Assorted comments on Manchin, the social spending bill, and the nature of party politics

 Sen. Joe Manchin (D[ish]-WV) announced yesterday that he will not support the Democratic social spending bill.  I was surprised.  Honestly, I thought he would support something, force the Democrats to give in to his every whim, and then take the win.  I was wrong.  Of course this would, had it passed, been an electoral albatross around the necks of every Democrat who supported it, and Manchin represents a particularly red state, so it is not exactly the shocking-est shocker that ever shocked a shock victim.  If I act too shocked, I'm just a "learner" in the Milgram experiment, and he wasn't really as meticulous with his data and methodology as you have been led to believe.  He wasn't as much of a fuckin' liar as Zimbardo, but still.  Anywho, that happened.  So a few assorted comments.  I may ramble.  I'm done grading, so I'm allowed.

First, he did it in the douchiest way possible.  If you are going to turn around and say no, take the White House call, and tell them directly.  Don't refuse the call and announce it on Fox Fucking News.

Second, did he know all along that he'd do this?  I can play this both ways.  If he knew he'd refuse, he'd have to play-act at negotiation to be Mr. Moderate.  Then again, for a Democrat representing West Virginia, he is truly cross-pressured, so it really was a hard call.  He may really not have known, changed his mind, or whatever.  That doesn't mean he didn't handle it like the ultimate fucking asshole, but we cannot know.

Third, this is not quite Jim Jeffords, but the name is the name of the hour.  The 2000 election-- a nice reference point these days-- yielded a 50/50 Senate, with Dicky as the tie-breaking vote.  However, that included Sen. Jim Jeffords (R-VT) as a pivotal vote.  As a northeastern Republican, Jeffords was a moderate, and frequently at odds with his party.  Sound familiar?  Of course, here was what really happened.  The Majority Leader at the time was a douche named Trent Lott, who was eventually driven from leadership after saying, one too many times, that the country should have elected Strom Thurmond as president in 1948, when he was running on his segregationist platform.  Yeah... no.  Fuck Strom.  I'm glad that racist piece of shit is dead, and nothing about him should ever be celebrated, except his dead-ness.  (OK, don't fuck him.  He's dead.  That'd be gross.)

Moving on.  Lott just treated Jeffords like shit.  The big thing?  OK, you know what they have in Vermont?  No, not pot.  Well, yes, they do have pot.  A lot of it.  What else?  OK, yes, the dumbass fucking hippies.  They go with the pot.  I'm talking about something important.  Dairy.  You know what we subsidize in this country?  No, not pot.  Dairy.

Lott tried to cut dairy subsidies.  While Jeffords was the pivotal Senator.  Idiot.

So Jeffords switched parties.  In a 50/50 Senate.  That gave the Senate to the Dems.  Jeffords called himself an independent, caucused with the Dems, and that was it for the GOP's agenda until the 2002 election, which was weird because of 9/11, but here's the thing.  The Dems can't count on that.  Ain't gonna happen.

Lesson?  Don't piss off the pivotal Senator in a 50/50 Senate.  Lott was especially stupid.  This?  Well, Manchin's an asshole.  But at the same time, what're the Dems gonna do?  Give the Senate to McConnell?

Hey, Breyer!  Step down now!  Now!

Where was I?  Oh, right.

Actually, let me get back to this for a moment.  It isn't merely that the GOP won't confirm any SCOTUS nominees once they get control.  They won't, but they'll go further.

They won't confirm any judges.  None.  Zero.  Period.  They'll make a play for the entire Judicial Branch.

Mark my fucking words.  I'm calling it.  Right now, we're talking about SCOTUS.  This goes beyond SCOTUS.  They're going to blockade the entire Judicial Branch.

You doubt me?  At this point?  Are you watching these people?

And you wanna push Manchin out of the party now?

Yeah, he's an asshole.  But the alternative is McConnell.  Who is second only to Trump in assholery, but what he lacks comparatively in assholery, he makes up for in competence, and that's a tradeoff I don't want to make.

I'll remind Dems as I do this that we live in a world of social safety nets basically within the Great Society victory terms.  This bill was looking for the next fight.  You lost.  What does that mean?  (Take the win.)

If you really want to understand what happened, though, the key is, as always, realizing that Bernie Sanders is always wrong.

Let's refer to that sanctimonious fool, and his characteristically insufferable comments.  "Let Mr. Manchin explain to the people of West Virginia why he doesn't have the guts to stand up to the powerful special interests."

Classic Sanders.  We should not overlook the "Mr."  That's "Senator," you asshole.  But let's get into the substance, such as it is.  Sanders seems to think that Manchin will have an electoral problem because he has rejected the bill.

