Two Competitions to Promote Understanding of the Sinema/Manchin Situation
Wanna Play?
I confess. I don’t understand, and I would like to understand. I imagine there are many folks like me who would like to know why Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are taking a seemingly irrational stand against the protection of voting rights, which both say they favor. The selfish reason for this article is for me to understand why and perhaps, in the process, help others to understand.
There are two issues at play here: (1) Modifying the filibuster, and (2) Restricting voting rights.
While I understand the issues fairly well, what I don’t understand is the Sinema/Manchin approaches to those issues. Unfortunately, their public pronouncements regarding their individual stands haven’t revealed any coherent rationale to explain what’s behind their individual attitudes. So far, what they’ve said to reporters seems to be out of synch with both history and current events as well as their own declared principles, and I think they’re smart enough to know that. So, what’s going on?
By the way, I know that if you’re still reading this article, you’re probably not a Republican. Most of that persuasion are thrilled that Democrats are fighting amongst themselves. They don’t care why. Still, even if you’re a Democrat and cognizant of the politics of our time, your political interests may be focused elsewhere, so for the edification of some readers who might benefit from a cogent summary of the issues upon which this article is based, here’s what I understand:
Summary of the Issues (voting rights and filibuster)
Republicans are passing state laws all over the country (29 states) to restrict voting in Democratic districts in a variety of obvious ways, like impeding registrations and eliminating polling places in those districts, appointing partisan election administrators and allowing state legislators to overturn the popular vote if they disagree with the results. The best way to deal with such malfeasance is by passing proposed federal voting legislation, without which Republicans are likely to unfairly win huge victories in the 2022 mid-term elections. As you might expect, not one Republican legislator has spoken up against selectively restricting voting rights. Meanwhile, Democrats can pass legislation to minimize or stop those restrictions, but two Democrats (S&M) are preventing the passing of these bills by their unwillingness to modify the filibuster. While they say they want to see voting rights legislation passed, they know that objective cannot be accomplished without modifying or eliminating the filibuster, which they refuse to do.
The filibuster is not in the Constitution but has been a procedural mechanism in the Senate by that name since the 1850’s, though it was subsequently used infrequently until this century. It has been modified by Senate majorities over 160 times, most recently by Mitch McConnell and his cronies under Trump in order to push through the approval of Conservative federal judges. Filibuster is an archaic mechanism that essentially obstructs majority rule, and when Republicans control the Senate majority, they don’t hesitate to modify it.
Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin claim that modifying the filibuster for voting rights would set a precedent such that Republicans would feel free to modify the rule to achieve their own objectives once they are in the majority, ignoring the fact that Republican majorities have already done so many times and that obtaining a Senate majority in 2022 will be immensely facilitated by not passing the federal voting rights bills. Their stand makes no sense, and when asked why, they talk around it, blatantly lie that modifying the rule would set a precedent, and never actually answer the question. Basically, their stand has no obvious rational foundation.
What is truly motivating Sinema and Manchin? I really want to know, so I’m actually asking you. To get your feedback, I’m suggesting two competitions (more like contributions; no entrance fee and no prize) to try to make sense of this situation: (1) a simple illuminating analogy that ridicules their already ridiculous stand to not modify the filibuster; and (2) an actual rationale (not necessarily true) for why they’re doing it.
Examples:
(1) Analogy Competition
Analogy to Sinema/Manchin refusal to modify the filibuster in order to pass voting rights bills…
a. MY ENTRY:
Man on the subway tracks yelling to S&M on the platform: “Help! The train is coming!”
S&M: “We want to save your life, but extending a hand might set a precedent.”
Man on the tracks: “What precedent? Help me!”
Manchin: “If people know they can be helped off the tracks, everyone will be less cautious.”
Sinema: “Sorry. We really, really do want to lend a hand.”
Man on the tracks: “But the train is coming. Help me!”
Manchin: “No can do, but please believe me — I don’t want to see you die.”
[Rumble, rumble; screech of brakes…CRASH! Blood and guts.]
Manchin: “Terrible tragedy.”
Sinema: “I wish somebody could have helped him.”
b. YOUR ENTRY: …
(2) Rationale Competition
Why won’t Manchin and Sinema vote rationally for what they say they want?
a. They’re being blackmailed.
b. They are “sleeper” Republicans.
c. They’re playing “Look at Me!” [The name recognition game.]
d. They’re being personally threatened.
e. They’re being bribed.
f. They each think their individual constituency approves.
g. They fear a loss of campaign contributions.
h. They enjoy watching Dem’s squirm. (The “S” part of S&M.)
i. They love being hated. (The “M” part.)
j. ???? (Your turn.)
I’m stymied. I’d love to hear your ideas. You can record them in comments. Most of what I’ve said above is in jest, and humorous comments are encouraged. However, some really astute ideas may emerge. Who knows? Together, we may begin to understand.
Wanna play?