Prima Donnas Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema Make No Sense At All In Their Defense Of The Senate Filibuster Rule

Update to A Creative Solution To Democratize The Senate Filibuster Rule.

I posted about a creative solution to the anti-democratic Jim Crow relic Senate filibuster rule that even Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema would be hard pressed to argue against. Don’t eliminate the filibuster. Democratize it.

They proved me wrong this past week. I suppose I was giving them too much credit. They are in fact willing to sabotage the future progress of this country in defense of the archaic Senate filibuster rule..

Senator Joe Manchin had an op-ed in the Washington Post that leaves the reader asking “WTF is wrong with this man?” Joe Manchin: I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster. He begins with a defense of the Connecticut Compromise (aka the Great Compromise) which created the Senate and gave every state equal representation of two senators:

It’s no accident that a state as small as West Virginia has the same number of senators as California or Texas. It goes to the heart of what representative government is all about. The Founding Fathers understood that the challenges facing a rural or small state would always be very different from a more populous state. Designating each state with the same number of senators — regardless of the population — ensured that rural and small states and the Americans who live in them would always have a seat at the table.

When the Senate was created, it was not a popularly elected body, as it is today. Senators were “elected” (selected) by state legislatures until the 17 Amendment, not part of the Constitution until April 8, 1913. Having the state legislatures select senators reassured anti-federalists that there would be some protection against the federal government’s swallowing up states and their powers, and providing a check on the power of the federal government.

This is the same “states’ rights” argument that later became synonymous with Jim Crow racial segregation.

So Joe Manchin is a throwback to Southern Dixiecrat segregationists yelling “States’ rights!” in opposition to civil rights and voting rights legislation? Not a good look, senator.

Manchin is oblivious to the fact that the malapportionment of the Senate addressed by the authors of the op-ed in my original post has resulted in an anti-democratic tyranny of the minority:

Given the Senate’s extreme malapportionment — with two senators per state regardless of population— Senate majorities often represent fewer than half of the country’s citizens. For example, the 2017 tax cut passed with the support of 51 senators who represented only 43 percent of the population.

US Senate ridiculously undemocratic:

-split 50-50 but Dems represent 41 million more people

-15 states with 38 million people elect 30 GOP senators

-California with 40 million people elects 2 Dems https://t.co/CJol4P47Np pic.twitter.com/xUmYxD1nrO

— Ari Berman (@AriBerman) April 8, 2021

The Constitution and its framers clearly envisioned that simple majority voting would be used to conduct business. The Constitution and its framers expressly provided for the rare exceptions to this general rule that would require a supermajority vote – conviction on impeachment charges (2/3 of Senate), expelling a member of Congress (2/3 of the chamber in question), overriding presidential vetoes (2/3 of both Houses), ratifying treaties (2/3 of Senate) and proposing constitutional amendments (2/3 of both Houses).

In the Federalist Papers No. 22, Alexander Hamilton described super-majority requirements as being one of the main problems with the previous Articles of Confederation:

“[W]hat at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison. To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.”

And yet, Joe Manchin argues:

The filibuster is a critical tool to protecting that [rural and small states ] input and our democratic form of government. That is why I have said it before and will say it again to remove any shred of doubt: There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster. The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation.

I challenge you, senator, to cite just one example of how the filibuster rule during the Mitch McConnell era has resulted in “bipartisanship,” and “common ground.” About the only “bipartisan” measures passed during the Mitch McConnell era have been continuing resolutions (CRs) for appropriations bills to keep the government operating, and only after GOP hostage taking and extortion demands: government shutdowns and threats of government shutdowns, and threats to default on the national debt (resulting in the first downgrade of the credit status of the US in 2011). Democrats paid ransom to keep the government running. Mitch McConnell does not negotiate in good faith, senator. You know this as fact.

Joe Manchin then argues:

Every time the Senate voted to weaken the filibuster in the past decade, the political dysfunction and gridlock have grown more severe. The political games playing out in the halls of Congress only fuel the hateful rhetoric and violence we see across our country right now. The truth is, my Democratic friends do not have all the answers and my Republican friends do not, either. This has always been the case.

Harold Meyerson at The American Prospect explains What’s the Matter With Manchin?

Consider, as a fair sample of his reasoning capacities, his defense of the filibuster in an op-ed he penned in the Washington Post:

Every time the Senate voted to weaken the filibuster in the past decade, the political dysfunction and gridlock have grown more severe. The political games playing out in the halls of Congress only fuel the hateful rhetoric and violence we see across our country right now.

