WHAT’S BEHIND THE MANCHIN – SINEMA SHOW: DOES IT MATTER?

                  

Many Democrats would enjoy knowing what’s up with West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema.  They’re either principled crusaders for fiscally

responsible government and bipartisanship or they’re bought and paid for captives of corporate lobbyists.  An answer to this question depends on one’s political approach and inclinations about how much credence a politician’s own explanations for his or her behavior should get. Progressives and people who don’t trust politicians will likely look at their political contributions list and decide it’s the latter. People who want less

governmental involvement in American life and/or who take people, including politicians, at their word will likely see it differently. In any event, Manchin and Sinema are the talk of Washington these days, so they merit exploration.

Outsized Influence

Had Democrats done better in last fall’s U.S. Senate elections, we might not now put so much focus on Manchin and Sinema.   But, they didn’t and ended up with only 50 seats.  Thanks to Vice President Harris, Democrats “control” the senate, meaning the two who have voiced the most serious objections to President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda have more influence than most these days. Both have used that influence in forcing a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure package when party leadership and House progressives wanted to wait on that bill until Biden’s “human

infrastructure” legislation – his Build Back Better program – was ready for a vote in both houses. They’ve also been the driving force behind reducing the size of Biden’s plan from $3.5 trillion to about half that.

Sinema also made sure most of the tax increases Biden wanted got stripped from the bill. She said she wouldn’t “support any legislation that increases burdens on Arizonans or American businesses and reduces our ability to compete either domestically or globally.” Vague though that statement may have been, when one vote means everything, if that’s how one senator

sees things, that view probably will rule the day. Sinema also goes to great lengths to extoll the virtues of bipartisanship. She argues bipartisan legislation leads to more enduring policies that won’t get wiped out in the next power shift in Washington.    

Manchin contends Biden’s bill would promote inflation, a claim the Congressional Budget Office disputes. He also claims the legislation

would damage the coal industry. He ignores the damage the coal industry does to the environment and how few coal jobs the legislation would actually put at risk. But that’s his story and he sticks to it zealously.

The Dark Side

Both Manchin and Sinema spout elegant pronouncements that find their footing in either pragmatism or high-brow political philosophy. Progressive activists see something else behind the positions they’ve taken –cold hard

campaign cash. Both have become magnets for contributions from conservative, Republican-leaning donors who want to encourage their resistance to progressive Democratic legislation.

Manchin, who isn’t up for re-election until 2024, took in $3.3 million in the first nine months of 2021, 14 times more than he raised during the same time in 2020. Sinema, who also isn’t up until 2024, raised $2.6 million in that time frame this year, two and a half times more than she collected in that time period in 2020.

Manchin has especially been the beneficiary of contributions from energy industry figures. They blanche at Biden’s climate change agenda, especially his plans for reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Pharmaceutical industry executives, in particular, helped fill Sinema’s coffers. She’s gotten significant sums from tech industry figures.  Both she and Manchin have declined comment on the spate of contributions.

So, Which Is It?

Are Manchin and Sinema noble political leaders who will keep the country safe from

inflation?  Are they the last line of defense against a partisan split that eats at democracy by promoting division, rendering us incapable of working with each other? Or, are they bought and paid for corporate puppets who’ll do anything in exchange for campaign contributions.

We aren’t in their heads, of course, but we wonder how anyone can dismiss the influence of the money. Sinema had a progressive image when she served in the Arizona legislature. She won her senate race in 2018 with considerable support from people of color and young progressives.  She gave few hints of the kind of obstructionist approach to progressive legislation she’s shown with the Biden program.  We wonder if she just saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. Many Republican donors giving her money say they want a “go to” person in the Democratic party. She has certainly given them that.

The question for Sinema, much more than for Manchin, is what impact her approach will have on her political base in Arizona. A lot of people who backed her in 2018 aren’t happy. Her approval ratings among the kind of people who helped her win that election have plummeted.

Manchin probably has no such worries in ultra-conservative West Virginia, a state that was once solidly Democratic but is now as red as they get. Threats to him come from the right, not the left.

In the final analysis, what’s driving Manchin and Sinema may not matter much. For now, both have decided that doing what they’re doing best serves their political ends. We should expect they will keep doing it.       

THE 2021 VIRGINIA ELECTIONS PART II: A DIFFERENT QUESTION FOR DEMOCRATS

In our last post, we explored possible reasons for the Democratic Party’s difficulties in the recent Virginia elections. Former Governor Terry McAuliffe lost to political newcomer Glenn Youngkin in his bid for another gubernatorial term and Republicans scored major gains in the Virginia legislature. Media predictions abounded that Virginia foreshadowed big Democratic losses in the 2022 midterms and potentially in the 2024 presidential election.

