In yesterday’s New York Times (“A.O.C. and Manchin Are in the Same Party. No Wonder Democrats Are Struggling”), Julia Azari notes that “Democrats are weathering a storm of accusations of being plain bad at politics” and offers a crisp analysis of why the Biden administration is struggling with its legislative agenda.
Two transformational Democratic presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, wrestled (like Joe Biden) with a broad coalition represented by contrasting interests and viewpoints, but both had much larger Congressional majorities to work with. Nationalized politics has led the Manchins and Sinemas of the party to “work harder to draw media attention to their performances of political independence” in resisting the president and the leadership in Congress. And a stronger left wing in the party grapples with a conservative Democratic flank, while traditional liberals must contend with progressives.
For today’s “smaller, patchwork Democratic coalition,” delivering on its promises is tough going (especially since Republicans are more likely to offer relentless obstruction, than votes). Azari offers a couple of ways out for Democrats.
Strengthen social movements
The first is to strengthen social movements, which could advance progressive issues such as green energy and student debt, assist in electing progressive Democrats, and “help to mobilize different groups of voters around shared priorities like health care and economic insecurity.”
Elevating progressive issues on the public agenda and pressing the boundaries of political debate could serve to bolster the Democratic coalition. In Barack Obama’s words (regarding young uncompromising activists):
There’s a different role for activists as opposed to people once they’re actually elected in Congress trying to get a bill passed. And there are going to be times when young people are impatient or consider themselves obligated to speak truth to power even if it might offend some swing voters somewhere. That kind of messiness is okay. Because what they’re doing is stretching the boundaries over time of what’s possible.
Enact structural reforms
Azari’s second route is to implement institutional reform, including changing rules in the Senate (such as the filibuster) that prevent majority rule, and “making Congress more proportional.” (Though she doesn’t say how to do the latter, presumably she is thinking of reforms such as expanding the size of the House, enacting statewide proportional representation in the House, and adding states to the union to make the Senate less malapportioned.)
Pointing to “the influence of wealthy interests over public opinion,” she observes that both Manchin and Sinema have strong ties to powerful interests opposed to the interests of Democratic constituents not among the elite. She suggests structural solutions, such as “tightening regulations over conflicts of interest for members of Congress and enacting lobbying reform.” In the absence of such reforms, powerful interests (aided and abetted by a stridently conservative Supreme Court) can veto popular legislative initiatives.
The alternative path for Democrats is to “scale back on its policy agenda,” which is probably the route Democratic leaders will take in trying to revive Build Back Better in the next few weeks, but this is hardly a viable, long-term solution.
Big-D and small-d democrats
There is only one political party in our country today committed to democracy. The Democratic Party. That’s why this discussion of party strategy is so critical to the country’s future.