Manchin fatigue.

November 2, 2021

          I will be glad when I can stop writing about Senator Joe Manchin. I am certain you will be glad when you can stop reading about him. By accident of history, he occupies a position of enormous power for which he is uniquely unfit. He is a Democrat who is a captive of the fossil fuel industry during the last window of opportunity to slow climate change this century. To protect a few tens of thousands of jobs in West Virginia (including his), he will happily imperil the future of billions of people on earth. He is a millionaire who begrudges aid to the working poor, to parents who cannot afford childcare, to children who hunger for food and education, to women who must leave their employment to care for sick children and parents, and to workers displaced by the pandemic and globalization. He wears his callousness as a badge of honor, displaying his preening ego in press briefings that contain no substance other than a plaintive cry, “Look at me! Look at me!”

          But Manchin’s worst qualities are his unreliability and his hypocrisy, which were on full display on Monday during a press conference where he ambushed Democrats with a lecture about the threat of increasing deficits under the Build Back Better legislation. Manchin, of course, did not acknowledge that he and Senator Sinema are personally responsible for the risk of increasing the deficit under the bill because of their “Twenty Questions” approach to killing every revenue generating proposal offered by Democrats.  He had the gall to claim that progressives in the Democratic caucus are “holding the infrastructure bill hostage.” But the simultaneous passage of the infrastructure and reconciliation bills has been an explicit condition of passage in the House since June 2021, when Speaker Pelosi said, “Let me be really clear on this. We will not take up a bill in the House until the Senate passes the bipartisan bill and a reconciliation bill.” Manchin’s last-minute claim that progressives are “holding the infrastructure bill hostage” is revisionist history that has no place in good-faith negotiations.

          The lengthy and self-destructive path to the current stalemate is entirely the fault of Manchin and Sinema. Their dysfunctional, “know-nothing” approach to negotiations has damaged the standing of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. True, the progressive caucus has negotiated hard, but they have done so in a way that observes the norms and protocols of legislative dealmaking—i.e., offering a specific proposal and requesting a counterproposal. Manchin and Sinema, on the other hand, have required progressives to resort to clairvoyance to guess the ever-changing list of demands that exist (if at all) in the foggy recesses of two minds besotted with unprecedented levels of corporate donations and media attention.

          Some readers undoubtedly believe I am being hyperbolic in my description of Manchin’s evasiveness. I am not. Manchin promised that his press briefing on Monday would “clear up a lot of things” about his position. But instead of clearing up any questions, he instead said he had not decided whether to support the reconciliation package. He went on to offer the following unhelpful guidance for progressives who are desperate to engage Manchin in substantive negotiations:

           I’m open to supporting a final bill that helps move our country forward. But I’m equally open to voting against a bill that hurts our country.

          For those of you familiar with information theory, the information content of that statement is essentially zero. (As Claude Shannon would say, there is nothing surprising in that statement; every politician in America would subscribe to it.)

          For readers inclined to remind Manchin’s critics (like me) that he occupies a Democratic seat in a deep red state for which we should be grateful, I say, “So stipulated.” But that does not excuse or rationalize his conduct in the negotiation of the infrastructure bill and the reconciliation package. He has been disingenuous and evasive, seeking to blame progressives for the havoc created by his behavior. If Joe Manchin were your employee or a counterparty in a business negotiation, you would have parted ways with him long ago. It is a testament to the patience and maturity of Biden and the progressive caucus that the infrastructure and reconciliation packages remain viable.

          The good news is that in the face of Manchin’s public scolding of progressives, the leader of the progressive caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, said “I think we just need to bring the temperature down.” Jayapal then said that the progressive caucus is willing to vote for the infrastructure plan even in the absence of a commitment from Manchin to vote for the reconciliation bill. See Talking Points Memo, “Progressives Ready To Vote For Both Bills Regardless Of Latest Manchin-ing.”

          Uncertainty remains as to the final outcome, but we have reason to believe that the infrastructure bill will pass and that some form of a currently unknowable reconciliation bill will pass. After that happens, we should look forward to the day when Manchin and Sinema become irrelevant because Democrats increase their margin in the Senate. Good. It can’t happen soon enough.

The Virginia race for governor.

          Polls close on Tuesday in the Virginia election for governor. As I write, the race is too close to call, but whatever happens, pundits will say that the outcome was expected and is portentous. In other words, hindsight is 20-20 and fills lots of airtime and column inches. In fact, the analysis will backfill to fit a narrative. Of course, Democrats want to win the race; losing will affect their ability to ensure a free and fair election in 2024 in Virginia. But if Democrat Terry McAuliffe loses, does that signal the end for Democratic hopes in 2022? The answer is “No,” for many reasons. Let’s look at two.