We suggested a number of possible reasons

for the Virginia outcome, but asked if Democrats should think about the issue differently. Perhaps a broader focus on what polices they should pursue now, instead of wringing their hands about the Virginia results, would better serve Democratic prospects for 2022 and 2024.

 

It’s the Income Inequality, Stupid

We assert that a credible, though not infallible, argument exists that if Democrats focus on waging war on behalf of the middle and working classes they can prevail in the upcoming elections.  By taking executive

actions and passing legislation that address the nation’s  income inequality problem, they can win. If they follow this course they could keep or expand their narrow majorities on Capitol Hill and retain control of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2024.

Democrats must make plain that since 1980 –the beginning of the Reagan Revolution – thetop one percent of the population has increased its share of the nation’s wealth from ten percent to 20%, a trend that continues unabated every year.  The pandemic only made it worse. The tax burden on the rich has been lowered, with no concomitant increase in jobs or other economic benefits for the middle and working classes.

This development has been well documented in books like The Triumph of Injustice: How theRich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman and Capital and Ideology by Thomas Piketty. These works demonstrate the degree towhich the rich have gotten richer while the rest of the population stagnates economically. They also show the impact of a regressive income tax system and of income inequality on our politics and people’s lives. 

President Biden’s human infrastructure bill –the one that hasn’t been enacted yet and that keeps getting trimmed and adjusted at theinsistence of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema – represents a start, but only a start. Democrats should pass legislation that increases taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. What increases, if any, will end up in the human infrastructure bill remains uncertain. Under the analysis we suggest, only meaningful tax reform that makes the rich pay their fair share will convince the working and middle classes that the Democratic Party really has their best interest at heart and insure Democratic victories in the upcoming elections.

 

Good Politics

The Virginia outcome demonstrated that a lot

of noise infects our politics. Misinformation about Critical Race Theory could muck up any election, despite the fact too many of the people yelling loudest about CRT know little or nothing about

it.  The truth is it probably can’t be explained in an intellectually honest way in this toxic environment, so Democrats should emphasize bread and butter issues. Americans know income inequality gets worse

each year. They know a progressive tax system built this country into what it became before 1980. Making income inequality the center piece of the Democratic Party’s governing effort may well present that rare situation in which good policy makes good politics.

We’ve pointed on several occasions to Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum’s book That Used to be Us as providing the best

explanation of what happens when the rich pay their fair share. The country blossoms and the proverbial rising tide lifts all boats. Getting back to that arguably represents the Democratic Party’s best route to sustained electoral success.

 

No Guarantees

Despite the appeal of this approach anddespite how it fits with the moral compass of many Democratic leaders and Democratic leaning voters, no assurance exists it will prevail in the upcoming elections. At least two things stand in the way. First, no one should underestimate the Republican party’s capacity for distortion and disinformation about whatever Democrats do or propose.
Despite the appeal of this approach and despite how it fits with the moral compass of many Democratic leaders and Democratic leaning voters, no assurance exists it will prevail in the upcoming elections. At least two things stand in the way. First, no one should underestimate the Republican party’s capacity for distortion and disinformation about whatever Democrats do or propose.  Republicans will turn every executive action, legislative proposal, and electoral appeal that takes this approach into “socialist class warfare” and exclusionary “identity politics.”Some Americans, even some who would benefit economically from the polices promoted here, will buy into these straw men. Democrats must, therefore, develop their own marketing strategy for selling their ideas. 

Second, as the battle between “moderate” and “progressive” Democrats in the House over the infrastructure bills demonstrates, real differences exist between Democrats over how hard the party should lean into policies

like those suggested here. Making income inequality the centerpiece of the Democratic Party’s appeal doesn’t have universal support within the party.  Some “moderate” Democrats fear objections to tax increases from middle class voters. Many tax proposals supposedly aimed at the rich end up affecting tax brackets to which middle class voters aspire or may fall into because of inflation.  A vote for a tax increase can create a

negative dynamic in any political race. When combined with divisive social issues like race, guns, and abortion, a vote for a tax increase may become another tool in the arsenal of a Republican claiming a Democrat is “too liberal.”

The arguments in favor of an attack on income inequality resonate strongly with us, both morally and practically. America must do something about this.  We’re aware, however, that powerful forces stand arrayed against a full assault on the problem. Not all those forces fall into the category of evil. Like most things in life, the country probably must find a compromise that addresses the problem, though perhaps less aggressively than it might in an ideal world. 

