I have written several articles on postings related to politics. A list of links have been provided at bottom of this article for your convenience. This article will, however address different aspects on these political events.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin pushed back against his party’s power grab when he made clear he wants to keep the Senate filibuster. Manchin was showered with praise by level-headed Americans for “saving the Senate.” But if we really want to be honest here, saving the Senate is necessary to save our very republic from the dangers of direct democracy.
A friend of Adam Brandon who also happens to be a Mountaineer, David Hoinski, is a philosophy professor at West Virginia University. David teaches philosophy and is an expert on Plato.
We throw around the term “democracy” so loosely in reference to America, but we’re actually a republic. There is a big difference between the two. A pure democracy ends up becoming mob rule. A republic has an entire system of checks and balances to prevent that. It’s our republican form of government that makes America so durable.
What worries us today is that we’re finally devolving into the breakup of the republic that the Founding Fathers warned us about. James Madison described this as the problem of “faction.” Writing in 1787 as New York was deciding whether or not to ratify the Constitution, Madison explained that the benefit of a republican form of government was that it would undercut faction.
Madison described faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” He surmised that there were “two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction.” The first was “removing its causes,” which he rejected because that meant “destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence” and “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” This solution, he noted, “was worse than the disease.”
The other method of curing the mischiefs of faction was “controlling its effects.” This is why Madison and the framers of the Constitution chose to make America a republic. In fact, Madison explicitly rejected direct democracy.
If we take that road, you’re going to see a significant step toward the Founders’ nightmares. This kind of hyper-democratization of society used to be far-left, pie-in-the-sky thinking. Such conversations weren’t remotely considered part of the mainstream debate. No longer. Many Americans were talking about socialism seriously before the global pandemic and that event has encouraged some of them to push even harder for a more collectivist and pure democratic system.
Now we’re actually talking about universal basic income. It’s not a punchline. That’s where our country is. When she served in the Senate, Kamala Harris introduced a proposal that was very similar to UBI. If you combine direct democracy with universal basic income, the republic is over. If we devolve into such a sad state, the main and perhaps only purpose of the government at that point will be redistributing free stuff and suppressing those who disagree with the whims of the mob. That’s when you have a tyranny of the majority.
When you empower the mob in such a fashion, it actually brings about violence. So we are at risk. It’s disturbing. Our republic is a constant balance. If you have checks and balances, you have a system that is capable of fixing problems. If you do away with them, we’re in deep trouble.
Without Manchin’s support, the odds that the For the People Act will become law any time soon have effectively sunk to zero.
According to Manchin, the primary reason he is not willing to vote for the legislation is that he believes the For the People Act poses a serious danger to the future of the country.
“I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening blinds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For The People Act,” Manchin wrote in his article.
It might sound like hyperbole to some, but Manchin’s concern about the threat posed by the partisan nature of the bill is absolutely right. The For the People Act is truly one of the most troubling pieces of legislation proposed in recent memory. Should it ever become law, voters’ faith in elections would be eroded, regardless of whether widespread voter fraud actually occurs.
Among the many worrisome provisions included in the For the People Act are a ban on state voter ID laws, a mandate requiring all states to allow mail-in voting and prohibitions on any attempt by states to require a witness signature or notarization when casting absentee ballots.
In other words, the For the People Act would effectively make it impossible for states to guard against even the most basic forms of voter fraud.
In a March article, Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation specializing in voting regulations and fraud, highlighted just how easy it would become for voter fraud to occur if the For the People Act were to become law.
The For the People Act would “eviscerate state voter ID laws that require a voter to authenticate his identity,” von Spakovsky wrote. “Indeed, it would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are. When combined with the mandate that states implement same-day voter registration, it means I could walk into any polling place on Election Day, register under the name John Smith, sign a form claiming I really am John Smith, cast a ballot, and walk out. Not only would election officials have no way of preventing that or verifying that I am not really John Smith, I could repeat this in as many polling places as I can get to.”
In response to these concerns, supporters of the For the People Act typically argue that there has been no evidence that widespread voter fraud has significantly altered important elections in the past. Therefore, they reason, states should be forced to make voting as simple and easy as possible.
