The Manchin On The Hill, Con't

Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent argues that Sen. Joe Manchin's position on Republican intractability on legislation is politically, morally, and logically untenable.

 

By now you’ve heard that Sen. Joe Manchin III has essentially declared he has consigned us to a future of minority rule. In a new piece, the West Virginia Democrat says he’ll vote against his party’s voting rights legislation and will never, ever vote to “weaken” the filibuster.

This appears to lock Manchin into a position that guarantees efforts to protect democracy will fail. But it also locks Manchin into a position that will soon grow untenable for him, at least if his own words have any meaning.

That’s because at the heart of Manchin’s stance is a question he cannot answer: What happens when Republicans fail to support any voting rights legislation, including legislation Manchin himself wants?

In his piece for the Charleston Gazette-Mail and on the Sunday shows, Manchin stated three essential propositions:

• Acting in defense of voting rights is urgently necessary to defend our freedom
  
• Yet protecting voting rights must only be done on a bipartisan basis, or it cannot happen at all
• Therefore, Democrats must continue seeking Republican support, which will ultimately materialize, precisely because the urgency of acting is so great

If all those are true, what happens when that Republican support does not materialize? Should Democrats not act alone at that point? If so, by Manchin’s own lights, our freedom will be in jeopardy, yet they must continue constraining themselves from acting to defend it.

Manchin says in his piece that he supports the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore federal preclearance requirements for changes in voting rules gutted by the Supreme Court.

Manchin declares this acceptable, because it has “bipartisan support,” as it’s backed by one Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. But he will vote against the sweeping voting rights protections that passed the House, because no Republicans support it:

I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act.

If rewriting voting rules on a “partisan” basis will destroy our democratic bonds, we already live in that world. GOP state legislatures are passing such changes largely on party lines across the country, including voter suppression, efforts to take control of election machinery to potentially overturn outcomes, and preparations for extreme gerrymanders.

Manchin does not explain why Democrats acting on partisan lines to blunt those changes — as the For the People Act would — will destroy our democracy in a way that allowing those Republican changes to proceed on similarly partisan lines would not.

What’s remarkable, however, is that Manchin holds this position even as he agrees those GOP changes threaten our freedom. Asked by CBS’s John Dickerson why GOP senators would support even the John Lewis measure, given that it would make it harder for GOP legislatures to pass those measures, Manchin said:

The fundamental purpose of our democracy is the freedom of our elections. If we can’t come to an agreement on that, God help us.

Because of what’s at stake, he added, Republicans will “understand we must come together on a voting rights bill in a bipartisan way.”

And when 10 Republicans don’t do this? By Manchin’s own declaration, the “freedom of our elections” is on the line, and failing to defend them — God help us — will be a calamity.

At that point, how does Manchin continue arguing that Democrats must do nothing, on the grounds that voting rules changes cannot be partisan, when this will allow partisan Republican rules changes to proceed undisturbed in a way that Manchin himself declares a threat to freedom?

 

Well, at that point Manchin is either revealed as a fraud or villain. The thing is Manchin has made multiple previous statements on bipartisanship, and every time he revises the bar for what qualifies downward towards to Republican side.

Logically and morally it's already untenable, but it remains politically feasible because of all the power Manchin has leveraged being the 50th Dem senator. He plays this game as well as Susan Collins has on the GOP side. Kyrsten Sinema tries, but she's inexperienced at it. Manchin though is a master of maverick kabuki theater.

As long as it remains politically tenable for him, nothing changes. That's the key. What will make it so? I'm not sure. Short of throwing Manchin out of the party or forcing his retirement, which would immediately allow GOP Gov. Jim Justice to appoint a Republican and either way give the Senate back to Mitch McConnell, nobody on the Dem side can really call his bluff.

Dems need another senator or two. Unfortunately, unless Manchin changes his mind now, that will be far too late.