Today’s Edition: The path forward.

December 20, 2021

[Audio version of newsletter here.]

          The news over the weekend was disappointing and potentially dispiriting. The developments raise vexing questions about the path forward. Let’s skip to the end: The path forward runs through us. We must blaze the path with small acts of democracy that will light the way for others. We must pave the path with our stubborn refusal to listen to those who tell us “You can’t win” or “Be afraid” or “Imagine the worst.” The path forward requires militant optimism—a vow never to give up, even if our role is only to hold the ramparts until future generations relieve us.

          To discern the path forward, we must maintain a perspective that gives greater weight both to how far we have come and where we are going than to the difficult conditions we encounter today. We have reached this point in our nation’s history because no generation before us has faltered—despite facing tougher challenges and longer odds. Ours will not be the first generation to falter—as long as we refuse to give up. That is the path forward.

          Below, I discuss (a) Manchin’s sudden betrayal of Democrats, (b) the weekend spike in articles predicting doom, and (c) three things you can do now to help turn the tide. Frankly, the first two items are historical curiosities that won’t matter in a few months. What we do in the next few months will matter greatly over the long term. Read on!

Joe Manchin’s betrayal of Biden, Democrats, and all Americans.

          Joe Manchin announced “live” on Fox News on Sunday that he would not support the Build Back Better legislation. The good news is that we are now free of Joe Manchin’s performative handwringing. He is who we suspected all along. He is a politician in the worst sense of the word: He lacks compassion, empathy, generosity, and honesty. In place of those virtues, he exhibits cunning, greed, narcissism, and selfishness.  We can now move forward with a clearer view of the political landscape and greater sense of resolve. If we want to deliver on the promise of a healthier, more secure, and more just America, we must control margins in the Senate and the House that make dissemblers like Senators Manchin and Sinema irrelevant.  

          Manchin announced his betrayal on Fox News, without telling Biden or Schumer of his change in position. (Instead, he had an aide call on his behalf.) His ‘on-air’ surprise was accompanied by a written statement on his website: “Manchin Statement On Build Back Better Act.” Manchin said, in short, that the bill was too expensive, would cause inflation, and sought to “dramatically reshape our society”—a reference (presumably) to programs to lift children out of poverty, pay for dental care for seniors on fixed incomes, reduce prescription drug prices, and provide for free community college tuition. If those programs amount to “dramatically reshaping our society,” then we need more of it, not less.

          The White House issued a statement that said Manchin’s “reversal of position” was “a breach of his commitments to the President and the Senator’s colleagues in the House and Senate.” In other words, he lied when he said he would negotiate in good faith. See “Statement from Press Secretary Jen Psaki | The White House.” I urge you to read the entire statement from the White House. But if you do not, it reads in part:

          Senator Manchin will have to explain to those families paying $1,000 a month for insulin why they need to keep paying that, instead of $35 for that vital medicine. He will have to explain to the nearly two million women who would get the affordable day care . . . why he opposes a plan to get them the help they need. Maybe Senator Manchin can explain to the millions of children who have been lifted out of poverty, in part due to the Child Tax Credit, why he wants to end a program that is helping achieve this milestone—we cannot.

          Some leading commentators are suggesting that Manchin will support smaller, targeted bills that incorporate some aspects of the Build Back Better agenda. Enough! Manchin’s bad faith negotiating tactics damaged Biden’s favorability ratings and have put Democrats in a messaging hole for 2022. We have no reason to believe anything Manchin says, ever. Chuck Schumer should put the Build Back Better bill up for a vote as soon as possible. Let Manchin, Sinema, and 50 Republicans vote against it so that when candidates make their case to voters in 2022 it is clear whose side they are on.

          Manchin’s betrayal on the Build Back Better bill may not be the worst thing he did over the weekend. As he was explaining to Fox News that he would vote “No” on the reconciliation bill, he indicated that he would not support filibuster reform in order to advance voting rights legislation. See Axios,” Manchin signals he's against changing filibuster to pass voting rights bill.” Manchin said,

          Two-hundred thirty-two years there's been rules changes, but there's never been a change with a filibuster, the rights of the minority.

          Senator Manchin’s statement that the filibuster has not been changed in 230 years is a lie. Mitch McConnell carved out Supreme Court nominations from the filibuster by “going nuclear” and overriding the 60 vote requirement for the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch. The “supermajority” requirement was added in the 1970s and budget bills were exempted from the filibuster in 1974.  And, of course, the filibuster existed in the House until 1842, when it was abolished. As I said, we have no reason to believe anything Manchin says, ever.

          For what it is worth, most emails I received from readers on this subject have been red-hot with anger. A few have counseled that Biden should refuse to take “No” for an answer, and one observed that the solution is to increase the margin in the Senate—which are statewide elections where gerrymandering has no impact. The feelings of anger and betrayal are understandable, though we cannot allow them to linger lest they consume us. We should convert anger into passion. We need to be clear-eyed and laser-focused if we hope to banish Manchin and Sinema to political irrelevance in 2022 by expanding our Senate majority.

New round of apocalyptic opinion pieces.

