First, a history lesson. History has made British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain the poster boy for appeasement of the enemies of democracy ever since the Munich Pact in 1938. Chamberlain thought he could stop what Winston Churchill correctly saw as the coming war in Europe from Nazi Germany by appeasing Adolph Hitler. Neville Chamberlain: A Failed Leader in a Time of Crisis (excerpt):
In “Appeasement,” Tim Bouverie notes that Rumbold’s April 1933 dispatch caused a momentary stir in the Foreign Office. But the ambassador’s warning, like later admonitions from Winston Churchill and others, made no dent in the British government’s unflagging commitment to come to terms with Hitler, no matter the consequences.
Bouverie, a former British television journalist, offers few fresh details or insights into Britain’s disastrous appeasement policy — a subject that has been exhaustively mined in a plethora of previous books. Nonetheless, living as we do in an era with uncomfortable parallels to the political turmoil of the 1930s, “Appeasement” is valuable as an exploration of the often catastrophic consequences of failing to stand up to threats to freedom, whether at home or abroad.
Neville Chamberlain may finally catch a break, as history will now record Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) as the new poster boy for appeasement of the enemies of democracy, i.e., Trumpism, the new American fascism.
On Sunday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) wrote an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail that he will vote against a sweeping election reform overhaul bill, putting the fate of the For The People Act in jeopardy in the 50-50 Senate:
The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy and protecting that right should not be about party or politics. Least of all, protecting this right, which is a value I share, should never be done in a partisan manner.
The senator appears oblivious to the organized campaign of Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression and disenfranchisement laws that Republicans are pursuing in at least 45 states.
Unfortunately, we now are witnessing that the fundamental right to vote has itself become overtly politicized. Today’s debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to hold elections, however, is not about finding common ground, but seeking partisan advantage. Whether it is state laws that seek to needlessly restrict voting or politicians who ignore the need to secure our elections, partisan policymaking won’t instill confidence in our democracy — it will destroy it.
As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.
Democrats in Congress have proposed a sweeping election reform bill called the For the People Act. This more than 800-page bill has garnered zero Republican support. Why? Are the very Republican senators who voted to impeach Trump because of actions that led to an attack on our democracy unwilling to support actions to strengthen our democracy? Are these same senators, whom many in my party applauded for their courage, now threats to the very democracy we seek to protect?
Yes, yes they are! Silence is consent. Like you senator, they are appeasing evil. Maybe Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski can be convinced to render Joe Manchin irrelevant and get us to 50 votes. It is worth a try. And what about “saint” Mitt Romney of Utah. Is Romney going to appease evil as easily as Joe Manchin? Entreaties to his supposed conscience should be made.
Let’s be clear: It’s voting rights OR the filibuster.
If you wait for bipartisanship, you are part of suppressing the vote. https://t.co/WPBQ1eeEdO
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) June 6, 2021
Historical Note: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was filibustered by Southern Dixiecrat segregationists. On May 25, the Senate mustered the necessary two-thirds vote and achieved cloture by a margin of 70 to 30. The next day, the bill passed by a 77-19 vote (Democrats 47-16, Republicans 30-2). The House passed the Voting Rights Act (with amendments) by a 333-85 vote (Democrats 221-61, Republicans 112-24). The House approved the conference report version of the bill on August 3 by a 328-74 vote (Democrats 217-54, Republicans 111-20), and the Senate passed it on August 4 by a 79-18 vote (Democrats 49-17, Republicans 30-1). On August 6, President Johnson signed the Act into law.
The truth, I would argue, is that voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen.
Dude, we have had partisan divisions since the founding of this country (Federalist vs. Anti-federalists). The election of 1800 is considered by many to be one of the ugliest partisan elections in American history, until 2020 surpassed it with a president refusing to concede and inciting a violent armed insurrection in an attempted coup d’etat.
With that in mind, some Democrats have again proposed eliminating the Senate filibuster rule in order to pass the For the People Act with only Democratic support. They’ve attempted to demonize the filibuster and conveniently ignore how it has been critical to protecting the rights of Democrats in the past.
As a reminder, just four short years ago, in 2017 when Republicans held control of the White House and Congress, President Donald Trump was publicly urging Senate Republicans to eliminate the filibuster. Then, it was Senate Democrats who were proudly defending the filibuster. Thirty-three Senate Democrats penned a letter to Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warning of the perils of eliminating the filibuster.
