"If it weren't for Manchin and Sinema"... it would be another Democrat
The 2 centrist Senators are well known villains of this era, but anyone can play the role
The 2020 Elections ended up being very close.
As of December 11th, each state had certified its election results and handed Democrats a slim majority to hold onto in the House, and a 50-50 Senate tie, split of course by the Democratic Vice President, Kamala Harris. This was, perhaps, the worst possible scenario for Democrats, as winning control of the Presidency, Senate and House trifecta came with expectations to produce, but with only narrow margins to work with. Remember that for those in Washington and particularly in the Senate, NOT doing anything is the assumed norm. The structure of the Senate itself is designed to slow down progress. While Senators Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) rightfully get the majority of bad press for holding up Biden’s agenda, I believe it’s critical when thinking about how to prevent future Manchin’s and Sinema’s from doing the same that we recognize that any Democratic Senator could play this role. Manchin and Sinema were able to recognize that they could increase their own personal power with the Senate being split 50-50. That supremely tight margin gives them leverage when negotiating against Biden or the Democratic Party leadership. Both Senators have been able to use that leverage to essentially make every bill a little bit worse, in the name of compromise and supposedly representing their more conservative states.
But as I already noted, the role of the villain can be played by anyone. Progressives looking for solutions to the problem of Manchin and Sinema often like to think that simply having a bigger majority would be enough to unlock some movement in the Senate. Unfortunately, this is not true because the rot runs far deeper than Manchin and Sinema. President Obama came into office in 2008 and was given a Senate with an astonishing 18 seat advantage for Democrats. Even then, his administration struggled to push through a health care plan originally written by the Heritage Foundation. President Trump faced similar challenges with full Republican control of Congress, being unable to pass his border law legislation.
Thse 2 Senators in question have chosen to take on both the benefits (holding political power, being referred to as “King” Manchin, etc) and the costs (being viewed as a villain by your own party) to playing this role, but there are a host of other establishment Democrats who would be happy to substitute in off the bench should Manchin or Sinema relinquish their respective thrones. Back in my article about the infrastructure bill, I made reference to an ExxonMobil lobbyist being caught on film talking about a bipartisan group of Senators that he keeps in close contact with, as part of a strategy to keep climate based provisions out of legislation. This group included 6 Democrats as well as 5 Republicans. Manchin and Sinema were a part of this group, but so were Jon Tester (MT), Mark Kelly (AZ), Maggie Hassan (NH) and Chris Coons (DE). All of these Senators (sans Kelly) voted against the $15 minimum wage amendment back in March, as well as Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Tom Carper (DE), and Angus King (Independent who caucuses with Dems, ME). Overall, out of 50 Democratic Senators there are probably only 4-5 who don’t line up similarly to Manchin and Sinema on the ideological scale. If we’re thinking about which Senators could realistically play the villain role, that number only shrinks to 33 when excluding Senators with future (typically Presidential) ambitions who need to maintain good posture with the Democratic base.
Usually when the media discusses the roles of Senators like Manchin or Sinema, they are referred to as “moderates” who are simply doing their best to represent their more conservative states. I believe that this completely lets them off of the hook, as they are both actually wildly out of step from those of the average American voter, as well as the voters of their own states. There are certain very select issues where these Senators might need to shift away from their party to stay in touch with voters, but they would all be on the cultural side of things. For example, West Virginia voters would probably not appreciate Joe Manchin voting for amnesty for illegal immigrants. But to pretend that a poor state like West Virginia would support cutting unemployment benefits or would not support a $15 minimum wage is only serving to run cover for Manchin. The same goes for Sinema in Arizona, where polls have shown that voters in her state support a $15 minimum wage, passing the PRO Act (A comprehensive labor bill that has passed the House) and would also support removing the filibuster, something Sinema seems vigorously opposed to.
So you might be thinking, if it’s not their supposedly moderate constituents that these Senators are prioritizing, what else is on their minds when they go to work in Washington? It seems to be a combination of things, led by what their donors want. With that Exxon call being a prime example, the US Congress has been completely corrupted by the influence of corporate money. This money from lobbyists, fossil fuel companies, defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies and more undoubtedly has some impact on the way that Senators vote, as they aren’t handing out large donations out of the goodness of their hearts. The overall party goals are also usually important to adhere to, which includes working closely on the agenda the party leaders push for. For Manchin and Sinema specifically, it’s all about attempting to walk a fine line, where they can aggravate and chip away at bills, but not completely derail the Biden agenda, which would alienate the Democratic base. Another factor for many politicians is future ambitions, usually for higher level seats. This factor moves someone like Amy Klobuchar (MN), who is quite similar to Manchin ideologically, from potential villain to reliable Democratic vote due to her high name recognition and future presidential ambitions. Last, and in most cases least, politicians do occasionally have to consider the views of their constituents. Most politicians do care about being re-elected, but a Princeton study in 2014 showed that for the bottom 90% of Americans, what we want has a tiny, statistically insignificant impact on their decisions.
I write all of this mainly for the purpose of highlighting the importance of PRIMARY elections. The media loves to focus on general elections because it features the great matchup of the blue team and the red team squabbling, but primaries are where real change can happen. Simply giving the Democrats a bigger majority, or removing Manchin and Sinema is not going to be enough to fix what is a truly rotten system. Not any blue will do, and the left should look to start promoting viable alternatives to Democratic Senators across the map in both 2022 and 2024.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing to this newsletter, and sharing it with your friends and family:
You can also follow me on Twitter: