'The U.S. doesn't have a real left' is something I am commonly told here in Spain. Aside from the joy of having people explain my own country's politics to me, it's just not true. To begin with, left vs. right is a woefully inadequate way to describe political ideology, but more importantly, it is just not comparable because left and right can mean vastly different things in every country. Its meaning is framed by history and culture, as well as the political system and the only way to make any sort of meaningful comparison is to look at the policy proposals themselves. That said, some of the new Democrats who entered Congress, in January, might just have the right stuff to make the hearts of Spanish lefties go pitter-patter.

Of course, this—that these new Democrats are socialists and therefore radical in the context of American politics—is precisely the narrative that both the Republicans and possible 2020 independent candidate and former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz are peddling. This narrative is useful for Republicans who are trying to save face while Trump's approval rating sinks. And Schultz is under the illusion that he himself represents some sort of 'silent majority' looking for a centrist presidential candidate, so painting Democrats as radical serves him well.

So, are these new Democrats so radical? Are they 'real-lefties' by Spanish standards? How the opposition paints them, and all Democrats for that matter, is never going to nuanced, instead it will intrinsically be a one-dimensional and unflattering. This is no different from how Democrats paint Republicans as racist, sexist, anti-environmental, homophobes. A better way to analyze whether or not these new Democrats really represent a radical new left is to take a closer look at their policy ideas, which remain mostly a set of ideas at the moment, rather than actual bills or legislation.

There are a few that stand out and what they most have in common is a champion, the poster child for the new Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Because she has such a high profile, she is an easy target for Republicans, but since she's 29 years old, will not be running for president any time soon and can afford to be a bit of a lightening rod, in fact, she benefits from it.

 

The idea of 'Medicare for All' isn't new and certainly isn't radical. It has its roots in the struggle for healthcare reform during the Obama administration and was a major plank of Bernie Sanders' campaign. The idea is to open up the very popular Medicare program that provides some health coverage to people 65 and over to people of all ages. Lets be clear: Medicare is not a complete healthcare system like Spain has. It operates through private health insurance companies and most people, like my mother, still have to buy supplemental insurance to cover the many things that Medicare doesn't. Despite all that, it is a very attractive policy proposal in that it seems like an easy sell, since people know and love the program. It's a popular idea among Democrats of all stripes, but many of the more centrist Democrats see it as unrealistic because even when Democrats controlled congress and Obama was president, they were unable to even put a 'public option' or simply lower the age of eligibility of Medicare into the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare.)

Medicare for all is a fantastic example of how disagreements among Democrats are not so ideological—most Democrats would love to bring about a single-payer health system along the lines of what Spain has—but many don't see it as realistic and therefore favor a more incremental approach. This frustrates the Democrats to the far left who would like to see more bold action.

It's worth noting that we often refer to American political parties as 'big tent parties' for good reason. They have to bring together enormous and diverse swaths of the population. Unlike Spanish political parties that have recently had to learn how to build coalitions after elections have taken place, the American political parties build their coalitions before the elections as part of their campaigns.

Another popular idea that Ocasio-Cortez has helped bring into the national debate is that of a 70% top marginal tax rate, up from the current 37% on income over $10million. She first floated the idea in an interview on the TV show 60 Minutes in early January as a way to fund the Green New Deal. Schultz, who would be on the receiving end of such a tax rate, characterized it as “a bit misinformed” and also “punitive.” While taxes are a very subjective issue—depending on where one might fall on the tax scale—it is supported by some economic research. A Hill Harris pollin mid-January showed that 59% of registered voters support the idea with 41% against it. But House Democrats have nonetheless treated the idea quite gingerly, many agreeing in principal but some not so sure about the massive fight the specifics could bring on.

The idea whose time may or may not have come that has captured the most attention recently is the so-called Green New Deal (GND), who's name ambitiously riffs off the landmark Democratic legislation, the 'New Deal' that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ushered in during the 1930s. The Green New Deal is a comprehensive package of bold yet vague policy ideas that attempts to create employment while addressing climate change, something most people can get behind. But, there's always more, these will be green jobs and infrastructure also aimed at addressing economic inequality.

Like Medicare for All, the GND is not a new idea, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman first called for one in a 2007and Obama was taken by the idea and put it in his 2008 platform. Someargue that his stimulus packagerepresented this type of green energy economy thinking. The GND was central to the Green Party's 2016 platform and European Green Party as well and even the UN has gotten in on the action, calling for a global GND in 2009.