What Manchin leaves out is that the “Grim Reaper of Democracy,” Mitch McConnell has already eliminated the filibuster for the things Republicans care the most about, i.e., judicial nominations and tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. It remains in place for everything Democrats care the most about, i.e., voting rights, economic justice, criminal justice reform, etc. So Manchin is saying he is for unilateral disarmament?
It has been said by much wiser people than me that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Well, what I’ve seen during my time in Washington is that every party in power will always want to exercise absolute power, absolutely. [Really? Where’s your evidence?] Our founders were wise to see the temptation of absolute power and built in specific checks and balances to force compromise [the filibuster was not one of them] 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.
Dude, the Senate is entirely dysfunctional in the era of the “Grim Reaper of Democracy,” Mitch McConnell, the era you serve in. The Senate has failed to respond to the needs and desires of the American people. Remember your own bipartisan gun control bill with Republican Senator Pat Toomey after the slaughter of innocent children in Sandy Hook? Defeated by the Senate filibuster rule that you now extoll.
Yes, this process can be frustrating and slow. It will force compromises that are not always ideal. But consider the alternative. Do we really want to live in an America where one party can dictate and demand everything and anything it wants, whenever it wants? I have always said, “If I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it.” And I cannot explain strictly partisan election reform or blowing up the Senate rules to expedite one party’s agenda.
“Do we really want to live in an America where one party can dictate and demand everything and anything it wants, whenever it wants?” Dude this is exactly what we have now, a tyranny of the minority of crypto-fascist Republicans hellbent on ending American democracy and imposing a GQP authoritarian banana republic under the corrupt and criminal Donald Trump. Do you not recognize the urgency of this moment? Were you not present on January 6 to witness firsthand the tyranny of the minority engage in a violent armed seditious insurrection against the U.S. government? Had their coup d’etat succeeded they may have executed you and many of your Senate colleagues.
The truth is there is a better way – if we seek to find it together.
The Voting Rights Act, for example, was monumental in the fight to guarantee freer and fairer elections in the United States. Since its original passage, it has been reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan votes five separate times. [But not since Justice John Roberts gutted in in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. Republicans have blocked every effort to reauthorize the law.] In addition, there is bipartisan support to pass the latest iteration of this legislation [oooh, he has Senator Lisa Murkowski, one Republican. Where are the ten Republican “patriotic senators” you insist exist?] the rightfully named John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Jennifer Rubin is right: Time to call Manchin’s bluff: Show us 10 reasonable Republicans. We’ll wait.
The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would update the formula states and localities must use to ensure proposed voting laws do not restrict the rights of any particular group or population. My Republican colleague, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, has joined me in urging Senate leadership to update and pass this bill through regular order. I continue to engage with my Republican and Democratic colleagues about the value of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and I am encouraged by the desire from both sides to transcend partisan politics and strengthen our democracy by protecting voting rights.
In what fantasy world do you live in, Senator? Jesus Christ! I can only conclude that you are either self-delusional or a complete idiot.
Of course, some in my party have argued that now is the time to discard such bipartisan voting reforms and embrace election reforms and policies solely supported by one party. Respectfully, I do not agree.
I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act. Furthermore, I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster. For as long as I have the privilege of being your U.S. senator, I will fight to represent the people of West Virginia, to seek bipartisan compromise no matter how difficult and to develop the political bonds that end divisions and help unite the country we love.
The For The People Act is literally the only thing that will stop the organized Republican campaign of Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression and disenfranchisement laws dead in its tracks. By opposing this bill, you are in effect endorsing the Republican campaign of Jim Crow 2.0 voter suppression and disenfranchisement laws. You are enabling this assault on what you yourself write the “right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy.” Your actions speak louder than your words, you are doing the exact opposite of what you say.
American democracy is something special, it is bigger than one party, or the tweet-filled partisan attack politics of the moment. It is my sincere hope that all of us, especially those who are privileged to serve, remember our responsibility to do more to unite this country before it is too late.
