Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia.Credit...T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
President Biden and Democratic Congressional leaders have been able to pass their agenda over the objections of Senators Joe Manchin and Kirsten Krysten Sinema. And various pundits in the media have tied themselves into knots trying to explain why Manchin and Sinema have refused to support Biden's agenda. They have attributed this legislative stalemate, in part, to an insufficient number of Congressional Democrats in the Senate. They presume that more Democratic Senators, Biden, and Congressional leaders would not depend on Manchin and Sinema. While this may be true, it depends on the inclinations of any additional Senators. Two or more Democratic Senators could also clash with their party's agenda. Then two other Senators could make the logjam worse.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) passed their transformative legislation, Democrats enjoyed large majorities in both the House and the Senate of the Congress. More importantly, the opposition to their legislation was less obstructive. The economic turmoil caused by the Great Depression of 1929 encouraged the citizenry to support programs that the plutocracy called extreme or socialist. Southern politicians, for example, were willing to accept FDR's New Deal programs even though they did not wholly believe his pledge to keep them from affecting the social status of race relations in the South. Similarly, John Kennedy's assassination and urban riots due to racial discrimination boosted citizens' concerns about social turmoil and thus eased the passage of LBJ's Great Society programs. Now, U.S. democracy faces the worst threat to its existence since the Civil War. Can Biden and Congressional Democrats pass the agenda designed to thwart the attack on democracy?
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) passed their transformative legislation, Democrats enjoyed large majorities in both the House and the Senate of the Congress. More importantly, the opposition to their legislation was less obstructive. The economic turmoil caused by the Great Depression of 1929 encouraged the citizenry to support programs that the plutocracy called extreme or socialist. Southern politicians, for example, were willing to accept FDR's New Deal programs even though they did not wholly believe his pledge to keep them from affecting the social status of race relations in the South. Similarly, John Kennedy's assassination and urban riots due to racial discrimination boosted citizens' concerns about social turmoil and thus eased the passage of LBJ's Great Society programs. Now, U.S. democracy faces the worst threat to its existence since the Civil War. Can Biden and Congressional Democrats pass the agenda designed to thwart the attack on democracy?
Some media pundits, recognizing the weakness of the "more Democratic Senators are needed" contention, have turned to argue that Democrats' messaging is too poor to pressure Manchin and Sinema by swaying their constituents. Messaging can persuade voters, but voters cannot always convince their elected officials. Voters in Manchin's state of West Virginia and in Sinema's state of Arizona favor the Democratic agenda proposed by Biden by about 60 percent. Yet, Manchin and Sinema are impervious to the issues their constituents seem to prefer. Republican donors, however, have been positively affected by Manchin and Sinema's undercutting Biden's agenda. Nelson Peltz, a Trump supporter, and donor says he talks to Manchin every week, and Ken Langone, another Trump supporter, intends to hold "one of the biggest fundraisers he has ever held for him [Manchin]."
Sinema, like Manchin, is raising money from donors who usually contribute to Republicans, including Stan Hubbard, a Minnesota billionaire, and Scott Walker backer; Jimmy Haslam, the Cleveland Brown's owner; and Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity investor. So far, Sinema has raised 90 percent of her money from donors who are not her constituents. We must ask why two Democratic senators oppose their party's agenda, supported by over 60 percent of their constituents.
Some political observers believe that Manchin, a nominal Democrat in a state Trump won by 50 points and won his last election by only three points, is justified in doing whatever he needs to do to keep his seat. These observers believe that Manchin's support of Republican ideals is necessary to keep his seat. Similarly, Sinema won her 2018 election by only three points, although observers seem less inclined to understand that she must be concerned about her next election. Thus, both Manchin and Sinema may be more worried than most Democratic Senators about having enough campaign funds to fend off opponents in their elections. Both Manchin and Sinema may have a more difficult time being re-elected because they will almost certainly lose Democratic votes. And it is unclear that Republican and swing voters can offset Democratic losses. Of course, if they lose their next election, both senators will need new jobs. Big donors can help provide for their futures.