But putting aside the dubious claim that voter fraud has not altered past election outcomes, the fact is that election laws are not merely in place to protect fraud from occurring. They also exist because they help reduce the perception of voter fraud, instilling confidence in the outcome, no matter who wins.
If Americans cannot trust election results because the rules are designed in such a way that voter fraud is easy to commit, whether the fraud occurs or not, then the validity of elections will forever be called into question.
This might at first glance appear to be a highly partisan view. But survey results show voters of every political persuasion worry about voter fraud — at least, until their “side” wins.
Just after the Nov. 2020 election, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found 70 percent of Republicans said they didn’t believe the election was “free and fair.” Prior to the election, only 35 percent expressed significant concerns about the validity of the election.
Democrats, on the other hand, overwhelmingly said they trusted the results, with 90 percent saying the elections were free and fair. However, prior to the election, when left-leaning media were making claims about alleged election interference by the Trump administration, only 52 percent of Democrats said they trusted that the election would be fair.
A free nation cannot exist if its citizens are worried that elections can’t be trusted, and like it or not, that’s exactly how tens of millions of Americans have felt over the past year.
Contrary to the claims made by supporters of the For the People Act, the bill is nothing more than a highly partisan attempt to solidify political power — one that would further divide an already deeply divided nation and put the future of the country at risk.
But you do not have to take my word for it. Sen. Manchin, a longtime Democrat, said it best in his article announcing his opposition to the bill: “Today’s debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to hold elections, however, is not about finding common ground, but seeking partisan advantage. Whether it is state laws that seek to needlessly restrict voting or politicians who ignore the need to secure our elections, partisan policymaking won’t instill confidence in our democracy — it will destroy it.”
Thanks to sober politicians like Manchin. If it were not for these individuals our country would be lost. Too many of our politicians are followers and not leaders. They are not willing to risk their careers to do what is right. People like Pelossi , Schumer and AOC are running this country into the ground. Politicians like Rand Paul, Ron Johnson and Joe Manchin are the only ones standing up to the juggernaut that has become our federal government.
freedomworks.org, “Manchin Saved the Senate — and Our Republic (for Now),” By Adam Brandon; thehill.com, “By rejecting Democrats’ election overhaul bill, Joe Manchin may have saved America,” by Justin Haskins; fivethirtyeight.com, “Why Joe Manchin Is So Willing And Able To Block His Party’s Goals,” By Perry Bacon Jr;
Why Joe Manchin Is So Willing And Able To Block His Party’s Goals
Senate Democrats need all 50 members of their caucus to band together to pass bills that don’t have any GOP support. So, in theory at least, any senator could constantly force the party to bend to their will.
In reality, though, only Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is using that power. He’s already blocked President Biden’s nominee to run the White House Office of Management and Budget, and he forced congressional Democrats to make changes to the economic stimulus bill before he would provide his needed “yea” vote. Manchin is also opposing proposals embraced by the Biden administration and most congressional Democrats to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour and to mandate background checks for nearly all gun sales.
Perhaps most important, Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona are the two Senate Democrats most strongly opposed to changing the chamber’s filibuster rules. That opposition is becoming increasingly controversial within the Democratic Party as Republicans in states such as Georgia enact laws that will likely make it harder for liberal-leaning people to vote and have their ballots counted. Democrats won’t be able to pass laws pushing back on these GOP provisions without changes to the filibuster rules.
So, why is Manchin the only senator really using that leverage and thereby impeding the goals of many in his party? It’s pretty simple, actually. He’s the only one who can use that leverage and who wants to. He can because no Democratic senator is less beholden to the party than the senior senator from West Virginia. He wants to because he seems to have different goals and political values than many others in the party.
Manchin’s freedom from the Democratic Party
Because voters increasingly back the same party in congressional and presidential races, only six of the 100 currently serving senators are from a different party than the one their state backed in the 2020 presidential election.1 Even among that group, Manchin stands apart. Hillary Clinton and Biden were completely trounced by Donald Trump in West Virginia in 2016 (42 percentage points) and 2020 (39 points), respectively. But in 2018, Manchin won in West Virginia (by 3 points) despite an aggressive GOP effort to defeat him.
