I confess to a certain sympathy for Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. I am what might be called a swing voter. I sometimes go with Democrats, and sometimes with Republicans. Right now Manchin and Sinema are on the Democrats', how shall I put it, waste list. Worse even than the ones in the opposite party.
I thought this article in The Week by Damon Linker explained their point of view well:
"After months of drawing fire from progressives for refusing to support nuking the filibuster so that he and his fellow Democrats can pass sweeping legislation on a party-line vote in the Senate, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin ensured the enduring wrath of his party's activist base by announcing in an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail on Sunday that he would be voting against the For the People Act."
"Though you'd never know it from the howls of rage from the left, Manchin is right about just about everything surrounding this bill."
"To begin with, the For the People Act is a mess. Written before the 2020 election, it was originally intended as a "message bill" containing a grab bag of election-related reforms that Democrats (especially in progressive House districts) could run on without seriously thinking they would become law. The bill contains some good, if underbaked, ideas to restrict gerrymandering — though plenty of Democrats oppose them. Indeed, there's ample reason to believe that Democratic support for the bill overall is far weaker than one might gather from the fact that the bill has 49 co-sponsors in the Senate."
"Then there are the campaign-finance provisions (opposed, in part, by the ACLU on free-speech grounds) that seem designed to address the problems of a decade or more ago. (Small-money donations have a far greater impact on politics today than "dark money" from a handful of right-wing billionaires.) The bill's litany of provisions covering government ethics are even more scattershot and lacking in an overarching rationale."
"Worst of all, because the bill dates from before the 2020 election, it does nothing at all to address what is by far the most pressing problem of the moment, which is Republican-controlled states taking vote certification out of the hands of election officials and giving it to partisan legislatures. If such procedures had been in place during the two months between Election Day last November and Jan. 6 of this year, Donald Trump's efforts to get the vote tally tossed out in crucial swing states may well have been successful."
"This might be true, but it doesn't mean things can't get worse. They always can. And one way to assure that they will is for Democrats to unilaterally pass sweeping reforms of the rules of the electoral process over unified Republican opposition — something that would guarantee that roughly half the country considers those revised rules to be illegitimate. That would move us a few steps closer to the full-on democratic breakdown that I've recently described as "the big American divorce."
"In response to this objection, progressives are likely to offer up an anguished cry of frustration: "But we have to do something!" To which Manchin provides an answer: Democrats and Republicans should work together to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, an update to the Voting Rights Act that would modernize "the formula states and localities must use to ensure proposed voting laws do not restrict the rights of any particular group or population."
"That's a fine suggestion, to which I'd add another. A small group of Democratic and Republican senators could start working from scratch on a more limited bipartisan bill that prioritizes election integrity. Democrats could insist on receiving assurances that the results of elections will be accepted as valid by state and federal officials in return for Republicans receiving assurances that people who cast and count ballots are doing so in accordance with the law."
"...If Democrats want to govern like they have a massive mandate, they need to win a lot more votes than they did last November. Unless and until that happens, they have no choice but to try and work with the opposition, especially when it comes to reforming the country's electoral rules.
"That's something that Joe Manchin understands. The rest of his party would be wise to take heed."
Working with other parties would be more possible, actually necessary, if we had more of them. Better a three party system where no party has a majority. At least two parties would be required to collaborate. I'm sorry, but I believe the GOP is a lost cause. It's become anti-democratic. For me, it's become fascistic. The Democratic Party DOES need to work with the other party, as long as it isn't the Republican Party.
ReplyDeleteAbout having other parties, I am reading about how politics is playing out in Israel. Some unlikely allies have gotten together to get Netanyahu out of office. It's something that has needed doing for a long time. Now it remains to be seen if these disparate parties can govern together.
DeleteIn the US, I can count about six factions; I don't know if one could call them nascent parties. There are the Trump Republicans (as you say, fascist leaning), the fiscal conservative small government Republicans, and the slightly right of center Republicans (Romney). Then there are the slightly left of center Dems (Joe Biden), some farther to the left Dems (Kamala Harris), the ones who would call themselves socialists (Bernie and AOC), and some hard left. Wait a minute, I guess that's seven.
DeleteYou're right. There are people who share party membership who really don't belong. And multiple parties aren't necessarily a panacea. You still need an informed, responsible electorate which we don't have. But at least there would be power decentralization and more possibility to introduce new policy approaches. To be honest, however, my real hope against hope is that both the present parties can slide into oblivion. They are way beyond their expiration date.