Other observers are dubious about whether Manchin and Sinema have opposed critical parts of the Democratic agenda to obtain donations and material rewards. Political commentator Ryan Grim, for example, noted that other Democratic Senators are taking money from big donors and corporations while supporting the Democratic agenda. Manchin and Sinema's opposition to the Democratic agenda and the appeal of donors who usually contribute to Republicans may express their beliefs. After all, voters elected Democratic politicians to fulfill their agenda, and voters may not return them to their majority in the Senate, if they do not deliver. Thus, Manchin and Sinema would lose prestige and power, even if re-elected or switched to the Republican Party.
An essential sign of what may underlie Manchin's opposition to the Democratic agenda is his persistent concern about the cost of the Build Back Better (BBB) bill. He claims this concern is due to the risk of inflation. But scores of economists point out that any inflationary pressures are minimized if the programs are paid for. Yet, Manchin refuses to raise taxes on big donors and corporations to pay for those programs. Another concern raised by Manchin is that he does not want to foster an "entitlement mentality" in the citizenry. This "entitlement mentality" phrase echoes Ronald Reagan's dog whistle about blacks, "we're in danger of creating a permanent culture of poverty as inescapable as any chain or bond."
Sinema's beliefs are harder to discern because she does not talk to media as much as Manchin but has changed over the years. For example, when she was running for the Senate, she was highly critical of Trump's tax reduction on plutocrats and big corporations. But she has refused to roll back any of those tax cuts in the BBB bill. Lizzie Widdicombe in the New Yorker suggests Sinema's erratic policy positions are due to her being a "pick me girl." That is, Sinema mirrors girls who "desperately try to seem like they're different" to attract attention. Sinema may be trying to attract the attention of Republican and swing voters to help ensure she is re-elected.
Manchin and Sinema are smart people. They know the difference between investment and spending. They recognize that every program in the BBB bill is an investment. Despite the need for investments in their constituents, both Manchin and Sinema seem to ensure that taxes on their rich donors remain as low as possible. They have worked together as "rotating villains" or "rotating good cop/bad cop." As an example of this rotating villainy, consider they both require that the bill be paid for but alternate in rejecting any proposed means of paying for it. Both have consistently expressed concerns about the bill's total cost and taxing the rich and big corporations to pay for it. However, they have added other drawbacks to BBB, such as inflationary pressures. But as I noted earlier, other Democrats obtain large donations from the very rich and still manage to advance the Democratic agenda. Manchin and Sinema, however, have not only rejected Biden's agenda, but they have also chosen to maintain the social order of the Southern Democratic Party: the primacy of the rich white male.
The primacy of the rich Southern white male was based, in part, on excluding Blacks from most of the social and political life inhabited by whites. The social order of the Southern Democratic Party supported plutocrats who used Blacks to threaten the economic well-being of poor whites. Southern politicians were able to help ensure plutocrats could keep salaries low, benefitting businesses. They could also help keep social services, and thus, taxes low, benefitting the rich. And Southern politicians were able to provide these benefits to plutocrats by pitting poor Whites against Blacks and therefore maintaining their power. The power exercised by southern plutocrats is quite simply authoritarianism and has now been adopted by the Republican Party as its favored form of governance. Lyndon's Johnson and the Democratic Party's, perhaps inadvertently, launched an attack on the primacy of the rich white male with their support of the 1964 Civil Rights and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts. While the Democrats may have thought they were only attacking Southern racism, the Civil Rights Movement helped spawn the Anti-Vietnam Movement, the Women's Movement, and the New Left. These social upheavals caused a realignment or sorting of politicians and voters among the Democratic and Republican parties.