Let me explain the cold hard truth to you, senator. You will not be reelected in 2024. This is your last act. Is this how you want history to remember you, as the new poster boy for appeasement of the enemies of democracy? What is your end game here? When history called upon you to defend American democracy from Trumpism, the new American fascism, you failed miserably and chose rather to appease evil. This is indefensible cowardice, and unforgivable.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Monsieur Wileybud, I haven’t been able to reply directly to comments for a week or two, but let me assure you I did not mean to paint the French in broad strokes with the same brush.
I am not a “Freedom Fries” guy.
I have often admired your references to historical figures and events, please allow me to narrow and clarify my comment.
Just like the French collaborators in WW2, Manchin is a small part of something bigger that is under attack and he’s doing really crappy stuff to help the attackers and that will lead to the misery and suffering of others.
So, Viva la Resistance!
I hope I got that right.
And now I’m screwed, because I’ve been on a Keto diet for two months and now I’m craving French fries.
Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), a rising star in the Democratic Party, speaking to MSNBC’s Ali Velshi, tore into Manchin’s opinion piece published Sunday morning in the Charleston Gazette-Mail. “https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mondaire-jones-manchin-jim-crow-bipartisanhip-filibuster_n_60bd5793e4b099fb31c93659”, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mondaire-jones-manchin-jim-crow-bipartisanhip-filibuster_n_60bd5793e4b099fb31c93659
“I don’t know where to begin. It is, in the first case, intellectually unserious,” Jones said, continuing: “It is also the case that this idea of bipartisanship is not something that should have inherent value when the other side is actively working to dismantle our democracy.”
“We have a majority; we must act now to protect our democracy, which is slipping away,” Jones told Velshi. “We’re going into a redistricting year, there’s going to be partisan gerrymandering unlike anything we’ve ever seen by the Republican Party. More Marjorie Taylor Greene’s, more Louie Gohmert’s, more Jim Jordan’s ― and now we have the opportunity to actually do something about it.”
In addition to his appearance on Velshi’s show, Jones also made a lengthy Twitter thread unraveling and fact-checking parts of Manchin’s op-ed in an effort to show why the senator’s decision to vote against the For the People Act is what the congressman calls “dooming our democracy in the name of bipartisanship.”
See, https://twitter.com/MondaireJones/status/1401606676642422785
“Sen. Manchin would rather preserve Jim Crow on some outdated theory of bipartisanship that frankly does not exist in the same way today as it did a generation ago before the advent of Fox News and other right-wing propaganda machines on television, and of course the rise of Donald Trump,” Jones told the MSNBC host.
“I would like to see the president rise to the occasion, to use the stature of his office, the bully pulpit, to make Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema understand that this is necessary, that this is of foundational importance,” he continued. “And yes, to educate them on the ahistorical understanding that they have of the filibuster and of what will be required to protect the right to vote in this country.”
Jonathan Chait writes, “Joe Manchin’s Incoherent Case for Letting Republicans Destroy Democracy”, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/06/manchin-voting-rights-filibuster-senate-john-lewis-democracy-vote-suppression.html
In an op-ed yesterday, Manchin laid out a series of propositions that purport to explain his position, but upon close inspection make it difficult to understand what he believes or wants.
The internal contradiction of Manchin’s position is summarized in the first two sentences. The first one establishes that the right to vote is fundamental: “The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy and protecting that right should not be about party or politics.” But in the next line, he qualifies that this right can “never” be protected in a partisan fashion: “Least of all, protecting this right, which is a value I share, should never be done in a partisan manner.”
Here we have two values in conflict: the right to vote, and the evil of partisan voting laws. Manchin claims the first to be “fundamental,” but if he is unwilling to violate the second value to secure it, then it clearly isn’t.
Perhaps Manchin is implying that, in his hierarchy of values, bipartisanship trumps all else.
[S]o what happens if and when [a] bipartisan bill fails? Well, then the voting system will be determined by a series of state-level vote-suppression laws, all of which will have been enacted on a party-line basis. (Note that none of the 50 states have ever sought to impose their own supermajority requirement, despite its putative value in protecting minority rights.)
Maybe Manchin thinks it’s fine for states to pass Republican-only voting restrictions. Or maybe he thinks it’s bad, but less bad than overriding it with a national-level bill to protect voting rights that requires curtailing the filibuster.
But Manchin doesn’t think that. He explicitly argues that this would “destroy” democracy: “Whether it is state laws that seek to needlessly restrict voting or politicians who ignore the need to secure our elections, partisan policymaking won’t instill confidence in our democracy — it will destroy it.”
