Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Senators held bipartisan discussions this week on an infrastructure deal.
5 stories to read about the bipartisan infrastructure deal
A bipartisan group of senators announced Thursday they had reached an agreement on a potential infrastructure package, but it is still a long way from crossing the finish line.
After days of hand-wringing over the future of the For the People Act, this was a welcome end to the week.
Here are five stories to catch you up on the latest developments:
10 Senators Say They Agree On Infrastructure 'Framework' — But There Are Few Details (WKAR)
Here's what we know about the bipartisan infrastructure deal (CNN)
Democrats wary of emerging bipartisan infrastructure deal (The Hill)
Bipartisan Group of Senators Say They Reached Agreement on Infrastructure Plan (The New York Times)
Ten Senate Democrats and Republicans say they reached five-year, nearly $1 trillion infrastructure deal (The Washington Post)
- Younger House members prove to be a bit more bipartisan - The ... ›
- Biden's broadband plan would be good for democracy - The Fulcrum ›
- Dark money group urges moderates to back infrastructure plan - The ... ›
To change Manchin's mind, we must appeal to his heart
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016. McIntyre is author of "Post-Truth" (MIT Press, 2018) and "How to Talk to a Science Denier" (MIT Press, 2021).
Now that Sen. Joe Manchin has made it official — he is not going to vote for the For the People Act, nor is he going to agree to repeal or modify the filibuster — it looks like game, set, and match for Republican efforts to obstruct President Biden's legislative agenda. Or is it? What might it take for Manchin (and fellow Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema) to change their minds?
Instead of scorn, what Manchin and Sinema need now are friends in the Democratic Party. Someone needs to figure out a way to bring them to a place where they stop denying the facts — Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has clearly said he is 100 percent focused on blocking Biden's agenda, whatever it is — and recognize what their own obstruction might cost us.
If these two senators actually believed our country could lose its democracy and become an autocratic state, surely they would put the fate of the country ahead of the fate of the filibuster, or even the Senate itself. So why can't they see that this is what the protection of voting rights is about?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
As one of us has written, science deniers are those who refuse to accept empirical reality even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Presenting a science denier with "the facts" just doesn't move them. They retreat into a fog of illogical reasoning, double standards of evidence and reliance on conspiracy theories all meant to protect their identity-driven conviction that what they want to believe in their heart of hearts must be true.
Research shows that the only way to change a denier's mind is to appeal to feelings, rather than logic, and begin to show them the kind of patience, respect and empathy that can break through and build the trust they need to feel safe enough to reconsider. Reason alone — especially when accompanied by ridicule, insults or anger — is not enough to do the trick.
Surely, it's a stretch to compare Manchin and Sinema to flat Earthers and climate deniers, but might the solution be the same? When Manchin announces — despite all evidence to the contrary — that we "have to have faith" that there are 10 "good" GOP senators who will join him in upholding the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, there is some sort of denial going on.
There is no magic solution here, but perhaps the key is to harness one of the central phenomena of our time, namely leveraging, which the other one of us has written about. In all aspects of life, leveraging has become critical to getting things done, whether the issue concerns finance, passage of laws, international negotiation, marketing of products or political outreach.
Indeed, three different kinds of leveraging — financial, bargaining and resource — have all been used in abundance in the last generation as traditional structures of authority have become dismantled, notably the Cold War global environment and the nuclear family where the father is the primary economic provider and the mother is the primary caretaker. When you can no longer just order people to do something, you have to find more creative ways to get them to achieve your ends.
Democratic leaders should appeal to Manchin and Sinema by leveraging nothing less than America itself. It's one thing to try to build a factual case that we are at risk of losing democracy, it's another to talk to them in emotional terms to make them "feel our pain."
Biden should put Manchin to work. If he thinks he can get 10 Republican senators to change their minds on the Lewis voting rights bill, let him. And then, when he fails, Biden can be the shoulder he can cry on, and mourn together the bipartisan Senate they have lost.