Starting in the South, this sorting has been going on for the last 40 years. Politicians and voters who were more comfortable with the social dominance of plutocratic whites, coupled with exclusionary practices against nonwhites, found a new home in the Republican Party. This shift to the Republican Party included politicians like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott. Instead of altering the social order on which the Southern society and politics had been built from the end of the Civil War to the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the new political alignment sought to extend the Southern social order to the rest of the rest the country. Manchin and Sinema, in their concern for plutocrats' taxes, are more like the old Southern Democrats who switched to the Republican Party. Thus, we can best explain their policy positions as politicians who, until now, failed to sort themselves.
If there is any good news in Manchin and Sinema's failure to sort themselves until now, it is this. Like modern Republicans, Manchin and Sinema are primarily concerned with taxes and power. If the BBB bill can be reduced enough, Manchin and Sinema will likely support it. Also, Biden must exert pressure on Manchin and Sinema. Like most Republicans, they may succumb to hierarchy, and Biden may sway them. Further, if they support the BBB bill, they will help ensure that they can maintain their position in the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party will allow them to continue to exercise political power more than a jump to the Republican Party, where they would have to compete with longstanding Republicans.
If Manchin and Sinema are unwilling to support a slimmed-down BBB bill, Biden should penalize them as an object lesson. Voters are beginning to see Biden as weak and somewhat doddering because he fails to move his agenda through Congress quickly. The passage of an eviscerated BBB bill will feed into this image and will be reinforced by Republicans. If Biden can exact enough punishment on Manchin and Sinema, he may be able to reverse his ineffectual image. President Bill Clinton said about the presidency, "it is better to be seen as strong and wrong than weak and right."
Sinema, like Manchin, is raising money from donors who usually contribute to Republicans, including Stan Hubbard, a Minnesota billionaire, and Scott Walker backer; Jimmy Haslam, the Cleveland Brown's owner; and Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity investor. So far, Sinema has raised 90 percent of her money from donors who are not her constituents. We must ask why two Democratic senators oppose their party's agenda, supported by over 60 percent of their constituents.
Some political observers believe that Manchin, a nominal Democrat in a state Trump won by 50 points and won his last election by only three points, is justified in doing whatever he needs to do to keep his seat. These observers believe that Manchin's support of Republican ideals is necessary to keep his seat. Similarly, Sinema won her 2018 election by only three points, although observers seem less inclined to understand that she must be concerned about her next election. Thus, both Manchin and Sinema may be more worried than most Democratic Senators about having enough campaign funds to fend off opponents in their elections. Both Manchin and Sinema may have a more difficult time being re-elected because they will almost certainly lose Democratic votes. And it is unclear that Republican and swing voters can offset Democratic losses. Of course, if they lose their next election, both senators will need new jobs. Big donors can help provide for their futures.
Other observers are dubious about whether Manchin and Sinema have opposed critical parts of the Democratic agenda to obtain donations and material rewards. Political commentator Ryan Grim, for example, noted that other Democratic Senators are taking money from big donors and corporations while supporting the Democratic agenda. Manchin and Sinema's opposition to the Democratic agenda and the appeal of donors who usually contribute to Republicans may express their beliefs. After all, voters elected Democratic politicians to fulfill their agenda, and voters may not return them to their majority in the Senate, if they do not deliver. Thus, Manchin and Sinema would lose prestige and power, even if re-elected or switched to the Republican Party.
An essential sign of what may underlie Manchin's opposition to the Democratic agenda is his persistent concern about the cost of the Build Back Better (BBB) bill. He claims this concern is due to the risk of inflation. But scores of economists point out that any inflationary pressures are minimized if the programs are paid for. Yet, Manchin refuses to raise taxes on big donors and corporations to pay for those programs. Another concern raised by Manchin is that he does not want to foster an "entitlement mentality" in the citizenry. This "entitlement mentality" phrase echoes Ronald Reagan's dog whistle about blacks, "we're in danger of creating a permanent culture of poverty as inescapable as any chain or bond."
