Why Progressives Must Get a Win for Mark Kelly

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ)

I rarely debate policy in my real life, because as a general rule I find it to be pointless.  Most people when they want to engage in a debate want to focus on being right more than learning, and that's not really how I approach any problem.  I always want to solve the problem, even if it means exploring multiple options, rather than making sure the problem proves I'm right, and as a result debates...feel fruitless to me.  I think political conversations can be important, for sure, if someone actually wants to learn or find a new level of understanding, but I have no interest in watching public policy debates because they are largely ceremonial endeavors that just make people feel the need to stay further grounded in their own belief system.

But there are exceptions to every rule, and perhaps the one I most feel the need to bring up in debates & reiterate is surrounding electoral strategy, and understanding when you need to shift tactics.  It is clear, at this point, that the Senate Democrats, who are currently debating the filibuster reform, have something of a messaging problem.  They have spent much of the past year trying to move Senators Kyrsten Sinema & Joe Manchin on filibuster reform to no avail, and in the process almost certainly not only damaged the approval ratings of President Biden by not being able to read the room, but potentially cost the Democrats an abbreviated BBB (if one can trust that Joe Manchin's word that he would've passed a smaller version of the bill that still would've benefited millions of Americans) by assuming they had leverage where they simply didn't.

That they're focusing on filibuster reform still, even though they know that they're not going to win this debate, and it seems get anything truly practical out of this, could be a case of foolishness.  It would not be the first time that a political party didn't try to get at least something for their work when told they wouldn't get anything.  But I am curious about an angle of this that showed up this morning with the announcement that Senator Mark Kelly would back filibuster reform if the Republicans continue to block the voting rights legislation before the Senate.

Kelly making this statement is fascinating for a variety of reasons.  First, Kelly is a first-term senator, generally considered to be one of the more moderate members of his caucus-if he supports this, it's probable that most of the other moderate Democrats are considering it (save for Sinema & Manchin), which would mean that Schumer is probably two votes away from a carve out if he was able to take it there in a future Congress.  Second, Kelly is notable as he is from the same state as Sinema, so he is proposing two opposing viewpoints in a purple state on a hot-button issue (Joe Manchin's fellow senator is a Republican, so there's no way to make this comparison).  And third, Kelly is up for reelection this fall-he's taking a calculated risk that this will help him (whereas Sinema is taking a calculated risk that backing the filibuster will help her).

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)

This gives Democrats (and more, specifically, progressives) a true test.  Mark Kelly is now taking a significant amount of political risk by sticking his neck out for progressives, and he's hoping that by doing so progressives will have his back in November, not sitting out the election due to antipathy toward the president.  If Kelly wins, it will prove that taking a position like this was not political malpractice in a purple state, and it will set up Kyrsten Sinema to be vulnerable in 2024 in a primary to her left.  If he loses, however, Sinema will look smart-she anticipated that Arizona progressives didn't care enough about filibuster reform (or didn't have high enough numbers of voters) to make the position tenable, and she was smart for trying to cling to the middle because it's the only way to get a victory there.  Some Democrats may scoff, but I will be willing to bet if Mark Kelly is not a senator in 2023, the entire party establishment will get behind Sinema regardless of her actions in the past year-Democrats are not risky people, and they aren't going to risk a seat they think will go red if not for Sinema (and if Kelly loses, they may well be right).

Progressives don't have a great track record of helping Democrats who take big bets like this (and I say  this as a very progressive Democrat).  In 2010, House & Senate Democrats were thrown overboard for backing the Affordable Care Act, even if it was the biggest expansion of healthcare in over 40 years.  In 2014, the progressives stayed home again, and again they screwed over Democrats like Kay Hagen & Mark Udall who had put their political careers on the line to back progressive causes (in the process, those apathetic progressives ended up confirming Neil Gorsuch by proxy).  And most importantly, in 2016, progressives truly showed that they don't pay enough enough attention to the elections proving that a "true progressive would be able to win in a red/purple state" is just a slogan, not reality.

In 2016, Democrats nominated to three swing states Russ Feingold (WI), Katie McGinty (PA), & Deborah Ross (NC).  Feingold had been an unabashed progressive for his three terms in the US Senate, and was running to take back his seat from a deeply conservative opponent (Ron Johnson), and McGinty & Ross, had they been elected, would've been the most progressive senators from their states in decades (in Ross's case, potentially the most liberal senator ever from North Carolina).  All three of these candidates were to the left of Hillary Clinton, who was still more progressive than most Democrats who had run for president (even if she was not as liberal as Bernie Sanders), and were basically the answer to "what would happen if the Democrats ran true progressives in swing states?"

Chief of Staff Katie McGinty (D-PA)

The answer ended up being "they would lose."  This is a problem for left-leaning Democrats, because they demand progressives in their primaries, but aren't willing to make the extra yard to win, either because there generally aren't enough liberals in these states to elect people like McGinty, Feingold, & Ross, or because they don't show up when those progressives need their backs, blaming the sins of the few on the many.  McGinty, Feingold, & Ross are not once-in-a-generation talents like Beto O'Rourke or Stacey Abrams (whom, it's worth noting, also lost as progressives in red/purple states), but they are, like Mark Kelly, what it takes to build a majority.  Republicans have understood this for decades (Mitch McConnell more than anyone), but Democrats don't understand that it's not about winning by miles every election-sometimes, it's about winning by inches so you can win by miles eventually (it's worth noting that had McGinty, Feingold, & Ross won their respective elections, it is probable that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would've been replaced by a Democrat, not a Republican).  Allowing people like McGinty, Feingold, & Ross to lose is a way to ensure you never really get anything done-you have to show up every time that there's a possibility to swing a seat to the left, and not just focus on one seat (aka how I've heard more about a Sinema primary challenge than any Senate race that's actually up in 2024 from progressives).

The point here is, Mark Kelly's move is a "raise the stakes" moment for progressives, and I hope they live up to their end of the bargain.  The goal here is not to just primary Kyrsten Sinema, it's to show her that her approach isn't the right choice for a state like Arizona, that the Democrats can do better.  But the only way they do that is by electing Mark Kelly.  If you care about filibuster reform, it's probable that you aren't going to get a lot of wins this Congress-the only way to live to fight another day is if in November, Mark Kelly has a blue checkmark next to his name.  Politics has few absolutes, but here's one-if Mark Kelly loses, filibuster reform is going to move from "nearly there" to "pipe dream" pretty darn fast.