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.
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 When different majorities are elected, these laws may be repealed.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 gaveabout 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.
Children watch a July Fourth Parade along the Walkway of Heroes and Independence Avenue on July 04, 2026 in Tappan, New York.
The Great American Grumpfest
Our nation’s 250th birthday party didn’t feel especially patriotic and wasn’t as much fun as the 200th anniversary was.
President Trump, who did his best to co-opt our holiday for his personal aggrandizement, was a major reason. The party he threw in Washington, D.C., was crankier than uplifting, and less about celebrating our shared past and a promising future than about reminding us how far we have strayed from our founders’ plan to create a republic that future Americans would keep in good working order.
Credit Trump this much. He has a singular gift for picking at scabs that other politicians would rather ignore and pushing us into reckonings we don’t need.
The thing is, Americans have seen all this before. Sometimes the makeover we were encouraged to undertake was more conservative, sometimes more liberal. Whatever direction we were pushing, however, the reckoning we had in mind this time had to be more forthright and the conclusion more definitive than it was the last time.
Our current discontents, the ones behind the reckoning President Trump has been trying to inspire, are not trivial. Included among them are immigration, birthright citizenship, exploding healthcare costs, election rigging, a gag-inducing national debt, how we educate our children, too many genders, racial differences we can’t move past, a lopsided economy that favors more well-off Americans, and historic levels of political corruption and graft. Add to these the several foreign adventures he has pushed us into or is anxious to undertake, and you have the makings of a national headache the likes of which we haven’t had in half a century.
All the elbow-throwing and overheated rhetoric we’re using today have begun to look almost normal in all the ways that bickering neighbors and feuding family members appear normal. But they have also made us look mean-spirited and have portrayed our differences as irreconcilable. To ourselves, of course, but also to many people outside the United States who might be forgiven for turning their heads and not looking at the national car wreck we Americans show no interest in avoiding.
The good news, as I suggested above, is that Americans have had a great deal of practice dealing with challenges and national car wrecks like these.
This essay begins to lay out the reasons why.
By way of illustration, we have our seemingly insatiable demand for more bad news about race in America.
Sixty years after being released from the legal constrictions that bedeviled both white and black Americans, many white people have come to believe the color that used to make them unassailable is now a sign of a moral inferiority born of a racial animus they can never wash off. Many black people, on the other hand, are insisting that America is as hopelessly stacked against them as the formerly unassailable white people’s ancestors used to tell their black ones.
The result is that many people today are buying into racist nightmares and mumbo jumbo that their black and white ancestors worked hard and effectively to put in each other’s heads.
This might be dismissed as crazy behavior if it weren’t so important to rituals Americans have long used to express their deepest fears about each other while figuring out what move they can make that won’t end with their world crashing down on everybody’s head.
Unfortunately, the kind of cultural sleight of hand we have used to ramp up our racial differences has been appropriated by people who have many other cultural fears and unresolved differences with each other. Their clumsy but culturally prescribed missteps are making all these other issues look as irremediable as our racial problems.
A good place to start an answer to how we back away from ledges is Alexis de Tocqueville’s writing on early-19th-century American democracy. He had an optimistic take on Americans’ unscripted displays of public bravado, recrimination, and payback.
For him, these were occasions when people tried to mitigate the effects of the unfair hand they were dealing someone else or had themselves been dealt by behaving in ways quite at odds with how they would otherwise be expected to act. These inversions of what Tocqueville called “the natural order of conscience” presented themselves as a loud but culturally muted challenge to the hypocrisies that people had built into the world they’d made together.
One of his favorite illustrations of early-American hypocrisy involved slave masters sleeping with their less-than-worthy slaves. To the best of my knowledge, he didn’t pick up on all the ways that slaves messed with their owners. Their well-chronicled and quiet resistance showed that even severely ill-treated people can exercise more control over their lives than outsiders appreciate.
Be that as it may, such inversions of a people’s “natural order of conscience” make a good public show of them wrestling with demons they can’t or may not want to shake off, but in any case, are nowhere close to figuring out how to cast out.
Implicit in these disruptions was the discomforting idea that people might flip the entire script and turn the world on its head in more permanent ways. That kind of flipping worked out better for us in our revolution against England than in our Civil War. These events taught us the value of stepping back from historically unprecedented ledges.