Sinema's beliefs are harder to discern because she does not talk to media as much as Manchin but has changed over the years. For example, when she was running for the Senate, she was highly critical of Trump's tax reduction on plutocrats and big corporations. But she has refused to roll back any of those tax cuts in the BBB bill. Lizzie Widdicombe in the New Yorker suggests Sinema's erratic policy positions are due to her being a "pick me girl." That is, Sinema mirrors girls who "desperately try to seem like they're different" to attract attention. Sinema may be trying to attract the attention of Republican and swing voters to help ensure she is re-elected.
Manchin and Sinema are smart people. They know the difference between investment and spending. They recognize that every program in the BBB bill is an investment. Despite the need for investments in their constituents, both Manchin and Sinema seem to ensure that taxes on their rich donors remain as low as possible. They have worked together as "rotating villains" or "rotating good cop/bad cop." As an example of this rotating villainy, consider they both require that the bill be paid for but alternate in rejecting any proposed means of paying for it. Both have consistently expressed concerns about the bill's total cost and taxing the rich and big corporations to pay for it. However, they have added other drawbacks to BBB, such as inflationary pressures. But as I noted earlier, other Democrats obtain large donations from the very rich and still manage to advance the Democratic agenda. Manchin and Sinema, however, have not only rejected Biden's agenda, but they have also chosen to maintain the social order of the Southern Democratic Party: the primacy of the rich white male.
The primacy of the rich Southern white male was based, in part, on excluding Blacks from most of the social and political life inhabited by whites. The social order of the Southern Democratic Party supported plutocrats who used Blacks to threaten the economic well-being of poor whites. Southern politicians were able to help ensure plutocrats could keep salaries low, benefitting businesses. They could also help keep social services, and thus, taxes low, benefitting the rich. And Southern politicians were able to provide these benefits to plutocrats by pitting poor Whites against Blacks and therefore maintaining their power. The power exercised by southern plutocrats is quite simply authoritarianism and has now been adopted by the Republican Party as its favored form of governance. Lyndon's Johnson and the Democratic Party's, perhaps inadvertently, launched an attack on the primacy of the rich white male with their support of the 1964 Civil Rights and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts. While the Democrats may have thought they were only attacking Southern racism, the Civil Rights Movement helped spawn the Anti-Vietnam Movement, the Women's Movement, and the New Left. These social upheavals caused a realignment or sorting of politicians and voters among the Democratic and Republican parties.
Starting in the South, this sorting has been going on for the last 40 years. Politicians and voters who were more comfortable with the social dominance of plutocratic whites, coupled with exclusionary practices against nonwhites, found a new home in the Republican Party. This shift to the Republican Party included politicians like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott. Instead of altering the social order on which the Southern society and politics had been built from the end of the Civil War to the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the new political alignment sought to extend the Southern social order to the rest of the rest the country. Manchin and Sinema, in their concern for plutocrats' taxes, are more like the old Southern Democrats who switched to the Republican Party. Thus, we can best explain their policy positions as politicians who, until now, failed to sort themselves.
If there is any good news in Manchin and Sinema's failure to sort themselves until now, it is this. Like modern Republicans, Manchin and Sinema are primarily concerned with taxes and power. If the BBB bill can be reduced enough, Manchin and Sinema will likely support it. Also, Biden must exert pressure on Manchin and Sinema. Like most Republicans, they may succumb to hierarchy, and Biden may sway them. Further, if they support the BBB bill, they will help ensure that they can maintain their position in the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party will allow them to continue to exercise political power more than a jump to the Republican Party, where they would have to compete with longstanding Republicans.
If Manchin and Sinema are unwilling to support a slimmed-down BBB bill, Biden should penalize them as an object lesson. Voters are beginning to see Biden as weak and somewhat doddering because he fails to move his agenda through Congress quickly. The passage of an eviscerated BBB bill will feed into this image and will be reinforced by Republicans. If Biden can exact enough punishment on Manchin and Sinema, he may be able to reverse his ineffectual image. President Bill Clinton said about the presidency, "it is better to be seen as strong and wrong than weak and right."