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.       

AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS: DEMOCRACY, THE N-WORD, AND THE NEED FOR ALLIES

 

We see a new iteration of the n-word at the forefront of our current political discourse.  For

anyone who leans progressive, as each of us does to varying degrees, the last few weeks haven’t been pleasant. We’ve seen plenty worthy of being unhappy about recently:

·    An unending campaign in some states that would take us backward on electoral fairness
through voter suppression laws and redistricting plans that threaten (perhaps assure) permanent Republican rule despite demographic change that should swing legislative representation toward Democrats.

·  The dwindling stature of the Biden presidency, burdened as it is by falling poll numbers and bickering among Congressional Democrats that imperils his domestic agenda and the party’s prospects in the 2022 midterms.

·    Relative public indifference to Republican obstruction of a full-fledged investigation into
the January 6 attack on the Capitol, amid hints the Biden Justice Department may go easy on some insurrectionists out of a misguided fear of further radicalizing them; and

·    Misogyny, racism, and homophobia at high levels of the nation’s most popular professional sport.

Given this list, we almost find ourselves asking, “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theater?”

Historical Parallels

We acknowledge the nation has found itself in such a dark place before. About the tumult of 1968, journalist David Halberstam wrote that he  saw thecountry on the “verge of a national nervous breakdown” because of Vietnam and racial turmoil. Perhaps we’re not there now, but disarray abounds. Many supporters of former President Donald Trump appear willing to abandon democratic norms and institutions so he can wield power again.  

After Barack Obama’s 2008 victor some saw the ugliest of our racial conflict as behind us, a feeling that was clearly premature. Even six years ago, before Trump’s rise, many wouldn’t have believed the acquiescence of mainstream Republicans to this abandonment of democracy. 

We don’t know where this is going. The 1960s

precedents may or may not apply. After the civil rights marches Congress passed laws that improved the legal, social, and economic lives

of people of color. Yet, we have today’s political polarization, much of it rooted in racial division.

We moved in a different direction in foreign policy,

or appeared to for a while. Still, despite our Vietnam experience, we fought a 20-year war in Afghanistan from which we’ve only now extricated ourselves, complete with messy consequences for the current administration. We can’t say this will all come out right.

The Race Thing

We find nothing so disconcerting as the direction in which we seem headed on race. Barack Obama got

elected president. Kamala Harris got elected vice president. Those are positives, but look at what’s happening on the other side of the ledger.

Across the nation angry white parents attack school boards and teachers in seeking assurance their children will never learn, at least in school, the country’s terrible racial history. They’ve

found a convenient whipping boy by distorting an obscure old academic approach to race discrimination called Critical Race Theory and made it a boogey man that has become the basis for whitewashing America’s past. Meanwhile, in some states Republican legislators demand that their black and brown colleagues (and white ones so inclined) never refer to racism in legislative debates, even if a third grader could see the racist intent in voter suppression proposals and gerrymandered redistricting plans.

These Republican legislators and their right wing media comrades squeal long and loud if anyone calls out their behavior. Me, a racist? How dare you! We suggest they read Robin DiAngelo’s bestselling book White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to talk about Racism. She could have subtitled the book Why So Many White People Refuse to Talk About Racism.

                                

We’ve wondered what difference really exists

between these modern deniers of racism and their Jim Crow predecessors. It’s true, they don’t regularly use the n-word in public. At least we knew where old time segregationists stood, men like Jim Eastland and Ross Barnett, many of whom used the n-word in public. Former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden didn’t in his now famous

e-mails, but the message was the same. Wouldn’t we live in a more honest, transparent society if descendants of the segregationists—the Grudens, the Greg Abbots, the Brian Kemps – discarded the fake civility and talked like they feel and act?

Not Devoid of Hope

Woodson tells of a white friend who told him the story of a young man of color – a fifth or sixth grader – with whom at school he developed a close friendship as a youngster. One day, no one could find the young black man.  His friend discovered him crying in a restroom because someone called him by the n-word. He’d been taught that if he lived righteously and played by the rules people would accept him.

The incident demonstrated that wasn’t always the case, seemingly yet another reason for despair. The

white student, now an adult, said 

that was when he first realized his black friend’s life experiences differed radically from his own. Now, as an adult, this white man attends a multi-ethnic church and has committed himself to racial justice. 

The story illustrates that bad people inhabit the world and we must face them individually and

collectively. It also shows we can find hope when we find allies. Fellow travelers abound. Kindred spirits of all colors inhabit the world. They don’t hide behind false civility and will engage in good faith discussion and debate. Henry reminds us that in the past we’ve always had enough people who believed in this vision that we could keep it alive. Do we have enough now? We shall see. 