Manchin, has spoken quite eloquently about the need for the Senate to maintain bipartisanship, as befits the greatest deliberative body on Earth. But it's now fair for his colleagues to ask him, "Joe, could anything change your mind?"
As it stands, Manchin is so emotionally attached to his goal of preserving the filibuster that he has failed to see what 100 leading scholars of democracy have argued: that the future of American democracy is at stake. If we do not pass a federal voting rights law to override the voter suppression laws that have already been passed in 14 states, "Our entire democracy is now at risk."
In the classic film "The Bridge over the River Kwai," Col. Nicholson, memorably played by Alec Guinness, is so committed to "the bridge" (that his captors insisted he build) that, even when he receives allied orders to blow it up, he refuses. Indeed, upon witnessing his own men's efforts to carry out these orders, he sabotages them.
Finally, after witnessing his men being shot to death, Nicholson realizes his mistake and asks, "What have I done?"
Joe Manchin is one of the most sincere advocates for the integrity of the Senate and bipartisanship in American history. But he has lost sight of what is at stake in this battle for the soul of U.S. democracy. All Democrats must work together to override these racist voter suppression laws, which could move us further in the direction of an autocratic regime and, quite possibly, a second term with Donald Trump as our president.
His fellow senators, President Biden, Vice President Harris and others must help Manchin to "see what he has done" before it is too late. No one can force Manchin to change his mind. All that we can do right now is leverage our mutual love for this country, which might remind Manchin that if he does not change course, American democracy may be lost.
- Beyond rationalization: Joe Manchin exposes his own machinations ›
- Manchin deals critical blow to election reform legislation - The Fulcrum ›
- For the People Act falls victim to partisan dysfunction - The Fulcrum ›
- Progressive campaign aims to weaken filibuster to pass HR 1 - The ... ›
Video: Washington isn't broken. It's working as designed.
Katherine Gehl, author of "The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy" and founder of the Institute for Political Innovation, joins "The Realignment." Gehl discusses why Washington isn't actually broken, and instead operates exactly as it was designed, why an increasing number of people feel politically homeless, and how to restore competition to the political system.
- Final-five voting would create more competitive elections - The ... ›
- Voters should see more than two candidates in the debates - The ... ›
- Apply the participation test to proposed election reforms - The Fulcrum ›
- We need politicians who are not puppets - The Fulcrum ›
"If Manchin truly wants to make Congress 'work' in a more 'bipartisan fashion,' fixing rigged congressional districts is the first no-brainer on the list," writes Golden.
Beyond rationalization: Joe Manchin exposes his own machinations
Golden is the author of "Unlock Congress" (Why Not Books, 2015) and a senior fellow at the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy. He is a member of The Fulcrum's editorial advisory board.
Hypocrisy abounds in everyday life. People are fickle. We change our minds. We're human beings.
And in Washington, strained rationalizations and snap reversals are as commonplace as nightly cable rants.
Still, seeing a U.S. senator arguing against himself, in print, under his own signature, in the local paper of his state's capital, is truly something to behold.
West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin is usually known as a reasoned and pragmatic senator who dwells in the middle of the political spectrum. But in his obstinate defense of the Senate filibuster and his refusal to vote for the For the People Act, Manchin has revealed his real hand on the issue — and it is embarrassingly weak.
First, Manchin's references to history to bolster his arguments about the filibuster are specious and ignore context. He writes:
"Our founders were wise to see the temptation of absolute power and built in specific checks and balances to force compromise that serves to preserve our fragile democracy. The Senate, its processes and rules, have evolved over time to make absolute power difficult while still delivering solutions to the issues facing our country and I believe that's the Senate's best quality."
