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.       

REPUBLICANS V. DEMOCRATS: A MATTER OF CELEBRITY

 

Both major political parties are lining up candidates

for next year’s elections. Anyone who made a political contribution during 2020 has probably been inundated with fundraising letters, e-mails, and text messages from 2022 campaigns.  We see a defining difference between the kinds of candidates emerging for Republicans and Democrats. Republicans very often present celebrities.

Democrats more often offer independent-minded candidates with roots in social and community movements. We find the difference fascinating.

Many states have spring filing deadlines and potential candidates continue making decisions about whether they’ll seek office. But, fundraising and campaign infrastructure require time. The clock is ticking, especially for high profile statewide races.

The Tuberville Model

Tommy Tuberville enjoyed a successful career as a college football coach, including at Auburn. Now

thanks to the celebrity that went along with that, Alabama’s inherent red hue, and Tuberville’s allegiance to Donald Trump, he’s a United States Senator. Tuberville brought no political or governing experience to his 2020 race against Democratic incumbent Doug Jones.  He campaigned carefully and said little about any issue. Tuberville’s case rested on the fact he’s a Republican (and, therefore, not a Democrat), he enjoyed Trump’s support, and name recognition from coaching. We aren’t saying he wasn’t qualified, but he never said much about what his qualifications were.  He spoke in generalities,

espousing well-worn right wing talking points. His record to date reflects little except following directions from Trump and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.      

That strategy – sports-based celebrity, support of

and from Trump, and keeping quiet beyond platitudes – rests at the heart of legendary running back Herschel’s Walker’s bid for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. Walker hopes he can unseat Democrat

Raphael Warnock, the Baptist minister who won a runoff in January for the unexpired term of retired Republican Johnny Isakson.

Walker has two potential Republican primary opponents, but he’s a strong favorite to win the GOP nomination thanks to his celebrity and his relationship with Trump. Before his time in the National Football League, Walker played for the New Jersey Generals of the United States Football League, a team Trump owned. Relying on their USFL relationship, at the 2020 Republican convention Walker vigorously rejected the idea Trump is a racist.  

Like Tuberville, Walker presents no governing or political experience. He also carries quite a bit of baggage, including allegations of violence toward women, some of which he admitted in his memoir. That makes some Republicans nervous, but most political operatives believe the nomination is his to lose. Also like Tuberville,  he’s keeping a low

profile, dodging interview requests except from friendly outlets like Fox News. Assuming Walker wins the primary, smoking him out likely will become Warnock’s first task in an expensive, high stakes race.

 

Fame Via Media

People who’ve earned fame through media have become another source of Republican candidates. Take J.D. Vance, author of the  acclaimed Hillbilly

Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. The book spent good parts of 2016 and 2017 on the New York Times best seller list. It made Vance, a former Marine turned Yale Law School graduate, wealthy and famous.  Now he’s seeking the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Republican Rob Portman.

 

Vance caused a stir in 2016 by slamming Trump as “reprehensible” and saying his policy proposals, “such as they are range from immoral to absurd.” Now faced with the GOP primary electorate in Ohio, Vance has gotten religion. He says Trump was a good president and he regrets the nasty things he said about him.  Having repented, Vance’s celebrity helps make him the favorite in some quarters for the Republican senate nomination.  His political career now represents just another case of elevating expediency over principle.

Oh, and we can’t forget another recent candidate who made his name through the media.  Larry Elder got more votes than any of the other would-be replacements for California Governor Gavin Newsome in the failed September recall election. Elder spent over 25 years as a radio talk show host before seeking the California governor’s chair. His failure hasn’t dissuaded celebrity GOP candidates long on name identity and short on political experience as the Walker and Vance bids attest.

A Different Way for Democrats

The likely contenders for Democratic nominations for U.S. Senate in states like Pennsylvania and

Ohio are men and women with political experience. In Pennsylvania, Lt. Governor John Fetterman and Congressman Conor Lamb lead the way. In Ohio, Congressman and former presidential

candidate Tim Ryan and one-time  Consumer Protection Bureau adviser Morgan Harper probably have the inside track, though others might emerge.

Beyond that, intriguing Democratic newcomers elsewhere spring from social movements aimed at

promoting change. One of the most impactful freshman members of Congress has been Missouri Representative Cori Bush. A registered nurse and minister, she’s led the fight against COVID-related evictions, even sleeping on the U.S. Capitol steps to make her

point. Georgia Representative Lucy McBath ran for Congress so she could

work on gun safety following the shooting death of her son by a man angry about loud music. Transportation Secretary

Pete Buttigeg ran for president because he wanted to be president, but also so he could show that an openly gay man could seek the nation’s highest office.