Americans of late have been giving loud expression to a long list of things they don’t like about each other and the last makeover they started but didn’t finish a half-century ago. The outcome of our fights today will be as revealing as they are embarrassing to everyone who imagined they could recast our country in a way that privileged their favorite kind of Americans.
Their disappointment with the accommodations they strike will be palpable, but the middling results they achieve with all their pushing and shoving won’t be anything they can’t live with.
Anthropologists who have written about such moments in other cultures less “advanced” than our own show that people find ways to work around their seemingly irreconcilable differences without ever fully resolving them. Indeed, the patches and repairs people make have the unheralded effect of reinforcing rather than undermining the legitimacy of the practices and values they thought were fundamentally flawed.
For example…
White guilt and black pessimism do more good than putting cash into the pockets of professional shamers and handwringers. They give the rest of us who don’t feel guilty or powerless more time to make the world less racially unequal. Good news.
Regarding illegal immigration, the entrance requirements for future immigrants will remain stringent. Americans will applaud the continued detention and deportation of the few illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes. Good news.
All the people who came to the United States without being legally vetted and were locked up for a time will be released in numbers small enough to avoid serious media attention. Along with the several million other good people who snuck in but avoided capture, the former detainees will go to school, find gainful employment, pay their taxes, and stay out of trouble. Many will eventually become citizens. Good news.
Investigations into election tampering and Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential loss will come to an unceremonious conclusion the day after his second term ends. Many Americans will grumble about this, but there will also be some quiet partying, too. Good and bad news.
Congressional hearings into all the grifting accomplished by people tied to the Trump administration will end without anyone having to pay a dime back to the American taxpayers. Bad news, we’ll learn to live with.
New laws and regulations will be created in the hope that the kind of corruption practiced by President Trump will not be repeated for another 250 years. Good news, I hope we’ll live long enough to enjoy.
Show trials for people who allegedly vandalized the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, if they happen, will get big television viewer ratings. Good news.
Trials for pardoned Capitol insurrectionists who committed serious crimes after their release should get more attention, but won’t. Bad news.
We will continue to hear nothing from most of the people who were pardoned for crimes they committed in the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. They will keep their mouths shut and their heads down for the rest of their life. Good news.
The gold-gilded ornaments that Donald Trump had plastered all over the White House will be shipped to Mar-a-Lago, where the former president will sell them on eBay. Fun news.
American taxpayers end up paying for most of the new East Wing, the removal of the miniature gladiatorial arena that was built behind the White House, and the restoration of the White House rose garden. Bad news.
The Triumphal Arch was never built. Good news.
Trad wives and gay couples raise perfectly lovely children. Good but unsurprising news.
Trans men and women learn that most Americans can’t figure out who they used to be. No one gives a second thought to their use of “family bathrooms” or “unisex bathrooms” in public settings, businesses, and schools. Communities will sponsor athletic teams that have trans boys and girls just to show they can. Good news.
Budget deficits will be kicked down the road for someone else’s children to pay down. Bad news.
Federal agencies that had their budgets and employee ranks slashed during President Trump’s second term are getting some of the money and lost positions back. Good news.
Elite universities will buy their way out of DEI purgatory by competing for conservative scholars whose inflated salaries dwarf those of their liberal colleagues, who will think about suing their institutions for reverse discrimination but won’t be able to figure out who would pay for it or care. More fun news.
Okay. I’ve probably missed some ways that Americans will step back from the ledges they have been making noises about leaping off. But to the extent that my predictions pan out, the best and most important moral of the stories about us stepping away is this: everything we lost and took back, or had returned to us, will have happened without our government collapsing, civic traditions crumbling, or our people beating each other up.
The reason why is that the differences Americans have with each other really weren’t as irreconcilable as we made them out to be. The empty-sounding bromide that Americans have more that unites us than divides us turns out to be true, not just metaphorically but in fact.
Now that is really something to celebrate.
Daniel J. Monti (danieljmonti.com) is Professor of Sociology at Saint Louis University and the author of American Democracy and Disconsent: Liberalism and Illiberalism in Ferguson, Charlottesville, Black Lives Matter, and the Capitol Insurrection.