Whatever the cause, here are five areas where left-leaning ideas are gaining ground among Democrats.
This is the biggest shift. Top-tier Democratic candidates around the country, including some in conservative-leaning districts, are running on a promise of universal access to Medicare, with 2020 hopefuls are lining up to showcase their own plans.
There are still major gaps between competing proposals, especially when it comes to their price tags. The most far-reaching legislation, favored by Sanders and co-sponsored by 17 Democratic colleagues, would create a massive single payer system that replaces private insurance with a more generous version of Medicare. Other bills would allow individuals and, in some cases, employers to buy into a Medicare plan, which would compete with private sector options, and expand subsidies in the Affordable Care Act to help finance coverage. But the overall direction is clear: A robust, universally available, government health care plan.
“The conversation is not about whether Medicare for All is a good thing or not, but rather what’s the best way to get us there, which is a radically different place than where we were during the fight over the Affordable Care Act,” Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told NBC News.
The hottest new topic in progressive circles is a proposal, backed by several of the Senate’s big names, to enlist the federal government to guarantee jobs for the jobless.
The Federal Jobs Guarantee Development Act, which Booker introduced in April, would set up a pilot program that provides jobs that pay at least $15 an hour in 15 urban and rural areas. Co-sponsors include Sens. Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.
Under the bill, local governments would apply for grants detailing how they would use the money. Those applications would be evaluated based on the level of economic distress in the area and how beneficial the proposal sounds.
Supporters believe this new public sector would compete with private companies for labor and push wages and benefits up everywhere. It would also provide targeted benefits to communities that are struggling the most, potentially helping to combat regional and racial inequality.
But the idea is highly controversial, even among left-wing wonks. For one thing, the cost is enormous: There’s no Congressional Budget Office score on the Booker bill, but Darrick Hamilton, an economics professor at the New School whose own jobs guarantee proposal helped inform framework for the bill, estimates his national version would cost $543 billion each year and up to $700 billion in a recession — roughly the same as the current defense budget.
While not in direct opposition to the jobs guarantee, some critics favor an alternative proposal: Spending big money to subsidize wages at workers’ existing jobs through the tax code.
One bill, backed by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Sen. Brown, would massively expand the Earned Income Tax Credit that would cover more families and provide a larger tax refund. The concept has garnered attention from wonks, including some libertarian-leaning thinkers, who have argued America needs to create a guaranteed basic income to deal with the challenges of automation and stagnating wages.
Under the Grow American Incomes Now Act (GAIN), working families with three children would receive up to about $12,131 a year (up from $6,318 today) and childless workers would get up to $3,000 (up from $510).
Khanna estimates the bill would cost $1.4 trillion. Taking a page out of the Republican playbook, he proposes paying for it with a promise of higher economic growth from working families spending their gains on American products.
In order to prevent corporations from using the tax gains to offer lower paying jobs — one common criticism of EITC proposals — he’d pair it with legislation raising the minimum wage to $15 and requiring corporations to help pay for government benefits if their employees qualify for programs like food stamps. Khanna is also introducing his own jobs bill that would offer grants for temporary employment aimed at training people for private sector jobs.
Democrats evolved on immigration enforcement under President Obama, from emphasizing enforcement — he was once dubbed “deporter-in-chief” by activists — to taking actions like DACA to protect huge swaths of undocumented immigrants from removal.
In the Trump era, the administration has stepped up interior enforcement, begun to unravel DACA, pledged a crackdown on “sanctuary cities” that resist deportations, and opened up hundreds of thousands of longtime residents with Temporary Protected Status to eventual removal.
That’s created a greater sense of urgency from immigrant activists, many of whom are DREAMers themselves. They’re pushing Democrats to take a tougher stand against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handles interior enforcement, and some Customs and Border Protection practices as well. New activist groups like Indivisible have taken up the cause too.
And they believe they’re getting results. During negotiations over a spending deal, 83 House Democrats signed onto a letter pushing back against requests for increased spending on ICE and instead demanding reduced funds for deportations and detention facilities at the border, among other items. 19 senators signed onto a similar letter, including Sanders, Harris, Booker, and Warren. On Friday, Gillibrand introduced a bill requiring Border Patrol agents to document searches of buses and trains around the border and submit regular reports to Congress.
Last week, progressive sheriff candidates backed by national activists in Durham and Mecklenburg County in North Carolina also ousted incumbents while pledging to reduce cooperation with ICE.