Destroying democracy sounds pretty bad. Indeed, that description would seem to be the worst possible outcome. The only way to prevent that outcome would be either to weaken or abolish the filibuster to pass voting protections, or to threaten to do so as leverage to get Republican support. But Manchin flatly rules out either, asserting, “I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster.”
Why is he choosing this? Because, Manchin argues, “Voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen.” And that is probably correct: Partisan divisions are likely to continue deepening if the Senate enacts protections for Americans’ right to vote. They will also probably continue deepening if it doesn’t. Partisan divisions have been deepening for a long time.
The key difference is that, if the Senate fails to act, then we’ll have deepening partisan divisions plus state-level partisan voting restrictions that, in Manchin’s own estimation, will destroy democracy. And that, somehow, is the outcome Manchin says he has chosen.
Steve Bensen makes an important observation. “The fatal flaw(s) in Manchin’s case against the For the People Act”, https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fatal-flaw-s-manchin-s-case-against-people-act-n1269790
In an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, the conservative Democrat didn’t identify any substantive problems with the legislation, other than to denounce the bill as “partisan.”
The superficiality of the indictment was jarring: Manchin would have the public believe that any important proposal that Republicans don’t like is by definition “partisan,” which in turn renders the bill unacceptable, regardless of merit. It’s a governing model that says the majority party must give the minority party veto power over efforts to shield our system of government, even as that party takes a sledgehammer to democracy in states nationwide.
[M]anchin, after already having seen GOP senators discredit his preferred approach to legislating, is “just hoping” that the party actively opposed to voting rights changes its mind.
The plan is not to have the majority party govern to preserve democracy; rather, the plan is to hope that Republican opponents of democracy see the light before it’s too late. What could possibly go wrong?
In a word, everything.
[J]oe Manchin is prepared to be remembered by history as the senator who did little more than hope as his country’s democracy unraveled.
It’s unlikely that history’s judgment will be kind.
Manchin has now been noticed and praised by Trump who will probably mention him at his Klan rallies.
TheHill.com
Trump: Manchin ‘doing the right thing’ by saying he will not end filibuster
BY DOMINICK MASTRANGELO – 06/07/21 11:52 AM EDT
Former President Trump on Monday praised Sen. Joe Manchin for his opposition to dismantling the Senate filibuster as the West Virginia Democrat faces backlash from members of his own party.
“Well, it’s a very important thing. He’s doing the right thing and it’s a very important thing,” Trump said of Manchin during an appearance on Fox News on Monday. “Otherwise you’re going to be packing the court. You’re going to be doing all sorts of very, very bad things that were unthinkable and were never even brought up during the election. Nobody brought this stuff up.”
Trump said the idea of abolishing the filibuster, a rule that can be used by either party to force nearly unfettered debate on the floor, is “so radical liberal, radical left, Bernie Sanders can’t believe it.”
“Record number of black voters show up to save this democracy, only for white supremacy to be upheld by a cowardly, power-hungry white dude.”
Yeah, this is becoming the prevailing belief among many black folks. And they tend to know.
Why would Manchin choose to vote against legislation that would help his own constituents more than in most states, perhaps more than any other state? Did the people of West Virginia elect him to ensure that all legislation passed by the Senate has bipartisan support? As West Virginia becomes increasingly unlivable and the population decreases, I’m guessing those who are left would like infrastructure related jobs, better internet service, etc…
James Downie of the Washington Post writes, “Joe Manchin’s mighty delusions”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/06/joe-manchins-mighty-delusions/
Sen. Joe Manchin III is at it again. In the Charleston Gazette-Mail on Sunday, the West Virginia Democrat announced his opposition to the For the People Act and doubled down on his commitment to keeping the Senate filibuster. He coupled the op-ed with appearances on “Fox News Sunday” and CBS’s “Face the Nation” — a media tour that cemented his status as the country’s most infuriating politician.
What makes Manchin’s stances so aggravating? It’s not that his views are insincere. Unlike with some other senators, there’s no doubting the West Virginia senator’s earnestness.
