of Americans, healthcare is obtained through their employers and is widely seen as an important “perk” of a good job. Although the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) of 2010 made it much easier for  to obtain insurance while not employed, the fact that employers can generally negotiate a better deal with insurers as an institution than you as an individual means that job-based insurance schemes generally have better coverage and are cheaper than anything that you as an individual could obtain on your own. Consequently, the cost of losing a job is two-fold: not only your obvious loss of income but also the increased risk of suffering some health-related emergency or losing coverage for any condition that you or a loved one under your plan already had. Continue reading