This analysis has it precisely backward. During the Obama presidency, for instance, the Senate eliminated the filibuster on a president’s executive branch appointments because a gridlocked Senate—the result of near-unified Republican opposition to any Obama initiative—used the 60-vote threshold to block any number of appointments. The filibuster was, and is, an effect of polarization, not its cause. If Manchin actually could discern the difference, he’d note that the steady rightward gallop of the GOP has eliminated the middle ground on which bipartisanship could sometimes take root. (Don’t take my word for it; take John Boehner’s.) And that rightward gallop has been spurred not by the filibuster, but by the growth of counterfactual right-wing media; the even more counterfactual right-wing social media; the counterfactual presidency of Donald Trump; and the growing racial, gender, religious, and cultural intolerance within the Republican base, fearful of the decline of white male Christian traditionalist hegemony, and the apocalyptic stoking of those fears by Republican pols and media.

Ironically, Manchin’s opposition to axing the filibuster comes at the very moment that President Biden has put before Congress proposals—the COVID stimulus, the infrastructure and progressive tax hike bills—that poll well across party lines with actual Americans, but that congressional Republicans, in obeisance to the GOP’s rabid base and equally rabid far-right media, have uniformly opposed, either by vote (the COVID stimulus) or in word (the bills yet to be voted on). Given a chance to begin to create at least a patch of the middle ground he claims he wishes to nurture, Manchin actually will stomp it out of existence if he continues to uphold the filibuster.

How, then, do we diagnose Manchin’s Ailment? Failure of intellect? Not entirely. Deliberate misreading of history? We’re getting warmer. Putting his own political needs as a Democrat from a deeply Republican state over those of the nation? Bull’s-eye! What Manchin touts as his centrism is really a severe case of narcissism.

But wait! There’s more. Prima Donna Joe Manchin is not done. He also doesn’t like the “budget reconciliation process,” an exception to to the Senate filibuster rule:

Unfortunately, our leaders in the Senate fail to realize what goes around comes around. We should all be alarmed at how the budget reconciliation process is being used by both parties to stifle debate around the major issues facing our country today. Legislating was never supposed to be easy. It is hard work to address the needs of both rural and urban communities in a single piece of legislation, but it is the work we were elected to do.

I simply do not believe budget reconciliation should replace regular order in the Senate. How is that good for the future of this nation? Senate Democrats must avoid the temptation to abandon our Republican colleagues on important national issues. Republicans, however, have a responsibility to stop saying no, and participate in finding real compromise with Democrats.

Republicans have doubled-down on Mitch McConnell’s policy of total obstruction. McConnell has already declared that there will be no Republican votes for President Biden’s agenda. There have been none in the Senate.  Where is your evidence of bipartisan cooperation, senator? Show me the 10 Republicans who will vote for any legislative proposal from your Democratic caucus. I’m calling your bluff, senator. Show me your hand. Put up or shut up.

Remember, Joe Manchin was a governor before he was a senator, so he has experience dealing with a state legislature. As a general rule, state legislatures do not have a filibuster rule. Approximately 10 states have a cloture rule that requires something more than a simple majority. Nevertheless, Manchin facetiously agues:

If the filibuster is eliminated or budget reconciliation becomes the norm, a new and dangerous precedent will be set to pass sweeping, partisan legislation that changes the direction of our nation every time there is a change in political control. The consequences will be profound — our nation may never see stable governing again.

Elections have consequences. If the legislature enacts legislation with which voters disagree, legislators will be voted out of office in the next election, and the newly elected legislators can repeal or amend the offending legislation. This is how democracy works at the state level, “pass[ing] sweeping, partisan legislation that changes the direction of [the state] every time there is a change in political control” is the norm. Manchin’s apocalyptic fear mongering in favor of Senate stasis is undemocratic and makes no sense.

But wait! There’s more. Prima Donna Joe Manchin is still not done. He gives aid and comfort to the MAGA/QAnon cult seditious insurrectionists who tried to overthrow our democracy in a coup d’etat and to install Donald Trump as America’s first dictator. Manchin parrots the GQP talking point about “restoring faith in our elections” based upon their refusal to accept the results of a fair and free election.

There is also bipartisan support for voting reform and many of the initiatives outlined in the For the People Act. [Seriously Dude? Name just one Republican senator, let alone the 10 Republican senators you naively believe will support any of the reforms in the For The People Act]. Our ultimate goal should be to restore bipartisan faith in our voting process by assuring all Americans that their votes will be counted, secured and protected. Efforts to expand voting hours and access, improve our election security and increase transparency in campaign finance and advertisement rules should and do have broad, bipartisan support and would quickly address the needs facing Americans today. Taking bipartisan action on voting reform would go a long way in restoring the American people’s faith in Congress and our ability to deliver results for them.

