Skip to main content

This Disappointment with Democrats is Quite Disappointing

I have heard now from several of my readers — and on multiple occasions — that my writing is, shall we say, less than uplifting. The word “depressing” has come up.

For this, I don’t so much apologize as empathize. What I’ve been writing about depresses me as well. The times we live in have gotten far more interesting than I ever thought they would. There’s a lot to be scared of, but there’s a lot to write about too.

Because while I never really thought my country would reach the point where a fascist coup could be a realistic threat, I’ve had a certain morbid fascination with the idea, probably since high school. Now that it’s happening in plain sight, topics that are interesting but depressing are a target-rich environment for me.

Consider, for example, the poll numbers showing that people have grown “disappointed” with the Democrats. That Biden’s performance — and by extension, that of all Democrats — is somehow not living up to its initial promise. That they should be “doing more” to fight back against Republican subversion.

This reflects, of course, the dominant storylines in the mainstream media, which shamefully clings to its “Democrats in disarray” narrative. It also reflects a certain fear — also stoked by the media — that Democrats are sure to be defeated, perhaps as early as this year, by sinister forces. And indeed they might be.

But to say one is disappointed in Democrats’ performance — whether in the administration or in Congress — betrays a flawed understanding of our system. It presupposes that there are viable options that aren’t being used.

There are no such options. As we all should know from high school civics, Democrats’ hands are tied by the constitution.

We still, at least theoretically, live within that constitution. Not that it hasn’t been battered. Not that it hasn’t been perverted by right-wing ideologues, Trump-led lawlessness, and a profoundly illegitimate and increasingly antidemocratic Supreme Court.

But as long as our laws and institutions remain even tenuously guided by it— and they still do — we have no choice but to stand up for it. When the rule of law goes missing, everyone is in trouble. Even the troublemakers.

Under our constitution, there is no wiggle room on some very basic congressional procedures. Passing a bill in the Senate, for instance, requires a majority — fifty-one votes. Okay, it really requires sixty, thanks to the filibuster. But even the filibuster can be changed with fifty-one votes. As you may have heard.

When people point to the Democratic presidents who have made the most difference to everyday Americans, they usually refer to FDR and LBJ. Yet we tend to forget that while the achievements of those two were undeniably stellar — from Social Security to voting rights to civil rights to Medicare and beyond — they were also accomplished with supermajorities in both houses of Congress.

And even with that advantage, both of these presidents had an uphill slog to force those programs through Congress. Both had to invest huge political capital, and the backlash they created plagues us to this day.

So given that fifty-one vote threshold — and in the face of a complete Republican stonewall — there are only two shots Democrats have at any real accomplishment.

The first is Build Back Better — once a $6 trillion package, now marked down to $99.95 — which can be passed, even in the absence of any Republican concern for basic humanity, through the “reconciliation” procedure.

The second is the voting rights bill now approaching the Senate floor — also watered down but still strong — which requires, in the absence of any Republican concern for democracy, a carve-out of the filibuster rule.

These plans are both massively important. They’re both shovel-ready. And they’ve both passed the House.

They could pass the Senate tomorrow. They could be the law of the land by next week. All they need is fifty-one votes. Which they might never get.

So please, ladies and gentlemen, let’s put our disappointment where it truly belongs.

Because even with the astonishing array of problems now loosed upon our world, there’s one problem that towers above all others. One hard truth, around which all else revolves:

Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are sabotaging democracy.

They have both landed, quite by chance, in a unique place in history, a place well suited to their shared arrogance and grandiosity. They’ve chosen deliberately — and we can only assume maliciously — to destroy an agenda desperately needed by the entire country. An agenda three-quarters of Americans say they want.

At the same time, almost as a sideshow, they’re undermining the entire electoral system. They are both smart enough to know that they’re aiding and abetting a Republican coup, and they’ve both decided they’re fine with it. Surely there’s a lot of money involved. I hope their betrayal is worth it.

By the time I post this essay, these two quislings may have yet changed their minds. But for now we have to assume the worst, because they are apparently content to be linked forever with the fools determined to bring down the system.

So please, spare us the disappointment. With the conspicuous exception of Manchin and Sinema, every Democrat in Congress has for the most part performed admirably. They’ve done it in the face of open hostility from a Republican party that grows less coherent and more venomous by the day. And they’ve done it with the threat of violence seered into short-term memory.

And please spare us the disappointment in Joe Biden. He too has played an impossible hand with a fair amount of skill and hard-won wisdom. If there is some magic he can conjure to bring Manchin or Sinema to sanity, he has surely tried it by now. Of all the people whose hands are tied by the Constitution, Joe Biden is at the top of the list.

Which doesn’t stop him from getting pummeled at every turn. You can’t look at any press these days without seeing stories about his sagging popularity. As if, in these fraught times, that’s the only thing about him that’s newsworthy.

Just yesterday, the Post ran a story with the headline “The left dreamed of remaking America. Now, it stares into the abyss as Biden’s plans wither.” It’s a long article, and you have to read half of it before the words Manchin, Sinema, or Republican even appear.

Biden — and his whole administration — take all the blame, mostly for things they have nothing to do with. And he gets none of the credit for a record of accomplishment that is, in many ways, remarkable. You’d think Democrats, at least, would cut him some slack.

But Democrats will always be disappointed in Democrats — this is not new. Nor would it be all that concerning, if not for one hugely damning fact:

Disappointed Democrats don’t vote.

And therein lies perhaps the biggest threat we face, as a democracy and as a nation. Because in 2022, that democracy might not survive a low turnout of Democrats.

And if you think I’m depressing you now, just wait.

 

 

Comments

  1. In you piece you refer to an article from the Post which has to be read halfway through before the meat course. This is a problem and one which I believe the length of your pieces helps to underline. Your pieces are readable while so many pieces by others are way too long for the average person to read. Your brother posts many which just go on and on and try as I might I just can't get through them. I am a person with an advanced degree, but they often go beyond the groan point and I just give up, not because I don't understand, but because the message is obscured by utter bullshit filler put in to make people think the writer is brilliant. You, on the other had, have been a copywriter writing things that had to make their point and get the hell out, have the better approach which is say it and go home. Thanks for this. I wish it was catching.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with everything Frank said but for slightly different reasons. I just don't have the time to go down all of these rabbit holes. I just delete, delete, delete so much that comes to y inbox daily. So, yes, I've noticed from the start that your blogs have the right amount of words to keep my attention.

    As far as depression goes, I do have to limit my news intake lately, but I remain committed to Biden. These problems were handed to him. Even Afghanistan. That said, it has been his biggest mistake and he handled it all wrong for reasons that you could explain much better than I.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I