Bedard is invoking a now-familiar argument among American liberals — namely that their party should always be pitching compromises rather than making maximalist demands. And perhaps at the end of drawn-out legislative fights, that logic occasionally might make a bit of sense. But what’s new here is that this argument — which had resulted in so many surrenders, including Barack Obama’s surrender of his single payer promise and then his public option promise — is now being made by liberals even before Democrats are in any kind of policy fight at all.

That, of course, is the intended effect of the Searchlight Institute’s proposals — to get liberals to help stop a Medicare for All fight before one even unfolds.

…

Notably, Searchlight’s own executive director, Adam Jentleson, once criticized that game in 2019 when Pete Buttigieg suddenly dialed back his support for Medicare for All. Back then, Jentleson impugned Buttigieg, saying he “supported Medicare for All for 15 years, then flipped and started attacking other Dems over it after raising a ton of money from the health care industry.” Jentleson added: “A reasonable person might conclude that the health care industry bought Pete’s opposition - and did so pretty easily.”

Fast forward seven years, and the health care crisis is worse, but Jentleson is now playing that game. And my question is: Why would anyone fall for such an obvious parlor trick? This impulse by liberals to constantly back down and make apologies for capitulating Democrats is just weird — and it’s ultimately why so many Americans think Democrats stand for nothing.