Manchin concludes “Instead of fixating on eliminating the filibuster or shortcutting the legislative process through budget reconciliation, it is time we do our jobs.” The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin makes the obvious point, The filibuster gives Joe Manchin cover to do nothing. He is not interested in doing his job.

Rubin’s colleague, Paul Waldman adds We’re all Joe Manchin’s prisoners (excerpt):

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) is happy to drive you crazy. And he’s going to make sure that at least through 2022 and perhaps beyond, he’ll be the one to decide not only the substance of what legislation gets passed, but the procedures by which the Senate runs.

So what does he want?

Manchin says, “The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation.”

Which is kind of like me saying, “The time has come to make me the starting point guard for the Washington Wizards, where I’ll average 35 points and 15 assists per game.” I might like that to happen, but there are some pretty good reasons it won’t.

I won’t go through all of Manchin’s rationales for defending the filibuster [see above], except to say that some are so ridiculous it’s almost as though he’s just trying to make readers throw up their hands in exasperation.

[T]here are a couple of ways to look at what Manchin says about the filibuster. One is that he can’t grasp what’s right in front of his face, and he’s so absurdly nostalgic for a long-gone era of comity and cooperation that he has blinded himself to the reality of modern partisan politics and the past 20 years of history.

That’s hard to believe. Manchin has shown himself to be nothing if not a canny politician.

Another possibility is that Manchin has a set of goals — for himself, for the Democratic Party and for the Senate — that he’s trying to achieve. The better we understand what he’s after, the easier it will be for Democrats to make progress while he still holds the power he does.

[B]ut no matter what, Manchin wants to be seen constraining Democrats. Which is why, when they’re pursuing a strongly progressive piece of legislation, Manchin will try to pull it back toward the center — but because they started substantially to the left, he’ll wind up more to the left than he otherwise would have been.

That highlights the central reality of the next couple of years of legislating: Either Joe Manchin gets to decide what bills pass, or Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) does. [The results are the same either way: political stasis and nothing gets done.]

Waldman concludes, “For now, we’re all Joe Manchin’s prisoners. And he’s going to make sure it stays that way.”

Senator Manchin followed up his op-ed with an interview on CNN. Manchin says ‘January 6 changed me’ as he calls for bipartisan cooperation:

“January 6 changed me. I never thought in my life, I never read in history books to where our form of government had been attacked, at our seat of government, which is Washington, DC, at our Capitol, by our own people,” Manchin said, adding, “So, something told me, ‘Wait a minute. Pause. Hit the pause button.’ Something’s wrong. You can’t have this many people split to where they want to go to war with each other.”

Excuse me? The lesson you took away from an attempted coup d’etat against the U.S. government is to be a craven coward when confronted by seditious insurrectionist domestic terrorists, and to appease their MAGA/QAnon conspiracy cult alternative reality by negotiating with the insurrectionists inside Congress? 147 Republican lawmakers still objected to the election results after the Capitol attack. America does not negotiate with terrorists, foreign or domestic, senator. It was in your oath of office,  that you are failing to uphold.

Finally,  there is the other Prima Donna, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.  She gave an interview to Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal (because of course she did), Kyrsten Sinema Defends Filibuster as Pressure Mounts From Progressives (paywall article):

House Democrats have passed bills on voting rights, immigration and gun control, but all are expected to be blocked in the 50-50 Senate unless the rules are changed. Ms. Sinema said that is a problem with the senators, not the rules.

“When you have a place that’s broken and not working, and many would say that’s the Senate today, I don’t think the solution is to erode the rules,” she said in an interview after two constituent events in Phoenix. “I think the solution is for senators to change their behavior and begin to work together, which is what the country wants us to do.”

Rodney King’s “can’t we all just get along” – that’s your plan? I’ll bet Sinema asked for a unicorn for her birthday when she was a child. How did that work out for you? Now she’s chasing another mythical beast: bipartisanship from Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist Party of No.

As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent correctly notes: “But the conduct of senators actually is influenced by the chamber’s rules — in exactly the opposite way from what Sinema has suggested. In reality, the filibuster frustrates bipartisanship.” “It actually makes sense that the rules would shape incentives, and by extension, the individual conduct of lawmakers.” Prima Donnas Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are Exhibit “A”.

Joy Reid on MSNBC’s The Reidout did not hold back in this “The Absolute Worst” segment. What she said.

History will harshly condemn these Prima Donna Senators, unless they come to their senses and do right by the American people, not their own inflated egos.