Hakeem Jeffries Does Not Support M4A, The DSA Or Any Other Idea For That Matter
If the BRAT diet were a policy ...
On this Sunday’s Meet the Press, host Kristen Welker pressed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for his thoughts on the 30 or so recent primaries in which incumbent Democrats have lost to progressive challengers (many with support from the Democratic Socialists of America), whether or not democratic socialists have a place in the Democratic party, as well as his thoughts on some other things that people in his party want to see happen. So far, there have been a whole lot of headlines about how, during this interview, he was very explicit in stating that he opposes the DSA’s agenda and does not support Medicare For All, despite having co-sponsored M4A legislation prior to becoming the Democratic leader.
Welker showed him a clip of Rahm Emanuel, possibly the most hated Chicago mayor in history, talking about how the DSA should form its own party and leave the Democrats alone. Because who needs votes anyway? Surely they’ll be able to make them up with votes from all of the moderate Republicans who are tired of the party being so crazy, just like they did in 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2024. Welker asked Jeffries if he agreed.
Technically, Jeffries did not answer the question. Rather, he said that he did not agree with the DSA’s agenda and proceeded to list the existence of various flavors of Democrats existing in the House.
“Now, you’re going to have individual members who have been elected in Democratic primaries and if they are elected in the general in November will be part of the House Democratic caucus,” he said. “It’s going to be a broad caucus. There will be progressives, there will be New Dems, there will be Blue Dogs.”
True. And if you were to ask Jeffries about what his favorite things are, he would likely inform you that raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens are both things that exist.
Welker also pressed him on whether or not he supported Medicare for All, which is now supported by not only a large majority of Democrats, but also a majority of US voters, noting that, prior to becoming speaker, he had co-sponsored several M4A proposals in the House.
Jeffries’s tack on this was to repeatedly point out that he had not cosponsored such legislation in several years, explaining that hissolution is to, instead, “figure out how to fix our broken health care system and then build something better once we repair the damage that has been done,” which is a fantastic solution for people who hate specifics.
Jeffries had a very similar answer to a policy Welker noted had been championed by Kamala Harris — expanding the Supreme Court to 13 justices. (Drastic Supreme Court overhauling is also very popular among Democrats right now.) Rather than doing that, Jeffries proposed “dramatic reform,” which he says looks like is “making sure that the Supreme Court actually has an ethical code of conduct so that they’re not able to simply conduct themselves, uh, in ways that are inconsistent with the notion in this country that no one is above the law. And that should actually include Supreme Court justices.”
Tooooootally.
Jeffries, when asked what message he thought people were trying to send by voting for so many progressives, often against candidates he had personally endorsed, said “Well, I expect that there will be at least 220 members of the House Democratic Caucus when we take back the majority, if not a number much greater than that. And what is clear is that the American people want us to focus on driving down the high cost of living and dealing with the affordability crisis that has created a situation in this country where far too many people are working hard, they’re playing by the rules, but they can’t thrive and can barely survive. which is why we as House Democrats are committed to fighting for an affordable America, every day, every week, every month until we solve this crisis.”
And how will we solve it? Well, that part remains a mystery. Certainly not with any specific policy proposals that someone might be able to find flaws in, but possibly by stating the population and average yearly rainfall of the state of Montana.
Want to send us money in an entirely different way? Click here or join our Patreon!
I would drag Jeffries for not supporting Medicare for All — and, to be clear, it’s bullshit that he does not, especially given its aforementioned popularity — if this did not seem to be his take on literally any specific policy plan, regardless of who it comes from. I don’t think it matters if it’s a progressive plan or a moderate plan or a “Blue dog” plan so much as he simply rejects the concept of having any plan at all, in favor of simply being in the process of coming up with a plan from now until forever.
In hopes of getting a better idea of what it is that Jeffries wants, I went to his official website to see what it is, exactly, that he does support. From what I can tell, he likes better paying jobs, reduced gun violence, sunshine, long walks on the beach, and throw pillows that read “Live, Laugh, Love.”
That being said, it does appear as though he is a very big fan of advocating for legislation that has been enacted now for three or more years, like the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act. This actually suggests that if we were to enact Medicare for All and then wait several years, we could actually have a very strong supporter in Hakeem Jeffries. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. (And ideally select someone else for his position in the meantime.)
PREVIOUSLY ON WONKETTE!
Come November, vote Democrat. Never mind any additional modifiers or signifiers or tags. Do not let any in-house bitch-fests or brawls distract from the more important task of taking political power away from Republicans, who demonstrate over and over that they cannot be trusted with it.
I just want to point out that this is not leadership. This is just resistance to change and checking the wind direction. Fine for a random congressperson. But no matter how you slice it, it's not leadership.