In fact, considering the extreme GOP lean in West Virginia, Manchin’s 2012 and 2018 victories are two of the most impressive wins of any American politician in the 21st century.
What’s Manchin’s secret? It’s hard to pinpoint. He votes with Republicans more than most of his Democratic colleagues do, but so did former Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and they were blown out in 2018 even as they ran in states that are a little less GOP-leaning than West Virginia. Manchin is a well-known figure in West Virginia because he was once governor. But Democrats have run former or sitting governors in other red states (Tennessee’s Phil Bredesen in 2018, Montana’s Steve Bullock in 2020), and they haven’t done nearly as well as Manchin. Manchin is personable, but not spectacularly charming or charismatic.
However he is doing it, though, Manchin’s winning a very red state gives him incredible power. He is a lifelong Democrat and seems committed to the party. But he doesn’t really owe Biden, his fellow Senate Democrats or the formal Democratic Party much of anything — his political brand is really separate from theirs.
So Democrats don’t have much, if any, leverage over the West Virginia senator. Prominent Democrats are surely aware that Manchin could switch parties and join the GOP and that that might help his political career, so they can’t really attack him too harshly when he takes more conservative stands. Also, there is virtually no chance that a Democrat to the left of Manchin could win a general election in West Virginia, so Democrats can’t really keep Manchin in line with the threat of a primary challenge, either.
“What are they going to do … go into West Virginia and campaign against me? Please, that would help me more than anything,” he told The New York Times recently, referring to the inability of the Democratic left to challenge him.
Indeed, the lack of a credible primary threat makes Manchin freer to buck his party than Trump-skeptical Republican Sens. Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse were able to when Trump was president. All four of these senators represent states where a Republican to the right of them could win a general election. Similarly, Sinema has cultivated a brand independent of the Democratic Party but probably can’t veer too far right in a state where both Biden and Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly won last year.
This all explains why Manchin can buck Biden and other Democrats without fear of electoral repercussions, but it doesn’t necessarily explain why he is doing so.
Why Manchin is pushing the Democratic agenda rightward
You might say, “Duh, reelection.” But it’s not clear that Manchin’s behavior is totally, or even mostly, electorally driven. First, we’re not positive that Manchin will run again. The West Virginian will be 74 in August. So, if he seeks another term — he’s up for reelection in 2024 — he would essentially be planning to remain in the Senate until he is 83.
Old age isn’t the only reason Manchin might retire. He may be great at electoral politics, but Manchin is not immune to the broader political environment — one where, as we mentioned, the majority of people in red states such as West Virginia increasingly vote only for Republican candidates. Manchin was first elected to the Senate in a special election in 2010, winning the race by 10 points. Two years later, he won reelection by 24 points. But in 2018, he won by only 3 points. It is likely Manchin would have lost his Senate race had it taken place in either 2016 or 2020, since a presidential election would have drawn out more solidly Republican voters than a midterm. Manchin’s next race will be in 2024, which is, of course, a presidential election year, so Manchin might be an underdog.
And even if Manchin is running and thinks he can win, it’s not totally clear that his moves right now to limit Biden’s agenda are that electorally helpful. Manchin no doubt benefits electorally from keeping some distance from the Democratic Party. At the same time, can Manchin really earn a lot of votes by pushing Democrats to offer people $300 a week in federal unemployment benefits instead of $400, as he did during the stimulus negotiations? Will West Virginia swing voters in 2024 remember and appreciate that Manchin wouldn’t go along with Biden’s nominee to run OMB? On both questions the answer is probably not. In fact, on the most-high-profile issues (the stimulus package, Trump’s impeachments), Manchin tends to vote with his party.
So, if it’s not all about electoral politics, what else is driving Manchin to break with Democrats?
First, the West Virginia senator seems to sincerely disagree with the dominant view among Democrats that the GOP is totally unwilling to work with Democrats when a Democratic president is in office. Manchin argues that there is real potential for bills pushed by Biden and Democrats to get support from at least a few GOP lawmakers if Democrats really try to work with the GOP. He is balking at changing the filibuster rules in part because he thinks that bipartisanship is possible but neither party is trying hard enough.