[P]erhaps the issue is the laziness of Manchin’s centrism. Rather than a mix of substantive policy stances, some left and some right, Manchin simply takes the middle of the two parties’ stances. For example, President Biden wants a 28 percent corporate tax rate, while Republicans want 21 percent. So Manchin backs 25 percent. Democrats want a $15-an-hour minimum wage, while Republicans want $10? Manchin supports $11. One gets the sense that if Manchin were told one side believes two plus two equals four and the other side believes it equals eight, he’d conclude that it equals six — and that saying otherwise divides the country. But this approach is not unusual in Washington, particularly among media voices who cling to a “both sides” view of politics. So that is not the crux.
[T]his hopeful haplessness was evident when Fox News’s Chris Wallace asked Manchin whether he was being naive to expect Republican support, given Senate Minority Leader McConnell’s promise to block “100 percent” of the Biden agenda. “I’m not being naive,” Manchin insisted. “I’m going to continue to keep working with my bipartisan friends and hopefully we can get more of them.” Again, he has hope but no “how” — the epitome of naivete. Worse still was his claim on CBS that “my Republican friends and colleagues see the deadlock also. This is not something they desire or wish.”
That’s past naivete or foolishness — it’s straight-up delusion. Manchin has become the Senate’s Walter Mitty: a man who believes himself the champion of a fantasy and who has hope but no plan. He believes he will save the country by recruiting “10 good Republicans,” even though dreaming doesn’t will into existence that many Republicans who will cast a fair-minded vote. Anything that would snap him back to our partisan reality he either ignores or treats as divisive. Meanwhile, McConnell and the rest of the Republican Party laugh all the way to the ballot box.
That’s what makes Manchin so infuriating. In his mind, he’s the hero of this story. In truth, he’s the patsy. And the country pays the price for his delusions.
Journalist and pundit Jemele Hill blasted Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) after the conservative Democrat voiced opposition to a voting rights bill being pushed by his own party and reiterated his commitment to keep the Senate filibuster intact. “Jemele Hill rips ‘cowardly, power-hungry white dude’ Manchin for commitment to filibuster”, https://thehill.com/homenews/media/557177-jemel-hill-rips-cowardly-power-hungry-white-dude-manchin-for-voicing-support
“This is so on brand for this country,” Hill tweeted Sunday, linking to story on Manchin’s recent op-ed in a West Virginia paper that spelled out his positions.
“Record number of black voters show up to save this democracy, only for white supremacy to be upheld by a cowardly, power-hungry white dude. [Manchin] is a clown.”
Monsieur Sharpie, let’s not slam the Francais as collaborators. Sure, there were some as there are with any occupied people. There were also those who actively opposed the invader. I would strongly recommend viewing the A French Village miniseries which, though the village itself is fictional, accurately reflects what France went through.
A Saison Trois tease: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrUT3T218o4
Madam/Mademoiselle Liza, delusional idiot is a perfect fit. It would be one thing if Manchin told McConnell to let Democratic be up for a vote or he will support getting rid of the filibuster but apparently he’s content to play spoiler for his party. A modern day Joe Lieberman.
Agreed. That’s why I have used the term Vichy Republicans (collaborators) from time to time, and today’s “resistance” is very much an homage to the French Resistance.
“In what fantasy world do you live in, Senator? Jesus Christ! I can only conclude that you are either self-delusional or a complete idiot.”
I’ll take complete idiot. But I don’t really know. It looks to me like a long-awaited power grab by someone who is so isolated in his own world that he fails to understand “the fierce urgency of now.” At this point, he’s representing something that exists only in his own head and he’s trying to sell it as something else, bipartisanship or whatever.
It makes no difference. He’s decided to be an obstacle to Biden’s agenda and all that matters right now is what they intend to do about him. Someone better have a plan or Biden’s two year window to legislate will end prematurely.
Another thing that I believe to be true about Manchin is that he is empowering Kyrsten Sinema. For all her own blathering about bipartisanship and her being an “independent” and her bipartisan spin class and her attention seeking outfits, I don’t think she would go it alone. Manchin gives her cover.
Is Manchin a French name? I mean, he’s a collaborator, right?
Manchin is reminiscent of the Sgt. in charge of the Schofield Barracks armory in From Here to Eternity. Japanese planes are shooting up the place, many US soldiers are getting killed and when troops get to the armory for a means to fight back the Sgt. refuses to open up the armory since he doesn’t have orders to do so.
Speaking of Neville….(Move up to @6 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20FQ0f8b6mY