          As the weekend progressed, readers sent a half-dozen articles that predicted a variety of disasters. Several were from WaPo and NYTimes. Details are below if you are interested, but I want to avoid giving these articles more oxygen than they deserve. Before discussing the details below, it is important to note that the editors at the news outlets bear significant responsibility for the editorial stance of their publications. Sadly, like the news function, the editorial function has become a revenue-driven component of newspapers and websites. Editors make choices about what content get published—and whether that content lives up to journalistic standards. Obviously, in opinion pieces, editors should not attempt to quash differing viewpoints, but neither should they give disproportionate weight to contrary or baseless viewpoints in the hope of driving “clicks” or “views” to the content.

          It appears that the NYTimes and WaPo are engaged in a race to the bottom in predicting the end of democracy. The more sensationalist and dire the prediction, the better. Several readers told me over the weekend that they are disengaging from the news because of the predictions of doom. If it is the intent of the authors to rally people to the defense of democracy by alarming them about the (supposed) eminent demise of democracy, they are having the opposite effect. They are demoralizing and demotivating people. To be clear, we should not ignore or minimize threats to democracy—nor should we exaggerate such threats.

          A reader sent a helpful link to an article in Daily Kos, “Ten Tips for Dealing With Bad News Articles.” The article contains helpful suggestions, as well as a link to the Good News Roundup, a weekly newsletter that serves as an antidote to the incessant stream of bad news.

          With that as background, the most offensive and irresponsible article was an op-ed by three retired generals in Washington Post that asserted

          the potential for a total breakdown of the chain of [military] command along partisan lines . . . is significant. . . The idea of rogue units organizing among themselves to support the “rightful” commander in chief cannot be dismissed.

          The support for the article is so thin that it was irresponsible to publish the essay. The authors point to a letter by 124 retired “military officials” who support Trump’s claims of a stolen election. There are over 2 million active and reserve military personnel in the U.S. Among a sample of 2 million people, a researcher could find 124 who believe almost anything. While the generals are right to be concerned about maintaining military discipline during political turmoil, the fact that 124 unspecified “military officials” support Trump’s lies tells us nothing about the significance or scale of the risk of “rogue” military units supporting a “competing” commander in chief.

          To similar effect is an op-ed by Dana Milbank in WaPo, “Opinion | A researcher’s ‘How Civil Wars Start’ shows we’re closer to one than we think.” Let me say that Milbank’s article is based on facts, polling, and interviews with officials who study civil wars in other countries. So, I have no complaint with his journalistic research. And his intentions are good: he wants to raise the alarm. But he is driving people to despair by promoting the idea that the U.S. is “close” to a civil war. It is not. Despite the binary red/blue maps used by networks on election nights, every state has substantial numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents interspersed within cities, counties, and towns. The U.S. has a tightly integrated economy in which every aspect of our lives is interdependent on the smooth functioning of the national economy. The notion that any state could (or would) engage in a civil war against other states is fanciful.

          Could there be isolated instances of violence by extremists and domestic terrorists? Of course! Look at the insurrection on January 6th. But as a few thousand of Trump’s most loyal supporters assaulted the Capitol, more than 326 million Americans did not. Milbank (and his sources) fail to acknowledge the vastness, scale, and stability of an America in which almost everyone wants nothing more than to raise their families in peace. But if you spend all of your time focused on extremists in America, you tend to exaggerate the size and influence of those extremists.

          There were similar stories, but I have gone on too long as it is. Maintain perspective. Do not dwell on imagined fears. Be realistic about the threats we face—but also about the scale of America and the small sample sizes that provide the basis for many of the articles that predict the end of American democracy.

Concluding Thoughts.

          So, what can we do in the face of the disappointing news about Manchin’s duplicity and the ongoing drumbeat of negative press about the Democratic agenda? Here are three suggestions—all of which were discussed in my podcast interview over the weekend with Jessica Craven who publishes the daily actions newsletter, Chop Wood, Carry Water. [The interview is here, Today's Edition Podcast: Interview with Jessica Craven]. If you want a pep talk from Jessica, listen to the last five minutes of the interview!

          First, engage in a daily action to make your voice heard. As Jessica said during the podcast, “Whoever you are, your voice matters.” Jessica publishes the contact information for your congressional representatives and provides suggested talking points for the issues of importance that day. I have made calls and sent texts using the links in Jessica’s website and have received responses from my U.S. Senators and representative acknowledging my input. When you contact your elected officials, your input is combined with that of other constituents. If our representatives are going to make decisions based on the volume of input, let’s make certain that our views dominate.

          Second, help change the negative media narrative. Respond to the author of the article in the comments section. Be respectful, factual, and direct—then disengage. Don’t get into arguments with trolls. Also, write letters to the editor! Letters that are well-reasoned and articulate have a good chance of being published. In those letters, include a critique of the skewed editorial stance of the news outlet, especially where irresponsible opinions should have never made it past the editorial filter.

          Third, arrange group visits to the local field offices of your congressional and state representatives. Be prepared to speak with a staff member and leave behind a one-page explanation identifying your group and explaining your viewpoint. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

          Let me close this difficult day by recommending another fine essay by Dan Rather in Steady. He notes that his readers often ask him how he maintains his optimism on “bad news days” like today. He writes,

          [A] reason why I am able to retain my optimism is that I see no other option. Time and again, those who have been able to keep the embers of hope alive have often, eventually, used that faint fire to light the fuses that have changed our world for the better.

          We must keep the embers of hope alive; we must lift one another up. Optimism is the only option. Tell a friend!

          Talk to you tomorrow!