VIOLENCE AGAINST ASIANS: AN OLD INJUSTICE

On March 16 a 21-year old white man, Robert

Long, allegedly attacked three Atlanta area spas, killing eight people, six of them women of Asian descent. The shootings became a part of a larger discussion about violence against the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) community. StopAAPIHate, a group

formed at the beginning of the pandemic, says over 3800 acts of verbal or physical assault or harassment against Asians occurred in the United States in the year since, an average of 11 incidents a day. President Biden signed an executive order aimed at combatting the problem a few days after he took office. 

                     

Violence against Asians in the U.S. goes back to

the 1870s. Asian women suffer particularly egregious treatment, given how American culture and media often objectifies them as little more than sex items.  The Atlanta shootings present a critical opportunity for examining the problem and what the country does about it.

The Roots

Animus towards Asians began when Chinese migrants first arrived in the western U.S., many to work on the Transcontinental Railroad and other public works projects. Fearful the Chinese would take jobs from them, whites attacked the newcomers,  such

as in 1871 when a mob in Los Angeles shot and hanged 18 Chinese men and boys. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese  Exclusion

Act which shut down legal Chinese

immigration until the 1940s. These atrocities against Chinese Americans and many more are chronicled in Iris Chang’s book, “The Chinese In America”.

During the Second World War, the United States government perpetrated one of its great injustices when it rounded up about 120,000 Americans of Japanese heritage and locked them in internment camps. They committed no crime except being Japanese.

In 1982, two white auto workers murdered Vincent Chin, a Chinese man, in Detroit.  His assailants mistook him as being Japanese and blamed him for the decline in the American auto industry. These atrocities previewed a broader assault on Asians during the Trump era. A significant uptick in attacks on Asians followed the president’s derisive language about the origins of the coronavirus, including calling it the “China Virus” and “Kung Flu.”

A Complex History

Despite these dastardly events, the history of bias

against the AAPI community presents a complex narrative. It runs from the governmental and individual bad acts

described, to the election of Kamala Harris, whose mother came to the United States from India, as the first woman vice president. It also involves a nuanced relationship between Asians and other minority groups during the struggle for racial equality in America.

Asians have sometimes been viewed as the “model minority,” whose members achieved success in science, medicine, business, and other fields, including the media. In many academic endeavors, some Asians outpaced whites, particularly in mathematics and pure science. According to Iris Chang, “It is in connection with these immigrants, not surprisingly, that the term ‘model minority’ first appeared. The term refers to an image of the Chinese as working hard, asking for little, and never complaining.” Asians have been held up to blacks and browns as examples of how far hard work and a willingness to operate within the system can take an otherwise disfavored group. Some Asians decided against identifying with those protesting race discrimination and opposed affirmative action programs in higher education and employment. According to Chang, “[model minority] is now a term many Chinese have mixed feelings about.”

During the 1960s some Asians saw the virtue in allying themselves with blacks in the civil rights struggle. Writer and podcast host Jeff Yang, for

example, noted, “There would not be an Asian American community as we know it had it not been for both the civil rights victories that African Americans won with blood and sweat and tears, but also the desire by early Asian American activists to create common cause” with them.  

Following the Atlanta shootings, some AAPI

leaders, when asked what would help stem the wave of violence against Asians, called

for strengthening alliances with other people of color. They noted historical associations between blacks and Asians, such as support the Reverend Jesse Jackson offered in connection with Chin’s murder in 1978.

 

The Matter of Women

The Atlanta killings highlighted the special vulnerability of AAPI women. Asian women report 2.3 times more hate incidents than

Asian men. Time Magazine’s cover story on the subject quoted an American Psychological Association report that asserted Asian women are frequently “exoticized and objectified in popular culture and media as ‘faceless, quiet and invisible or as sexual objects.’”

The Atlanta shooting suspect claimed he suffers from a “sex addiction” and believed the shootings would eliminate the temptation the spas constituted. Leaving aside the plausibility of that assertion, the fact he targeted Asian women made clearer the danger women of Asian descent face in America. As Arizona State University professors Karen Leong and Karen Kuto observed in reporting that an armed white man was detained outside the official vice presidential residence, even Harris is not exempt from “this culture that racializes and sexualizes Asian women and all women of color. None of us is.”

The task of fighting violence against the AAPI community falls on everyone. All Americans must speak out because of the moral imperative and

because we never  know who will become the next target. The words of the great German minister, the Reverend Martin Niemoller, about the Holocaust still ring true:

First, they came for the socialists and I did not speak because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists but I did not speak because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews but I did not speak because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.   