Also, like Medicare for All, party divisions over it are not so much about the policy itself. Most of if not all Democrats are deeply frustrated with their inability to move legislation to combat climate change. Republicans simply question whether climate change is real or even man-made and the result is an argument over its existence rather than how to fight it. For Democrats, climate change is real and urgent, in line with global public opinion. Yet in this case, differences are procedural and territorial. Take the early fight over a possible Select Committee on a Green New Deal that was put forward by the Sunrise Movement,which had organized a sit-in at Nancy Pelosi's office on November 13^th to push the idea.

They asked Ocasio-Cortez for support, hoping she would tweet about it and to their glee she did one better: she showed up. Notable Senators signed on to support the committee, such as 2020 hopefuls Corey Booker, Bernie Sanders, and Jeff Merkley. Then Democratic leadership blindsided activists by announcing that the committee would have no subpoena power and that Rep. Kathy Castor would head the committee, effectively making it the same old committee on climate change. When asked about the GND Castor replied “I think they have some terrific ideas, but that’s not going to be our sole focus.”

While this drama played out, the issue heated up while the actual policy remained fuzzy. While Fox News called it radical, public opinion grew stronger. A recent YouGov pollshowed cautious support for the initiative. The question posed to voters was: “Would you support or oppose a Green New Deal to end fossil fuel use in the United States and have the government create clean energy jobs? The plan would be paid for by raising taxes, including a tax on carbon emissions.” Overall, 43% supported it, 38% opposed and 10% didn't know enough to answer. It's a pretty good guess that most people don't know enough to answer, but Democrats were overwhelmingly more supportive of it than Republicans, showing perhaps faith in lawmakers and simply an interest in enacting laws that combat climate change.

Ocasio-Cortez announced much-awaited details on February 6 to conservative outcry: a Fox Television commentator announced that “the left has removed its moderate mask to reveal its true socialists colors”; New York Times columnist Ross Douthat called Ocasio-Cortez the “future dictator-for-life of the Americas”; of course Trump got into the action, tweeting(inaccurately) that “It would be great for the so-called “Carbon Footprint” to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!” More seriously, The Economist declared it“A deeply unserious proposal to tackle climate change.”

None of that helps us better understand what's actually in it and how radical or not it really is. To start, the House resolution speaks well for itself in its summary:

“This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of

• achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;

• establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;

• investing in infrastructure and industry;

• securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and

• promoting justice and equality.

The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including

• building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);

• upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;

• removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;

• cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;

• ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and

• providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.”

This is indeed a heavy lift and worthy of the 'New Deal' title. It's critical to note here that this is for a House resolution, which is nothing more than a blueprint for action. What it is most guilty of is the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink syndrome. Having spent the better part of a year studying the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), there's a real lesson in the perils of trying to do and change too much in one proposal or plan because, you've got to go out and sell it to the people. No one does well wrapping their heads around massive and overwhelming ideas and in the end, citizens tend to suspect overreach. Sure, those who are experts in these issues may correctly see them as interconnected, as they certainly are, but green jobs, infrastructure, pollution, hazardous waste, higher education, healthcare and housing all in one go, screams the word unrealistic, even to those of us who would like to see progress on all of those fronts.

More importantly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't impressed and recently threw some serious shade on it and indirectly on Ocasio-Cortez and her co-conspirators: “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Pelosi has more than proven her commitment to many of these issues. Even though the Affordable Care Act is known as Obamacare, it would not be a law without her massive efforts to shepherd it through the House. Pelosi believes it the urgent need to address climate change, but by pushing back on the GND—whether you see it as a gentle nudge or a shove—she reminds us that she is the Speaker and this will be done her way within the reality of a Republican controlled Senate and White House.

The name of the game is winning back the White House in 2020 and Ocasio-Cortez and other new democrats will do well to keep building public support for policies that combat climate change and the GND provides a comprehensive blueprint for action. Since Ocasio-Cortez is 29 and won't be running for president any time soon (there is a minimum age requirement of 35) she doesn't really have to sweat the 'radical' label and she has embraced being a democratic-socialist herself. But some of the most prominent 2020 democratic candidates, including Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren, signed on to the GND prior to the final wording of the resolution. While this will help them brandish their leftish credentials to the party base, it will also give Trump and Republicans an opening to label them radical socialists.

*This is the English version of an article that was translated to Spanish published in esglobal.