Really?  Reject a left-wing bill, and this creates an electoral problem in one of the reddest states?  Really?  Sanders is a moron, but hopefully anyone capable of reading this post understands where Sanders went wrong here.

Next, lack of "guts."  OK, we could accuse Manchin of lack of "guts," but if he lacks "guts," it is bowing to the electoral pressure of his state.  His constituents.  The voters of West Virginia, who are way to the fucking right of that idiot commie from Vermont.  Does Manchin actually believe it was a good bill?  I have no idea, and neither do you.  Classic Sanders is that he is absolutely, 100% convinced that everyone thinks like he does.  Extremists are like that.  They cannot comprehend anyone disagreeing.  Maybe Manchin likes the bill, maybe he doesn't, but if he is showing anything that could be called cowardice, it would be the cowardice of bowing to his constituents.

The more positive way to frame that is what we call, "delegate-style" representation, where representatives give the constituents whatever they want, regardless of the policy judgment of the representative, to be contrasted with "trustee-style" representation, where representatives do what they believe to be best, regardless of constituent preferences.  If you are angry, you can put either one in a  bad light.

You're ignoring your constituents!

See?  Bad light.

Coward!  Don't follow, lead!

See?  Bad light, doing the exact opposite.

Of course, as H.L. Mencken said, "democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it, good and hard."  The normative spin on that one is, well, a good, hard spin.

What does Manchin believe?  I don't know, and neither do you.  What I do know is that this was the safest thing for him, electorally speaking.  So, does he have anything to explain to West Virginia?  No!  He would have if he had sided with the Vermont commie.

Let's move, now, to the standard Sanders explanation for any disagreement.  "Special interests."

Republicans explain any electoral loss with "voter fraud," and actually, they've been doing it since the early 2000s.  They just didn't push it this far until little Donnie's fragile ego got in the way of the concept of democracy.  Sanders?  "Special interests."  Why?  Because in his mind, everyone agrees with him about everything.

Seriously.  He actually thinks that everyone agrees with him about everything.  There's no disagreement in the world.  We are in perfect unanimity about everything!  Glory and harmony and unity!

Any disagreement?  "Special interests!"  Watch and listen.  That fucking asshole does it every time, because he cannot grasp the concept of disagreement, nor listen to anyone.

Why do I hate Bernie Sanders so much?  This really is a big part of it.

But here's the thing.  What do "special interests" do?  Sanders doesn't really know.  He doesn't know much of anything.  He's an empty vessel for ineffectual whining, and helping to drive the Democratic Party off a fucking cliff into insanity.

But here's what "special interests" do, at least in theory.  (Actually, those of us with a coherent definition of "theory," never use the word, "special," in front of the term, "interest group," but that's a separate rant.)  They give you campaign contributions.  For... campaigning.  If this is cowardice, then it is cowardice motivated by a desire for reelection.

But the whole point is that Manchin's best move, electorally speaking, is to oppose the bill!  That's not catering to "special interests!"  That's just doing what his deep-red state wants!

Why can't Sanders grasp that?  Well, aside from the general point that Sanders is a moron, he cannot grasp that there are people who disagree with him.

Does Manchin personally disagree with him?  Well, yes, about a lot.  But does he actually oppose the bill?  I honestly don't know.  But the voters of West Virginia sure as fuck do, and the fact that Sanders can't even consider that possibility is exactly what blinkers his thinking.

Next, there's a line of thinking that goes that the commie caucus made a mistake by letting the infrastructure bill pass, de-linking it from the social spending bill.  That let Manchin get the infrastructure bill, without committing him to social spending, and he stabbed the Dems in the back.

Did he stab the Dems in the back?  Yeah, kinda.  But were the Dems going to get anywhere with their demand for a linked package?  No.  They were going to get stuck with nothing.  It wasn't a choice between the pair of bills or just infrastructure.  It was infrastructure, or nothing.  You had no leverage over Manchin, and you never did.  He always had the threat to walk away.  Just like this.

So what now?

What now is that Manchin is still the pivotal voter in the Senate.  Anything you want?  Goes through him.  This is math.  That's all it is.

Many of you are under the delusion that the Democrats "control" the Senate.  They don't.  Once upon a time, the Democrats had a long-running "majority" in Congress, throughout the latter half of the 20th Century, but what was actually happening during long stretches was that there was a "conservative coalition" between the Republicans and Southern Democrats, so Northern liberals didn't have a working majority.  That's the situation now.  What the Democrats have now is the ability to confirm judges.  That's about it.

Don't delude yourself otherwise.

Hey, Breyer!  Are you paying attention?!

No.  I thought not.  Asshole.