Today’s Edition: Putin’s shout-out to the Sedition Caucus

June 17, 2021

          I am short on time this evening, so let’s get to the point: Joe Biden did a good job managing his summit with Vladimir Putin. Biden said the hard things that needed to be said, which was the only part of the process Biden controlled. For example, Biden told Putin that if Russian hackers continue their ransomware attacks against U.S. companies, “we have significant cyber capability [and] we will respond.” Biden then gave Putin a list of sixteen critical infrastructure entities that are “off limits.” Talk doesn’t get much more straightforward than that. See The Guardian, “Biden says, " I did what I came to do" in tense meeting with Putin.”

          The media was reduced to expressing dismay that a meeting that was scheduled for “four to five hours” lasted only three hours. That matters because . . . well, it doesn’t. Other commentators criticized Biden for attending the summit in the first instance, which isn’t a criticism of the substance of the summit but a disagreement with Biden’s strategy of engaging Putin. Of course, if Biden hadn’t met with Putin during his first European visit, the media would have criticized Biden for “dodging” a meeting with Putin out of fear. In other words, almost nothing that the press focused on after the summit mattered. It was, as always, the easy journalistic approach: The counternarrative. If the real story is that Biden confronted Putin during their first meeting, the counternarrative asks, “But will Biden’s tough talk change Putin’s behavior?”

          The most interesting developments occurred before and after the summit itself. In his remarks after the summit, Putin said that the U.S. was imprisoning its citizens for “com[ing] to the US Congress with political demands . . . Over 400 people had criminal charges placed on them. They face prison sentences of up to 28, maybe even 25 years. They're being called domestic terrorists.” As Mehdi Hasan noted, Putin was doing his best to repeat the talking points being promoted by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who claims that the January 6th insurrectionists were “tourists” who stayed in the rope lanes within the Capitol. See MSNBC, “Mehdi Hasan: Putin did his ‘best impression of Sen. Ron Johnson’ discussing Jan. 6.”

          Biden’s post-summit comments were frank and tough. He lost his temper when a CNN reporter asked him how he could be confident that Putin would change his behavior as a result of the summit. Biden never made any such prediction and reacted angrily to the reporter’s suggestion that he had. Biden castigated the reporter for her “negativity” and suggested she was in the wrong line of work. The reporter was baiting Biden and it worked. The most important aspect of the exchange was not that Biden lost his temper and attacked the reporter (a rookie mistake), but that he apologized for his behavior almost immediately. See Business Insider, “Biden apologized for losing his temper when a CNN reporter pressed him on Putin, saying he 'shouldn't have been such a wise guy'.”

          So, it is true that Biden failed to achieve world peace during his summit with Putin—a strawman expectation designed to fabricate criticism. The real story is that Putin is aligning himself with the January 6th insurrectionists and their apologists in Congress. Putin is excusing their violence in order to weaken America’s democracy. Members of Congress who defend the insurrectionists are doing the same thing. If only they had the self-awareness to ask themselves why their talking points match those of Putin. Sadly, conservative commentators are now pointing to Putin’s remarks to support their argument that the insurrectionists are being unfairly targeted for assaulting the Capitol. See The Sun, “Candace Owens praises Putin for 'calling out evils of Biden & Dems' for jailing Capitol rioters for 'political opinions'.”

          Biden accomplished his goals in meeting with Putin. Whether Biden’s tough talk will achieve the intended results remains to be seen—exactly as Biden said in his statement after the meeting: “This is about self-interest and verification of self-interest. I don't say, 'Well, I trust you, no problem.’ Let's see what happens.” Agreed. Let’s see what happens.

Manchin tries to rewrite H.R.1 and the infrastructure bill.

          I confess that I don’t understand the significance of what I am about to describe. Senator Manchin is acting as though changes that he is demanding to H.R.1 and the infrastructure bill will garner bipartisan support. At the same time, Manchin remains steadfast in his opposition to abolishing the filibuster or using reconciliation to circumvent it. Given that reality, I don’t know why any of the following matters, but here it is:

          As to voting rights, Manchin has published a sweeping list of proposed changes to H.R.1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. See Talking Points Memo, “Manchin Puts Forward His Compromise Proposal For Voting Rights Bills. One political commentator tweeted the following summary of Manchin’s alleged position:

          Manchin is on board with early voting standards, ending gerrymandering. BUT he wants voter ID mandate and opposes universal mail voting and public financing. AND he's not budging on filibuster -- he thinks this could get 60.

          Ending gerrymandering would be huge. It would divest state legislatures of the source of their entrenched power. I don’t understand how Manchin believes it is possible that ten Republican Senators would support that change, but if he can make that happen, it will be a major accomplishment. Color me skeptical—a deep shade of skeptical. (Has Manchin ever met Republicans? They are not a cooperative bunch of people.)

          Likewise, Machin is involved in a group of twenty Senators who are working on a $978 billion infrastructure bill. See The Hill, “Bipartisan infrastructure group grows to 20 senators.” As before, the bipartisan group is working without the support of leadership in either party or the White House. Of course, Senators can write legislation themselves and pass it without direction from leadership or the president. But such an approach circumvents ability of a party’s leader to “whip” the votes to support passage of a bill. Here, the bipartisan group of Senators has omitted major parts of Biden’s legislation directed to climate change, an omission that has caused a half-dozen progressive Senators to threaten to vote against the bill.

          The irony is that by working to put together a coalition from the center without abolishing the filibuster, Manchin may have created a dozen “mini-Manchins,” each of whom has effective veto power over a bill. Again, I am skeptical of Manchin’s ability to create a compromise bill but wish him the best of luck. At worst, he may get an education in the harsh realities of trying to pass legislation in the Senate. That might change his views on the filibuster.  

Concluding Thoughts.

We celebrated the engagement of our youngest daughter this evening. This newsletter began as an effort to encourage and support her (and her sisters) after Trump’s accidental victory in 2016. Time marches on, but our mission remains the same: To lift up one another during a period in our history that can seem chaotic and dispiriting. It is easy to feel that way in the moment. But with a little perspective, we can see that we have made significant progress in the last four years. The fact that we must protect and extend those gains is no reason for despair, but rather, is reason to renew our commitment to activism and resistance. In every election cycle, democracy is on the ballot. Our challenge is to convince others of that truth. We can do that. We did so in 2020, and we can do so again.

          Talk to you tomorrow!