Photo courtesy of Unsplash.
For those who have been paying attention to Congress’ navigation of President Biden’s ambitious agenda, the names Manchin and Sinema are likely familiar. Amidst Biden’s “Build Back Better” legislation, a $3.5 trillion progressive wish-list, Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) have become notorious for their opposition.
The obsession from the media, pundits, and activists on these two non-conforming legislators is odd and peculiar, especially considering the hyperfocus is on ridiculing or belittling them, not on persuading them. Instead of trying to engage in serious and thoughtful discussions on public policies, many on the left resorted to neanderthal thinking, attempting to browbeat and bully Manchin and Sinema into supporting Build Back Better. Dissent is not only unwelcome to the progressive agenda, it is brazenly maligned as “anti-Black, anti-child, anti-woman, and anti-immigrant.”
This was the sentiment of Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), who released a statement attacking Sen. Joe Manchin. Bush didn’t even bother to explain how not supporting Build Back Better hurts these groups, much less attempt to persuade in a civil and respectful way. Bush, as so many other legislators do, views Congress as a battle ground to push her radical agenda instead of a forum for deliberating legislation. Bush’s demagogic rhetoric follows a perfunctory formula: whoever opposes my public policy proposals is anti-(insert marginalized/minority group here).
Naturally, populist rhetoric has its consequences. When government officials spread misinformation and accuse their co-legislators of instilling hatred and damage upon people, people are going to respond. In Arizona, extremist activists have taken the call to harass Sen. Kyrsten Sinema at every opportunity. At Arizona State University—where Sinema is a lecturer—activists confronted Sinema and followed her into the bathroom where they continued to harass her through the bathroom stall. In a similar confrontation, activists disrupted a wedding in which Sinema was officiating. A video captures the mother of the bride begging the protesters to stay quiet for an hour so that the wedding could proceed, to no avail.
The core tenet to democracy is debate and discussion, not harassment. Yet, harassment is the strategy that is often pursued —by activists and legislators alike. The Democratic caucus makes up half of the Senate, making them the majority through the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. But instead of watering down their unprecedented progressive and costly legislation so that they have the votes to pass it, they attempt to bully any and all dissent into submission. The Democrats’ behavior precisely depicts the problem George Washington had with a party system: legislators would react to the motivation of their party instead of their conscience and constituents.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) declared “two people do not have the right to sabotage what 48 want and what the President of the United States wants.” Technically speaking, Sanders is correct. Two people do not indeed have the right to sabotage what 48 senators and the President wants. But 52 senators do have the right to reject what 48 senators and the President wants. Somewhere in Bernie Sanders’ calculation, he somehow forgot about half the senate. The premise of Sanders’ assumption is that senators should vote based on their party, and not their actual beliefs. The implied system Sanders advocates for is a parliamentary system, where people elect parties, not people. In this system, legislators are obligated to be benevolent towards the party leader and vote in whichever direction they may dictate.
Bernie Sanders is not alone in promoting a parliamentary system over a democratic-republic. Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) quipped that Kyrsten Sinema is failing her constituents by voting against the Build Back Better legislation. Porter is misguided in her opinion that legislators are meant to be mere delegates, bound to the opinions of their constituents. Were this true, then the legislative process would be run by a direct democracy, a majoritarian rule system. Keep in mind, this parliamentary argument—that elected representatives are bound to the views of their constituents—is the same view of those who attacked legislators who supported the impeachment of Donald Trump. Countless Republicans attacked Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL), Anthony Gonzalez (R-OH), among others, for not representing their constituents in regards to their vote to impeach Donald Trump. Yet, these congressional members voted for what they believed in, despite putting themselves at odds with their party. What Democrats and Republicans alike seem to have forgotten is that legislators voting along their own beliefs instead of the beliefs of their party leader is a good thing. Every state and district elected their own senators and representatives. The country did not elect Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, or Kevin McCarthy, states did.
The legislation President Biden is pushing for—in terms of cost proportion to GDP and redefining the role of federal government—is comparable to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. However, the difference is that both FDR and LBJ had the electoral mandate to do so; both had overwhelming Democratic majorities in both the Senate and the House. President Joe Biden and the Democratic leadership seems to have developed the ill-conceived notion that they are deserving of such a mandate, despite only having a tied Senate and a House majority by seven seats. Conclusions from the 2020 election results, and supported by the Virginia and New Jersey 2021 gubernatorial results indicate that Joe Biden and the Democrats do not have any such mandate beyond being not Donald Trump. The Democrats barely have a majority in Congress, which binds them within the parameters of their own caucus. If they wish to pass such radical sweeping agendas then they need the majorities to do so, and not bully dissenters into conformity.