The motivations and styles of figures like Bush, McBath, and Buttigeg seem much different than the celebrity-based campaigns of the Walkers and Elders of the world. These more independent minded candidates have bucked their own party, not just followed it. Their approach seems more likely to discourage the rush toward autocracy Trump and Republicans now seem hell bent on promoting. 

                                            

WHY BOTHER WITH A SENATE TRIAL FOR TRUMP?: LET US COUNT THE WAYS

 

As expected, the United States Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump on impeachment charges last Saturday. Seven Republicans joined 48 Democrats and two independents in support of convicting Trump, making it 57-43, ten votes shy of the 67 needed. Trump was charged with inciting the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and not trying to stop the carnage.

The seven Republican votes made it the most bipartisan impeachment trial in U.S. history.

Though House impeachment managers put on a brilliant case, Republicans fearful of a back-lash from the Trump base, ignored the evidence and acquitted him, leaving Trump still eligible for public office.

Many GOP senators hid behind the discredited jurisdiction rationale – the idea the Senate couldn’t convict a former president since he’d already left office. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell relied on

that rationale in justifying his own acquittal vote, despite admitting the House managers proved their case. The no jurisdiction theory flew in the face of established precedent and the plain text of the constitution. The idea, however, provided enough of a fig leaf that Republicans exonerated Trump with the semblance of a straight face.

Even some progressives, knowing the likely outcome, asked why the senate

bothered with the trial. They said it distracted from President Joe Biden’s agenda (time will tell about that) and put Trump in the spotlight when the country should move on to other things. With all due respect to such views, we saw at least five reasons the senate proceeded as it should have:

        (1) Democracy Matters

The riveting presentations by the House managers – tightly scripted, efficient, and brimming with new video evidence – showed the United States values democracy and the rule of law. An effort at holding Trump accountable for the January 6 insurrection mattered more in terms of preserving basic principles of our system than outcome. Besides, the chance of bringing Trump to justice hasn’t passed. He still faces criminal investigations, including a new one by a prosecutor in Georgia over his attempts at reversing the election outcome in that state. Trump’s impeachment lawyers seemingly invited criminal prosecution as an alternative to conviction in the senate, as did

McConnell. We’re not reticent about seeing a former president found guilty of criminal charges thrown in jail. If the Secret Service must learn how it guards a protectee in prison, so be it.  

 

      (2)  A Nation Watching

We won’t know the full impact of the trial on public opinion for a little while. As it began, most polls showed a narrow majority in favor of conviction, 52-48 in several surveys. Those polls didn’t fully reflect the effect of the

prosecution’s case. We can’t imagine the horrendous scenes of assaults on police officers and lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence running for their lives didn’t change some minds. Republicans who 

voted ‘no’ presumably are betting whatever negative effects the trial had on their party will fade.  Maybe, but we can already envision Democratic consultants screening the video for use in television and internet ads against Republicans in future campaigns. Is this really what Americans want from their leaders? Republicans who decided they couldn’t cross Trump and his supporters may find themselves in disfavor with other voters in coming elections, even if they survive dreaded primary challenges.

 

(3)  A World Watching   

Whatever the public reaction in this country, the fact the trial happened should have helped

America’s tattered reputation around the globe. The United States is making an international comeback, having rejoined the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. The new president’s effort at controlling the virus should help show the U.S. as a responsible world citizen again. Holding the trial demonstrated to countries around the world we will at least try drawing lines at abhorrent behavior by our presidents. We will use our institutions in service of protecting our values, even if we fail.

 

(4) We Care

Going forward with the trial demonstrated a level of concern about doing the

right thing, even if we didn’t get the right outcome. The trial was as much for the history books as for today. No one 100 years from now can say we just didn’t care when a lawless president incited an armed insurrection aimed at overturning the outcome of a free and fair election and preventing a peaceful transition of power. No, it didn’t turn out right, but we tried, and posterity will take note of that.

 

      (5) Trials and Truth

Trials are not perfect vehicles for arriving at truth, but they’re better than most anything else this society or any other has for achieving that goal. As a result of hearing and seeing the difference between the exquisite presentations

by the House managers and the disjointed, angry, sometimes unintelligible offerings by Trump’s overmatched lawyers, Americans got a clear picture of what’s true and what’s not. Anyone who watched any significant part of the proceedings understands exactly what happened on January 6 and the implications of that tragic event.

All three of us tried lawsuits during our legal careers and one of us presided over hundreds of them as a judge. We know firsthand how the presentation of conflicting

stories helps clarify an event and reveals the truth as best we can ascertain it. The second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump served that function for the American people, an exercise they very  much needed.    