DeleteI wonder if we will see more candidates running as independents. That might be more doable than trying to form another party. Of course then you don't have the party money-raising machinery behind you. But maybe that's not a bad thing.
Delete"Of course then you don't have the party money-raising machinery behind you."
DeleteBernie always runs for the Senate as an Independent and only becomes a Democrat for the Presidential race. He has built a great money raising machine by not accepting big donors. Others could probably follow his path. There are a lot of things that people want so they could built themselves a particular agenda that would be independent of party.
The voting system here in Ohio seems to work well. We are able to go to the polls as usual, or go early to the county administration office to vote in person, or vote early by mail, or fill out the ballot and drop it in the box outside the county administration office. I guess adding a few more places to vote early or drop off one’s ballot early might make things a little more accessible for those who don’t live close to the county seat.
ReplyDeleteGovernor DeWine is proud of the system, but I think he was once Secretary of State and helped shape the system. He says that there is a good monitoring of the system by poll watchers of both parties, and that everyone always lawyers up to immediately challenge any irregularities.
I do think that some national standards are needed that will minimize any irregularities. Obviously from now on everything is going to be under much scrutiny, so it is good to agree upon the rules.
The notion about allowing the legislatures rather than the courts to decide the outcome of elections is a step backward from democracy. Judges are there to decide if the rules have been followed, and which ballots are legal or illegal.
As for Joe Manchin, he is now being described as the Democrat's version of Mitch McConnell, making sure that the Democrats cannot pass Biden's agenda.
ReplyDeleteHe does not seem to be partnering with centrist Republicans to move bi-partisan legislation.
Bernie's organization, Our Revolution, is organizing in West Virginia to convince Manchin that the people are not with him on the voting issue.
I think there are more DINO's than RINO's. These days, a RINO is considered one who disavows the Great Orange One. But they vote in lockstep with their party. It's the Democrats who have the "rebels". Hopefully, PA can add Fetterman to the Senate and give the Democrats actual control.
DeleteGood article by Linker, as quoted here.
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me that one difference between the two parties is that Democrats have a penchant (I would say, a weakness :-)) for big, transformational legislation, whereas Republicans prefer incremental, smaller-chunk improvements. We certainly see this in the bipartisan negotiations (apparently now broken down) for Biden's infrastructure bill: the two sides are far apart, not only in the size/magnitude of the expenditure, but also in the items that should be included in the bill.
But we also see it in the ambitions of the respective parties when they are in power. Democrats during Biden's administration are being very forthright in their determination to 'go big or go home' with the size and sweep of their legislative agenda. They believe that the failure to be sufficiently ambitious to achieve progressive goals was a weak point of the Obama administration.
I'm not progressive. To me, "transform it" is a synonym for "break it". :-)
I think the "go big or go home" attitude in part reflects that they have a very thin margin. They are afraid they will lose it in 2022 so they feel they have to make hay while the sun shines. Trouble is if they go too big they may just ensure that they lose their margin. So a conflict between what they want and what is possible.
DeleteIf the Republicans want to go more for incremental, smaller improvements they could start by not indulging and Molly coddling Trump in his fantasies. Actually that would be a big improvement.
DeleteI disagree, Jim. From my perspective, the Republican Party has made the revolutionary changes. Their liberalization or deregulation, whatever you want to call it, in the 80's under Reagan led to the consolidation into megacompanies. Deregulation of communications led to the centralization of local radio and television stations into larger entities, the emergence of anger radio, the degeneration of journalism. So much revolutionary change was underway that the Democrats joined the revolution under Clinton with NAFTA, CAFTA, welfare reform and the repeal of Glass-Steagal. And we just witnessed an attempt to make the most revolutionary change of all. The disestablishment of democracy itself which the GOP is not disavowing. Before I go, there is the big tax break given under Reagan. Now I understand that Biden is rolling it back. Half-way. To me, that is two steps forward and one step back for the moneyed interests. Works for them. "Conservative" and "liberal" are meaningless labels. More exactly, we differ on what we want to conserve and what and who we want to liberate.
DeleteI mean the big tax break given under Trump.
DeleteI miss Tom Blackburn. His favorite Congressman is spouting off again: "Republican congressman Louie Gohmert has asked a senior US government official if changing the moon’s orbit around the Earth, or the Earth’s orbit around the sun, might be a solution for climate change."
ReplyDeleteLouie Gohmert still holds the title (for dumbest congress person) But Marjorie Taylor Greene is giving him some close competition.
Matt Gaetz has to be in that team photo, too.
Delete