CRUNCH TIME ON BI-PARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE: CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR JOE BIDEN

The American people need an infrastructure program because the roads and bridges they use every day are crumbling around them and

because the country needs it to remain competitive with the world’s other industrialized nations. President Biden needs an infrastructure bill that keeps his

administration’s positive momentum and shows ordinary citizens government can work for them. Congressional Democrats need infrastructure

legislation as a signature accomplishment they can run on in 2022. Moderate Republicans need infrastructure legislation so they can show their voters the virtue of being something other than the party of “no.”

So, with so many divergent groups needing something done on infrastructure, why has it become one of the heaviest legislative lifts in recent times? The answer lies in the complex web of political alliances that have put the president in a precarious position. The dilemma illustrates the difficulty America faces in getting things done in an era of extreme partisanship.

A Deal – Maybe

After weeks of talking, the president and a group of senators from both parties announced agreement on a $1 trillion infrastructure package that supposedly has the backing of 11 Republican senators (Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Rounds, Graham, Young, Tillis, and Moran) and two key Democratic moderates, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The unspoken reality was that Democrats would still try to pass the rest of Biden’s original $2.3 trillion package through budget reconciliation, meaning no need for Republican votes in the

Senate.  Biden first said he would veto the smaller bill if he didn’t get both. The 11 Republicans who were on record as supporting the bill balked and the president walked back that statement. The dust up showed the political peril that infests the whole infrastructure issue.

                                

           

With Manchin and Sinema (and maybe some other Democratic senators) apparently caring more about the appearance of bipartisanship

than the substance of an infrastructure package,  Biden now finds himself trying to thread a needle that can sew together waring elements in his own party with Republicans who might agree to pass something.

Progressive Democrats, particularly in the House, have begun expressing exasperation

with the whole idea of a bipartisan deal. A few, like Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive  Caucus, think the whole bipartisan

effort has been “wasted.” A few in the group have hinted they won’t vote for the kind of narrow bill worked out with Senate Republicans. Given the slim Democratic majority in the House, Biden can’t lose many Democratic votes in the lower chamber, since it’s not clear any Republicans will vote “yes.”

 

Shortcomings

Make no mistake, the deal with Republicans

has major weaknesses.  First,  it’s paid for with gimmicks – smoke and mirrors ideas that placate Republican refusal to raise taxes on the  wealthy. Second,

it doesn’t address a number of real needs Biden’s original big bill took head on.

Paying for the smaller bill will come from a combination of things like unused unemployment benefits money and  increased tax collections generated by a bigger IRS

budget. We’re not keen on that idea in particular. Experience suggests the yield from such an effort often comes up short. Beyond that, the country must address income inequality and the fact the wealthy currently don’t pay their fair share in taxes.  Even without the country’s massive infrastructure need, those earning over $400,000 a year should pay more.

Most experts who’ve analyzed the infrastructure proposals think the bill Biden and the bipartisan group agreed on doesn’t really tackle climate change. With the recent heatcatastrophe in the Pacific Northwest and an already raging Atlantic hurricane season (more named storms earlier than ever), we can’t imagine anyone thinking we don’t face a real climate crisis. Other shortcomings in the bill agreed on concern not enough emphasis on high speed rail and not enough money for improving the nation’s electric grid. That’s especially needed if more electric vehicles and devices come online in transportation and other industries.

 

Who Do You Trust?

Part of the dilemma Biden now faces rests in the fact he must deal with both outright enemies in the other party and skeptics in his own. Most Republicans in both houses of Congress don’t want to do anything except

obstruct him. Some House Democrats now don’t trust him to follow through and fight for a bill based on reconciliation, so some now appear reluctant to give him the smaller bill as a start.

Biden may have to wait until after the 2022 mid-terms before he can complete this process. Democratic prospects don’t look bad now for picking up a seat or two in the Senate. For one thing Republicans must defend 20 seats, Democrats only 14. For another, Republican incumbents in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina aren’t seeking re-election, potentially giving Democrats opportunities. That might diminish the importance of problem Democrats like Manchin and Sinema and pave the way for a doable reconciliation bill with tax increases and meaningful spending on pressing needs like climate change and electric grid development. But, Democrats are in real danger of losing the House in 2022 because of redistricting, Republican voter suppression, and the historical fact a president’s party usually loses seats in the mid-term elections right after that president takes office.

One irony in all this resides in the fact Biden’s original proposal enjoys 68% support among the people. Republicans in Congress apparently listen only to the 29% opposed.