          First, if McAuliffe wins, should we expect Republicans to crumble in defeat, despairing of their chances to flip the House in 2022? Of course, not! Why, then, would Democrats quake in fear over a single loss? The answer is that we should neither over interpret nor under interpret a win or a loss. Whatever happens, we must still execute on our ground game in 2022 and 2024.

          Second, as Jonathan Last writes in The Triad/Bulwark, “Glenn Youngkin May Not Be Replicable.” As Last explains, the Virginia GOP effectively eliminated its primary election in 2021, for the express purpose of allowing a moderate like Glenn Youngkin to defeat a Trump clone. Youngkin then ran in the general election by pretending that Trump did not exist. Last posits that this formula is not replicable in states with Republican primaries (i.e., all of them). As a result, Republicans will nominate Trump clones, while “[l]eft to their own devices, Democratic voters tend to pick more moderate candidates, such as Biden and McAuliffe, in competitive races.” In general, that dynamic will favor Democrats in competitive races.

          In other words, don’t panic, remain calm, and devote your nervous energy to constructive tasks that will affect the outcome in 2022 and 2024.

Supreme Court hears argument on Texas anti-abortion legislation.

          The Supreme Court heard oral argument on the DOJ’s suit to block the Texas antiabortion statute. The narrow question before the Court was whether anyone, including the United States, could sue to block enforcement of the statute. On that narrow question, it appears that the Court will rule that the effort by Texas to evade judicial review is unconstitutional. Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts may provide the swing votes because of their fear that other states may adopt the same type of scheme to evade judicial review of legislation that restricts gun ownership. I am not kidding. See Ian Millhiser in Vox, Supreme Court likely to rule against Texas’s abortion ban SB 8 — but there’s a catch.” As Millhiser notes, however, by the time that the DOJ’s challenge to the Texas statute makes its way back to the Supreme Court on the merits, the Court may have overruled Roe v. Wade.

Washington Post’s reporting on the assault on the Capitol.

          The Washington Post is publishing a series of articles that examine the assault on the Capitol (and its aftermath) in detail. On Sunday, the Post published an analysis of the 187-minutes during which Trump did nothing to stop the violent assault on the Capitol. See Washington Post, “What happened on Jan. 6: Trump stands back as rioters breach Capitol.” The Post’s stories will become part of the historical record of Trump’s crimes. The Post introduces its second installment as follows:

          For 187 minutes, Trump resisted entreaties to intervene from advisers, allies and his elder daughter, as well as lawmakers under attack. Even as the violence at the Capitol intensified, even after Vice President Mike Pence, his family and hundreds of Congress members and their staffers hid to protect themselves, even after the first two people died and scores of others were assaulted, Trump declined for more than three hours to tell the renegades rioting in his name to stand down and go home.

          No president has ever breached his duty to defend the Constitution in such a grievous manner. But this is the man that an overwhelming majority of Republicans want to be the next president of the United States. Their cultish devotion to Trump is his greatest strength and his biggest weakness. By replacing the Republican Party with a cult, members are either “all in” or they are expelled from the party. Good. As the party shrinks, we will have a stronger position going into the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election.

Concluding Thoughts.

          On Saturday, I participated in a charity fundraiser for an organization that builds new homes for veterans and their families (Homes4Families). For the first (and last) time I rappelled down a 26-story building. My wife and Managing Editor posted video at her blog under the title, Robert Goes Over the Edge. For those of you who are expert rock climbers (looking at you, Whitney Tilson), please be gentle in your judgments about my technique (or lack thereof). I made it down safely, which is all that counts!

          There has been a spate of polling in recent days that suggests Americans increasingly see violence as a method of achieving political change. I will address those polls in coming days, but as a preview, I think they have about as much validity as the “reply” comments in Twitter. When people are granted anonymity and a venue to express their grievances, they will say things that would never pass their lips among family, friends, co-workers, or complete strangers. So, which comments should we believe? Anonymous tweets, or comments constrained by societal norms? Answer: The latter.

          We live in a real world in which we must find a way to get along with family, friends, and co-workers. We must conform to societal norms in order to maintain employment, raise families, and stay out of jail. It is easy and costless to answer a survey question about violence as an instrument of political change, but it is entirely different to act on those fantasies. Next time you read reports about surveys showing 30% of Republicans believe violence may be necessary to “save our country,” look around at your friends, family, and co-workers, and ask yourself what percentage of them would act on such beliefs. If “talk is cheap,” anonymous talk is free. Don’t let polls designed to grab headlines get you down. Take comfort in the world in which we live, and ignore the imagined fears created by click-baiters intent on selling soap.

          Talk to you tomorrow!