As Manchin told Capitol Hill reporters recently, after they saw him chatting with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor, “We just talked. I talk to everybody. Wouldn’t it be nice to see Democrats and Republicans talk like that? Wouldn’t it be nice to see him and Chuck Schumer talk like that?”
Mike Plante, a West Virginia-based Democratic strategist, told me, “Joe always feels there is room for compromise.”
The evidence is considerable that the overwhelming majority of Republicans on Capitol Hill aren’t going to support any major policy initiatives backed by a Democratic president. So Manchin’s view of his GOP colleagues seems somewhat untethered from reality. But his optimism about the potential for bipartisanship makes sense from his perspective. After all, Manchin is friendly with a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill, most notably Collins. He and a bipartisan group of lawmakers were key figures in passing a COVID-19 relief bill in December. (That was, of course, when Trump was still in office.)
Second, Manchin may not see the contentious issues of the day — in particular, the filibuster and voting rights — in the extremely high-stakes, democracy-in-peril, “Jim Crow in new clothes” way that other Democrats do. West Virginia is not Georgia, which has a Republican coalition dominated by white people trying to hold on to power by any means necessary against a growing Democratic coalition in which people of color are the majority. West Virginia’s non-Hispanic white population is 92 percent, much higher than the nation overall (60 percent). I’m not suggesting that Manchin doesn’t care about Black voting rights, but he doesn’t have a huge Black constituency pressing him on this issue, as only 4 percent of West Virginians are Black (compared with 13 percent in the nation overall).
“Manchin Values Bipartisanship Over Voting Rights,” read the headline of a New York magazine article on Thursday, aptly capturing a growing sentiment among Democrats.
Third, it’s entirely possible that Manchin really cares about voting rights but thinks that getting rid of the filibuster and passing election-reform legislation on party-line votes is bad electorally for the broader Democratic Party (not just for him) and worse than Democrats trying to win elections even after some of these GOP-backed voting laws are in place. Manchin, as I noted earlier, seems deeply committed to the Democratic Party. But he might disagree with the dominant electoral thinking in the party. After all, emphasizing bipartisanship is Manchin’s strategy, and he’s the one winning in a super-Republican state.
“I’m concerned about the House pushing an agenda that would be hard for us to maintain the majority,” Manchin told The New York Times.
Fourth, Manchin seems to be ideologically to the right of most congressional Democrats, electoral considerations aside. In a Democratic Party that is increasingly organized around pushing for economic and racial equality, Manchin and the party’s more liberal members are essentially from different planets. There is little evidence that Manchin got into politics to implement his deeply held vision for changing the American economy (like Sen. Elizabeth Warren) or its racial policies (Sen. Raphael Warnock). Manchin is more an old-style politician. He grew up in a small coal mining town in West Virginia (Farmington), where his father and grandfather had both been mayor. In 1982, at age 35, he was elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates and climbed the ladder from there — state senator, secretary of state, governor, U.S. senator.
“Joe Manchin was always a center to center-right Democrat,” said Plante. Plante managed the 1996 gubernatorial campaign of Charlotte Pritt, who defeated Manchin in the Democratic primary that year. Back then, Manchin’s more business-aligned moderate politics were to the right of the state, which was dominated by Democrats aligned with labor unions.
As the current Democratic Party moves left, Manchin has to be more cautious for electoral reasons. But there is little evidence that he is trying to push that boundary — to be as liberal as West Virginia will allow. In contrast, Biden seems to be trying to move as far left as electorally possible on a number of issues.
Put all that together and the Democratic Party’s fate is in the hands of a man who doesn’t owe the party anything, can’t support some of its agenda for electoral reasons and probably just disagrees with some of that agenda anyway. Much of the Democratic Party believes that the biggest problem in politics is that the GOP is becoming anti-democratic and that this anti-democratic drift is an emergency for the country. Manchin sees the Republican Party as including people he can work with and seems to think that the biggest problem in politics is that elected officials on both sides aren’t being bipartisan enough. This difference in views between Manchin and much of the rest of the party may be irreconcilable. But if they aren’t reconciled, Manchin’s view will win out, because he has a deciding vote and seems very much willing to use it.
Governmental and Political Posts Both National and International