Ranting On...Joe Manchin & Democratic Hypocrisy

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Tuesday Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced that he would not, as he had toyed with publicly, run for governor of West Virginia in 2020, and instead would stay on as a Democrat in the Senate at least until 2024, when he will be up for reelection & I'd assume the 77-year-old senator will likely retire after a long and well-publicized career in politics.  Like most things involving the Mountain State senator, social media went into a turmoil, first in a tizzy of what Democrats should do if/when he were to run (I was one of the people who was backing the "Stop Him By Any Means Necessary" method of supporting his primary opponent even though that person has less of a chance of actually winning the governorship, as a Democratic Senator from West Virginia is worth more to the nation than a Democratic governor), and then sighs of relief coupled with "he might as well just switch parties" from people who don't understand that Manchin's vote for Chuck Schumer is literally worth every headache that he throws at the party in the two years that follow it.

I am not going to write an article here that's essentially a thank you note to Joe Manchin.  I'm not so blind as to not understand his value to the party (a Senate majority in 2020 would become something of a pipe dream without him), but I also don't like the guy.  If I could have him lose last year and instead pick Claire McCaskill, Bill Nelson, Heidi Heitkamp, or Joe Donnelly to hold their seat instead, I'd do so in heartbeat.  Manchin is the worst Democrat in the US Senate, and the reason to put up with him is that Democrats, who only have 47 senators and not a lot of great options to get four more, are in no position to turn down a free lunch.

But what I was struck by with Manchin was the universality of people saying it was his "civic duty" to stay in the Senate-that it was imperative for the good of the country.  They're right, of course.  If you believe in the platform of the Democratic Party, and want any hope of getting the agendas of people like Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden passed, you need control of the Senate, and to get that control you need Joe Manchin.  But it's also clear that Manchin publicly hates serving in the Senate, and private conversations seem to indicate it's not all an act for attention.  Yes, as the 50th Democratic senator he'd have more sway in legislation than virtually any other person in the country, but he also has stated publicly that the best job he ever had was as governor, and if that's his wish, shouldn't we be celebrating that?  After all, don't progressives want a Democratic governor of West Virginia?

The answer is yes, of course, but the Senate seat is more important.  The problem here is that while everyone universally (and correctly) points out that Joe Manchin can do more good in the US Senate than he can as governor, and he is needed in order to get the Democrats control of the chamber, they seem to turn a blind eye and try to excuse other people who claim that they should be allowed to follow their bliss.  I'm speaking of course, of the triumvirate of Senate refusers Beto O'Rourke, Stacey Abrams, and Steve Bullock.

Gov. Steve Bullock (D-MT)

I have been stunned by the lack of reality checks every time I go on social media when it comes to conversations about these three individuals.  I am a Millennial, and while I am not someone that condones people generalizing about our generation as a rule, I do think our worst attribute as a generation may be that we are incapable of understanding that winning, especially when it comes to life-or-death issues, is more important than winning the right way.  People continually get mad that Abrams, O'Rourke, and Bullock get harangued & lambasted on social media for not running for the Senate, but it's almost exactly the same as Manchin-going after vanity presidential races or noble but less-meaningful-with-Mitch-McConnell-in-charge voter recruitment initiatives rather than pursuing the Senate seems akin to picking a governor's race rather than staying in the Senate (it might even be less forgivable-Manchin could actually win that governor's race), and quite literally saving the planet isn't something that should be applauded.  Yes, ultimately these people need to make the choice for what's best for themselves and their families, but I'm not someone that's going to make excuses for them or forgive them when they turn down such an important obligation.  It's entirely possible the decisions of Abrams, O'Rourke, and Bullock will mean that we replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with someone who looks a lot like Brett Kavanaugh or that we don't see federal gun control laws until I'm in my fifties.  Gay marriage, abortion rights, climate change, student loan reform-these three people may well decide whether or not we get any of these things in the future.  Yes, it's on all of us to elect them, but they're some of the few people in the country who could actually stop Mitch McConnell, and they're choosing not to do that.  It's okay to say that out loud.

And for those who protest that I'm not being fair, first of all-fair isn't always applicable in politics, and sometimes you have to go after the cards you're dealt.  Secondly, there's a long history of being able to convince people who said no to the Senate to change their decision (Mark Warner, Cory Gardner, & now John Hickenlooper all come to mind off-the-bat).  And finally, I think it is fair.  All three of these people know that they would make more of a difference in the Senate than what they're doing now...they're just afraid they might lose.  Beto O'Rourke could filibuster and co-sponsor meaningful gun control legislation in the US Senate (because, spoiler alert-if he was going to be the Democratic nominee, we'd have some sort of indication by now as he's gotten months of buildup and press to make a play in the polls), but he's choosing to hand over the reigns of that race to candidates he knows won't have as strong of a chance of winning the seat (and thus, a Democratic majority).  Same with Stacey Abrams-her work to improve access to the ballot box could actually become federal law if she was Sen. Abrams.  I'm reminded of when former Sen. Evan Bayh retired in 2010, and he said "there are better ways to serve my fellow citizens" knowing full-well that his seat would go red as a result of his retirement, and that the ideals he was espousing wouldn't be worth a lick if he retired in such a way...but Bayh was afraid of losing and didn't want to run.

I can't stop thinking about Sen. Sherrod Brown in all of this, when people chastise those who accuse them of being unfair to Abrams, O'Rourke, and Bullock.  Brown would probably be a leading candidate for president this year.  He comes from a red state, is a sitting US Senator with a progressive record, and is an excellent public communicator.  He likely would be able to consolidate all of the voters that are currently split between Harris, Buttigieg, O'Rourke, & Booker, being the pragmatic progressive for a new generation.  But Brown has a Republican governor-his state didn't elect a Democrat in 2018 despite valiant efforts to do so, and he knows that as a result his seat would go red if he became president.  And so he's let his dreams of being president go, probably forever.  It's the right decision-it's not easy, I'd imagine-but it's the right one because Brown is the only person who can hold his seat (he's not the only Democrat who could win the White House), and he knows he can do the most good for the things he believes by staying there.  Joe Manchin did that yesterday, and Abrams, O'Rourke, & Bullock should do that.  Politics isn't fair, but it is real, and it has real consequences-if you'd rather take a risk on a lousy hand & assume that the Republicans won't come to win, I suppose that's your right.  But the Republicans are going to play to win-if you aren't willing to do the same, don't complain when you lose.