While our founders did create checks and balances, the filibuster was not one of them. In fact, there are five specific scenarios outlined in the Constitution where more than a majority vote is required. Passing legislation and confirming judges were not among them. The Senate just made it up. Inadvertently, at first. And the charade grew from there. Manchin slipping in how the rules have "evolved over time" is dismissive, if not disingenuous.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The checks and balances in our American system of government reside in our separated branches. This is basic civics. When majorities are elected in both chambers of Congress, and their policy objectives align with the chief executive, legislation is passed. When different majorities are elected, these laws may be repealed. There is also a Supreme Court that gets to weigh in.
There are plenty of veto points that were originally built into our system. If a senator or citizen wants the filibuster to be among them, they have the constitutionally protected right to lead a movement and pass an amendment.
Manchin goes on to cite the time in 2017 when 33 Democratic senators sent a letter to leadership that warned of the dangers of eliminating the filibuster. That part is true.
The context Manchin completely omits is the fact that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell nuked the filibuster on Supreme Court confirmations that same month and confirmed three new associate justices over the next three years. Times change. Politics usually adapts.
Manchin passionately writes about the imperative to "seek bipartisan compromise, no matter how difficult." This is a noble pursuit.
But sometimes, even in the advocacy of nonpartisan goals — like protecting the principle of "one person, one vote" — passage along party lines is necessary.
Speaking of protecting the integrity of the vote, this is what the For the People Act does, in a variety of ways. Manchin does not make any substantive or specific case for why he opposes the broadly popular reforms included in the bill (known as HR 1 in the House and S 1 in the Senate). Rather, he has two complaints: 1) It is too long, and 2) it is only supported by one party.
The first whine is almost too silly to address. Manchin has voted for longer bills in the Senate and said in 2010 that he would have supported the Affordable Care Act — which clocked in at more than three times the size of S 1. (He eventually flip-flopped on that statement, which should give hope to currently infuriated HR1 advocates.)
His other complaint about S 1 being too "partisan" is actually ironic. This is because outside of the voting rights protections in it — which he seems to support — the two other major reforms in the bill are designed to restore integrity and fairness to the system.
The campaign finance portion of S 1 would strengthen the oversight of super PACs, require disclosure of "dark money" contributions, and set up a small-dollar matching system to empower candidates who do not have access to wealthy donor networks.
Manchin has bemoaned for years the flood of money that pours into our elections. In 2015, I quoted him directly in "Unlock Congress" from a national TV interview he gave about his own experience:
"I go to work everyday, and I'm expected to raise money against the other side. So as a Democrat I go to work, I'm expected to raise money for the DSCC and my Republican counterparts and my colleagues are expected to raise money for the RSCC. That money is used against any Democrats or Republicans up for elections, and then we're even expected to go campaign against them. Now that doesn't add for a good atmosphere, for us to come back and say, 'ok, can you work with me now, can you cosponsor a bill."
That's what's happening. The money has infiltrated and has driven us apart.
Indeed.
The other big reform in the For the People Act calls for independent districting commissions to reduce the partisan gerrymandering that already makes more than 85 percent of our congressional races foregone conclusions for one party or the other — before anyone even votes.
Where's the beef? If Manchin truly wants to make Congress "work" in a more "bipartisan fashion," fixing rigged congressional districts is the first no-brainer on the list.
Taken as a whole, Manchin's editorial reads much like a desperate closing argument from a defense lawyer who just doesn't have any persuasive facts to marshal for the jury.
That said, it's quite possible that Manchin's presentation is ultimately part of a larger gambit to make him look exhaustively reasonable before he does what needs to be done at the last minute. Because the case of the For the People Act is not a criminal trial. Just electoral politics. The jury instructions are far more vague. And Joe Manchin has nearly four more years before West Virginians will deliver his next verdict.
- West Virginia advocates implore Manchin to reconsider S 1 - The ... ›
- Manchin deals critical blow to election reform legislation - The Fulcrum ›
- For the People Act falls victim to partisan dysfunction - The Fulcrum ›
- To change Manchin's mind, we must appeal to his heart - The Fulcrum ›