For whom will you speak?            

AMERICA’S CLOSE CALL WITH LOSING DEMOCRACY: THE 2020 ELECTION STORY THAT’S BARELY BEEN TOLD

         

At first, we thought the end of the impeachment trial marked a good time for turning the page on Donald Trump and the 2020 election. The new administration certainly has turned the page, as President Biden’s recent Wisconsin and Michigan trips, his first since taking office, indicate. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris revved up their campaign to build support for the administration’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. It appears they’re making headway. Polls showed Biden’s approval rating over 60% and support for the virus legislation nearing 70%.

One thing, however, caught our attention and made

us consider something about the election we can’t ignore –the danger democracy faced and escaped. The February 15/February 22 issue of Time Magazine includes a stunning report about the unprecedented effort by Americans of all political stripes to save the 2020 election. These Americans, first and foremost, wanted a fair election. Their objective was not engineering a victory for either side. The story hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. According to Time, the key participants say they “want the secret history of the 2020 election told,” so we decided we’d help them get it out.

Molly Ball wrote “How Close We Came: The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the Election.” She details how business interests, labor unions, and social activists made “sort of an implicit bargain” in which they came together to“keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.” It started with a man few people have heard of, Mike Podhorzer, and wound up involving hundreds of Americans from different political orientations.

Beginnings – Fall 2019 

Podhorzer’s political roots grew in union soil. He served as senior adviser to the leadership of the

AFL-CIO and developed a reputation for using scientific methods in campaigns. In late 2019, he realized a disaster loomed with the 2020 vote because Trump could try to “disrupt the election.” Podhorzer found others, especially in voting rights and civil rights organizations, who shared his fears. He began communicating with them and in March 2020 put his thoughts into a confidential memorandum that outlined how Trump might use right wing media and social media in claiming he’d won the election, even if he lost.

Four major concerns appeared early: (1)attacks on 

voters, (2) attacks on election administration,

(3) attacks on Trump’s political opponents, and

(4) attempts at reversing a Democratic victory. 

Podhorzer's group began working on these

problems before Biden clinched the Democratic

nomination and the Biden campaign never had a

real role in his efforts.

The COVID Bugaboo

Once the pandemic hit, it became clear conducting the 2020 election would pose special problems. States including Ohio, New York, and Wisconsin experienced turmoil in primaries because of poll-worker shortages, lack of polling places, and delayed vote counts.

           

The pandemic presented the first opportunity for real cooperation between the liberal activists sounding alarm bells about the election and business groups, many of whose members supported Trump, yet wanted a free, fair election. Business feared the impact on the economy of prolonged civil disturbances that might follow a disputed contest. Many states and localities didn’t have adequate funding for a pandemic-stricken election. Congress provided some money, but it wasn’t enough. Private donations, many from the business community, filled the gap, helping local election officials purchase protective gloves, masks, and hand sanitizer.

The pandemic dictated a major mail-in

ballot effort. Podhorzer’s group focused attention on helping states prepare for that, something many had minimal experience with. Additionally, they worked at (1) helping the public understand counting the votes might take longer than usual, (2) fighting disinformation on social media by getting the platforms to enforce their rules, and (3) encouraging both left-leaning activists and business groups to buy-in and avoid inflaming the situation. Meantime, Democratic lawyers vigorously fought court battles against Trump’s false claims, before and after the election.  

Alliances

Ball writes extensively about the “strange bedfellows” the effort attracted. She notes that the 

AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (along with some religious groups) issued a joint statement on election day calling on the media, the candidates, and voters to “exercise patience with the process and trust in our system,” even if they didn’t agree on a preferred outcome.

Once Trump’s post-election fraud claims went into overdrive, members of the group encouraged support from former elected officials for election administrators. In Michigan, for example, three former governors, Republicans John Engler and Rick Snyder and Democrat Jennifer Granholm, joined in calling for an electoral college tally free of White House pressure.

End Game

The Time story makes clear Podhorzer’s informal group anticipated the January 6 effort Trump and his supporters made to interfere with the congressional tally of electoral college votes. The left-leaning activists who were part of the alliance made things easier by standing down in the face of the insurrection. They didn’t confront Trump’s mob with a counter protest, which only would have made things worse, in part by letting the right wing media offer a false equivalency narrative.

In the end, the informal group Podhorzer spearheaded narrowly pulled out a victory. Ball’s story reported that they (and the country) “won by the skin of [our] teeth.”  That the  United States

needed the kind of effort reported by Time both depresses and encourages. It depresses, of course, that we had such a close call. It encourages because Americans of all political persuasions stepped up and preserved our democracy. The Time story is worth reading.