Infrastructure provides Biden with a major test and a real opportunity. If he gets his two bills, he will have done his own party and the country a major service. Maybe he simply lives to fight another day with a new Congress. In today’s political circumstances, that can rank as a major accomplishment.

BIDEN ABROAD: RESETTING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

In our October 28, 2019, post one of us saw “repair[ing] our alliances around the world thereby protecting our national security in a way consistent with our values and those of our allies” as a major task of any Democrat elected president in 2020. We’ve consistently emphasized the importance of demonstrating America’s global leadership after the decline caused by the Trump administration’s

dysfunctional foreign policy.  With Joe Biden just back from his first foreign trip as president, now seems a good time for looking at 46’s progress on that task of restoring American preeminence in the world.

 

The Man and His Team

Biden arrived in the White House superbly

qualified for taking on foreign policy challenges. He served as chairman or ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 12 years. Foreign policy comprised a major part of his portfolio during his eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president. He’s on a first name basis with many foreign leaders.

Biden picked an experienced foreign policy team. State Secretary Antony Blinken had key foreign

policy jobs in both the Clinton and Obama administrations and served as Democratic staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Defense

Secretary Lloyd Austin, a respected retired four star U.S. Army general, commanded troops in Iraq and led the U.S. Central Command. Jake Sullivan

served on President Obama’s staff and was Biden’s national security advisor as vice president. United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield

worked for 35 years in the State Department.  If experience matters, Biden’s team passes the test.

 

To This Point

Despite raging domestic problems like the covid pandemic, its resulting economic dislocation, and

his agenda on infrastructure, climate, and racial justice, Biden moved quickly on some important foreign policy fronts:

·    Emphasizing alliances – Trump disdained NATO, ridiculed the joint defense aspects of the Atlantic alliance, and managed to have nearly all the major European leaders laughing at him in public at international meetings. Biden has pledged his backing for NATO, most importantly reaffirming the mutual security aspect of the NATO treaty that makes an attack on one NATO member an attack

on all. European leaders like England’s Boris Johnson, Germany’s Angela Merkel, and France’s Emmanuel Macron welcomed the new American president with open arms.

·    Resetting the relationship with Russia – Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both said it wasn’t unpleasant or confrontational, but Biden clearly aimed to let Putin know he won’t find the same coziness and acquiescence he found with Donald Trump.        

·    International organizations and cooperation – Biden put the U.S. back in the Paris Climate Accords, stopped the American withdrawal from the World Health Organization, and returned the

United States to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Participation in these  organizations assures the U. S. a voice on major international issues and helps prevent other nations from taking actions that affect the U.S. when we’ve had no say.

·    Getting out of Afghanistan – Americans of all political persuasions want an end to our military

presence there. We went there in 2001 in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. We spent $2 trillion. About 240,000 people lost their lives. The only real debate has been over timing of withdrawal. Trump pledged we’d get our remaining 2500 troops out by May 2021. Biden did a review of the situation and announced we’re leaving by September 11. Maybe it’s the right thing to do, maybe it’s not. It apparently will happen with the agreement of most Americans.

·   Fine tuning American policy – Biden has changed many of Trump’s policies, but not all of them. On

China, for example, Biden will  keep in place tariffs Trump imposed and continue diplomatic pressure on the Chinese over alleged atrocities committed against Uyghur Muslims.  In the Middle East, however, he’s resuming financial aid for the Palestinians that

Trump cut off. He’s reaffirmed American support for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a longstanding U.S. policy Trump essentially abandoned. Biden also ended American backing for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. 

·    Launching a global anti-corruption effort – The Biden administration’s first National Security Study Memorandum established fighting corruption as a core national security interest. The memorandum ordered that federal agencies prioritize efforts at confronting financial crimes. Cybercrimes and “strategic corruption” by foreign entities and governments will receive new attention.    

 

What it Means for Americans

Biden believes ordinary Americans have a stake in foreign policy beyond simple national security. “He’s always seen foreign policy as part of the overall interest process of our country,” says

former defense secretary and Republican  Senator Chuck Hagel, a long-time Biden friend.  “It’s something that is very much a part of who he is ….” International trade, the pandemic, and basic economic concerns motivate Biden. He sees a robust American role in the world as part of his effort to hold on to the working-class voters who helped him get elected. In that sense, Biden’s foreign and domestic policies are bound up with each other.

The G7 meeting and the face-to-face with Putin

represent steps in Biden’s early efforts at returning the U.S. to its premier place in the world. He’s been in office five months. Five  months will

neither undo all the damage Trump did nor accomplish Biden’s long-term objectives. He has made a promising start, and for that Americans can rest a bit easier.