Headlines — on the front page and atop the article — for Jonathan Chait's NY Magazine piece, which I haven't read yet. I don't believe Manchin is either "incoherent," "illogical," or "tied up in knots," but let's see what Chait is talking about:
The internal contradiction of Manchin’s position is summarized in the first two sentences [of his op-ed].... “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.
Which would make his point coherent, logical, and unknotted.
Posts
6 comments:
TommyEsq. writes:
"Joe Manchin’s Incoherent Case for Letting Republicans Destroy Democracy/The most powerful senator’s illogical reasoning"/"Joe Manchin’s Incoherent Case for Letting Republicans Destroy Democracy/The most powerful senator ties himself in knots."
Good thing we don't actually have a democracy - we were formed as a republic specifically to allow this sort of thing to occur.
K writes:
"Chait seems to me to be saying that "the end justifies the means." As is usual on the left, the thought is that if you won't grab for power by any means you aren't a serious political player (incoherent). Experience shows that in a regime holding this position the top group Progressively shrinks and is enriched; the bottom group Progressively expands and is impoverished; and Progressively we begin to sing "God bless the child that's got my own.""
Tom writes:
Joe Manchin is a Democrat Senator in a predominately Republican state. His voters don’t want any of the Democrat’s reforms and see the Democrat’s efforts as a ploy to cheat in elections. Manchin knows if he supports or enables this bill to be passed, he’s toast. He also knows how alienating and divisive this bill is to voters in his state. That’s an unbelievably coherent case for not supporting the bill consistent with doing what his voters want.
Further, there are things the Democrat controlled Congress can do that increase the likelihood of conflict in the country: adding PR and DC as states to control the Senate; eliminating voting integrity policies; banning or severely restricting firearms; packing the SCOTUS. The more of these things the Democrats do, the more likely we experience civil disturbances or worse.
Manchin has to know how ticked off West Virginians are. That’s a lot of ticked off people who are heavily armed.
Bruce E. Hayden writes:
"Chait is the one being, probably deliberately, obtuse. Much of the country believes that the Democrats stole the 2020 Presidential election, and probably three Senate seats, using the mechanisms that SB 1 tries to protect. This is one of the most partisan bills before Congress right now - it was deliberately designed to help Democrats, likely fraudulently, win elections, at the expense of Republicans. Very likely a distinct majority of Manchin’s WV constituents probably agree. A vote in favor of SB 1 would likely be political suicide for a Dem Senator in a Red State, like Manchin. But voting against it would be problematic in Schumer’s Senate. So, Manchin instead claims the higher ground, in order to not outrage his constituents, while avoiding the vote, by stating his principled opposition to ending the filibuster."
Jonathan writes:
"If the issue of voting rights is "fundamental," that makes it MORE, not less, necessary that efforts to protect voting rights win the widespread, "bi-partisan" support they need to be safe from revision or reversal. It's a notion that has a long history. It's why we have two-thirds vote requirements for several "fundamental" things like important treaties. The stormy and still unstable Iran deal Obama foisted without going through the treaty process ought to convince Chait of this. But of course, it won't. A greater spirit of "bi-partisan" generosity might help him. Alas, dream on."
DDB writes: "Unhinged. America is a democratic Republic. The Senate protects the rights of small states and electoral minorities. That’s why there is a filibuster. America was never a pure democracy."
Post a Comment