Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The legislative stalemate is not a 'Sanders vs. Manchin' issue

Opinion

Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The real players in the battle over federal spending include progressive House members like Reps. Pramila Jayapal (in blue) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (right), according to Anderson.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

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.


Sen. Bernie Sanders has rejected the idea of meeting one on one with Sen. Joe Manchin to try to resolve their differences over President Biden's $3.5 trillion proposed social services bill. When asked about it last week, Sanders said, "This is not a movie." On the other side, Manchin has not said if he supports the idea. Moreover, President Biden said, jokingly, such a meeting would lead to "homicide."

The current stalemate within the Democratic Party is not primarily a fight between the chairman of the Budget Committee (Sanders) and the centrist (some would say conservative) Democratic linchpin (Manchin). Whoever suggested these two men be put in a room to resolve their conflict may have been thinking about a movie about the 1950s or 1850s.

The reality of this historical drama is that the conflict is not only within the Senate or even centered around the Senate. After all, it was the House Progressive Caucus led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal and members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who refused to vote in favor of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill until the Senate Democrats, notably Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, supported the $3.5 trillion social services bill.

Even if Sanders and Manchin agreed to a figure, even one as high as $2.75 trillion, that doesn't mean Jayapal and other House progressives would be satisfied — or that Sinema would either.

In short, the conflict is not focused on two powerful men or the Senate. It also concerns powerful women, and it also concerns the House. The very idea that this is a two-man Senate fight is really absurd. Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself is thoroughly immersed in the conflict within her full House Democratic Caucus. If anything, it is the House Progressive Caucus, led by women, that has emerged as the major force in this two-chamber, progressive vs. centrist battle.

Moreover, the idea of putting Sanders and Manchin in a room together, at this stage, is stupid. While it would most likely not lead to homicide, it would probably be a nasty, brutal, loud discussion.

Last week I argued in The Baltimore Sun that House and Senate leaders needed to get together, at Biden's invitation, at Camp David. Indeed, I wrote that Manchin and Ocasio-Cortez needed to "talk under the trees" and be "in nature" outside of Washington. I was not joking. They had a terrible exchange via the media a few weeks ago. It is time for them to meet face to face in an unthreatening environment.

Sanders' outburst reinforces my belief that powerful men and women from both chambers need to join Biden not for a conference table meeting in D.C. but for less structured, more personal interactions ranging from taking a walk to playing shuffleboard.

Do the precise opposite of one-on-one meetings or traditional meetings with two camps represented. Many of the players barely know each other, if they know one another at all. I also argued that the bills in question are not Biden's bills but legislation actually owned by both chambers and the president. And I said make them for five years, not 10. To be sure, the details have to be worked out.

This is 2021 not 1950 or 1850. It's not an old boys' club matter, and there is not going to be a duel. But this drama has a good ending if all parties involved remember that our democracy, thanks to the other party, is on the verge of disintegration. The men and women in powerful positions need to leave their unwillingness to compromise in Washington and head off to Camp David and make the country proud.

It falls on President Biden to issue the invitations.

Read More

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority
the capitol building in washington d c is seen from across the water

From Nixon to Trump: A Blueprint for Restoring Congressional Authority

The unprecedented power grab by President Trump, in many cases, usurping the clear and Constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, appears to leave our legislative branch helpless against executive branch encroachment. In fact, the opposite is true. Congress has ample authority to reassert its role in our democracy, and there is a precedent.

During the particularly notable episode of executive branch corruption during the Nixon years, Congress responded with a robust series of reforms. Campaign finance laws were dramatically overhauled and strengthened. Nixon’s overreach on congressionally authorized spending was corrected with the passage of the Impoundment Act. And egregious excesses by the military and intelligence community were blunted by the War Powers Act and the bipartisan investigation by Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho).

Keep ReadingShow less
In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Person speaking in front of an American flag

Jason_V/Getty Images

In and Out: The Limits of Term Limits

Nearly 14 years ago, after nearly 12 years of public service, my boss, Rep. Todd Platts, surprised many by announcing he was not running for reelection. He never term-limited himself, per se. Yet he had long supported legislation for 12-year term limits. Stepping aside at that point made sense—a Cincinnatus move, with Todd going back to the Pennsylvania Bar as a hometown judge.

Term limits are always a timely issue. Term limits may have died down as an issue in the halls of Congress, but I still hear it from people in my home area.

Keep ReadingShow less
“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Approaching a year of the new Trump administration, Americans are getting used to domestic militarized logic. A popular sense of powerlessness permeates our communities. We bear witness to the attacks against innocent civilians by ICE, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we naturally wonder—is this the new American discourse? Violent action? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offers hope that there may be another way.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist, was elected as mayor of New York City on the fourth of November. Mamdani’s platform includes a reimagining of the police force in New York City. Mamdani proposes a Department of Community Safety. In a CBS interview, Mamdani said, “Our vision for a Department of Community Safety, the DCS, is that we would have teams of dedicated mental health outreach workers that we deploy…to respond to those incidents and get those New Yorkers out of the subway system and to the services that they actually need.” Doing so frees up NYPD officers to respond to actual threats and crime, without a responsibility to the mental health of civilians.

Keep ReadingShow less