THE BIDEN-HARRIS INAUGURAL: FOR WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO RECEIVE

 

The last episode of the great television drama The West Wing centers around the inauguration of Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) as successor to the show’s two-term president, Jeb Bartlett (Martin Sheen). While riding to the capitol, Bartlett asked Santos about his speech. Santos replied that it included a few good lines, but nothing like John F. Kennedy’s ‘Ask not what your county can do for you, but what you can do for your country.’ Bartlett sneered, “Yeah, JFK really screwed us with that one, didn’t he?”

When Joe Biden delivers his inaugural address, it’s unlikely he can meet the JFK standard either. Nobody has since that bitterly cold day in 1961 and little in Biden’s rhetorical past suggests he has such a speech in him. That doesn’t diminish the importance of the moment or the address he will give.

 

A Different Inaugural

Few inaugurals in American history present the combination of challenges this one does. Perhaps this resembles 1933 as Franklin Roosevelt faced the great depression. Maybe 1864 compares when the nation remained deadlocked in the Civil War. Knowing Biden could do as well as Abraham Lincoln that day would put everyone’s mind at ease.

With the January 6 invasion and occupation of the U.S. Capitol by a mob inspired by outgoing President Donald Trump, our political situation arguably rivals what Lincoln faced. These marauders, having builtgallows outside, marched through the building waving Confederate flags and shouting “Hang (Vice President) Pence.” The House of Representatives has since impeached Trump for his role in the insurrection and the U.S. Senate will soon hold a trial.  Add the pandemic that has killed 400,000 Americans and still rages and throw in the historic nature of the new vice president’s ascent and we have a truly unprecedented situation.

The January 6 debacle means a massive security presence at the capitol for the

inaugural ceremonies, including thousands of National Guard troops, tall fences, concrete barriers, and multiple checkpoints for capitol employees and the limited number of visitors who can attend the festivities. Inaugurals play a key role in showing the nation and the world what a peaceful transition of power looks like in a

democracy. Trump’s decision that he won’t attend diminishes that to an extent, but even the symbolic power of an appearance by the outgoing president pales in comparison with the need for putting the destructive Trump presidency in the rear-view mirror. Biden now doesn’t want him at the inaugural and neither do many Americans.

   

The security arrangements and the pandemic dictate that this inauguration

look different than any we’ve seen. First, thousands of people won’t look on from the capitol mall. Though Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will take their oaths of office on the capitol steps as usual, social distancing will keep attendance at a fraction of normal. Biden’s inaugural committee has told his supporters they shouldn’t travel from across the country for the proceedings, recommending television or virtual viewing.

 

The Harris Factor

The challenges of the nation’s political divide, Trump’s impeachment, the pandemic, and the resulting economic difficulties will justifiably make Biden’s speech the lead in every post-inauguration news story. Calmer circumstances would likely mean more emphasis on the swearing in of the nation’s

first female president or vice president. Kamala Devin Harris of California will make that history when she takes the oath of office as the 49^th vice president. That she is also a woman of color only increases the historical significance. Trump’s blatantly racist presidency and the number of Americans who would have given him a second term squash any suggestion her election hails a post-racial America.

 

Biden says she will play the same kind of role in this administration he played in the Obama-Biden years. He promises he will consult her on every major decision and make her the “last person in the room” in those situations.

 

The Speech and the Job Ahead

Harris will stay busy presiding over the senate following Democratic victories in Georgia runoffs that made the upper chamber a 50-50 party split. The incoming administration has plenty on its plate. Biden and Harris emphasize how much they will focus on the pandemic. As one observer put it, the coronavirus remains the “boss” of everything and everybody. Until the country gets it under control the things ordinary Americans most want can’t happen -- an economic revival and a return to normal life unfettered by social distancing,fan-less sporting events, and restrictions on family and  other gatherings. The pandemic, the limping economy, the political and racial divisions January 6 so starkly demonstrated, and the country’s fragile psyche make for a long, complicated to-do list.

      

Biden’s speech, therefore, requires substantive and spiritual components. Substantively, he need not provide every detail, but he should offer an outline for conquering the pressing problems, including the need for restoring the hollowed out federal government Trump leaves him. He must convince people he will work for them and show he will govern in a way that benefits everyone.

 

The moment also requires a speech that touches souls. It must offer hope for renewing the American spirit. After four years of a lawless, destructive presidency marked by racial discord and political turmoil, a bitter campaign, and a dangerous, tumultuous lame duck period, Biden faces a tired, discouraged, and distraught country.

 

Inaugurals serve many functions. They

represent renewal  and new beginnings. They also put American democracy on the world 

stage and advertise the virtues of our system. January 6  and Trump’s four years

dimmed our brand. America’s first chance at polishing its image comes with the Biden-Harris inaugural. Even with an 

dimmed our brand. America’s first chance at polishing its image comes with the Biden-Harris inaugural. Even with an impeachment proceeding against Trump pending in the U.S. Senate, a little JFK-style inspiration might help.