Democrats Need Joe Manchin More Than They Need AOC

Manchin's stand against packing the courts and ending the filibuster can only help the Democratic Party.

By
396

Here’s something you probably won’t hear from either the left or the right: West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin is a much more important and influential Democrat than New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or “AOC” for marketing purposes).  

Just this week, Manchin did something far more consequential than anything AOC has done in her entire career. Yet everybody is paying more attention to her. 

Now, when I say “everybody,” I mean almost nobody, save for the insular world of political journalists, party activists and, well, that’s about it. 

AOC, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other leaders of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party have had to explain why the Democrats lost seats in the House and so far only picked up one seat in the Senate in an election that was supposed to sweep in an army of young, very progressive Democrats under the banner of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
396
By
Comments (396)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    Well, its confusing. On August 12th he said "On Saturday, in a press briefing to promote a package of unilateral initiatives aimed at responding to the COVID-19 economic slump, Trump declared a longer-term goal. He announced that if reelected, he would “terminate” the payroll tax that funds Social Security and (perhaps) the payroll tax that supports the hospital insurance piece of Medicare

    In Sept. He said he may stop the payroll tax temporarily if elected.

    Since wasn't elected its moot.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    John Kramer

    The electoral calculus isn't hard.

    Trump was historically unpopular, but an accomplished brawler. Therefore, Biden ran a "small target" campaign where he stood back and let Trump lose. Standing back and saying little isn't great for downticket races.

    That's it.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    RR

    Jonah you need to have Ross Douthat on again to discuss his great article on how conservatives, centrists and progressives have let their wishful thinking lead them astray. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/opinion/trump-republican-democratic-party.html

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Alain

    Let's assume both parties nominate qualified judges. In 2016 the GOP senate refused to hold a hearing on Obama's SCOTUS nominee claiming that the "people" should choose the appointment. The senate was within its legal right to make this "rule". This year the senate decided that their own made up "rule" was inconvenient and did away with it, something that was within their legal right to do. If the Democrats have control of the senate and it is lawful for them to "pack the court", how can anyone blame them with a straight face? Why do even moderate Republicans praise McConnell as a brilliant political strategist because he got a "win" for their side but then complain when the Democrats want to do the same? It is tough to do the right thing. The right thing for McConnell to have done, for the benefit of political harmony, was to keep to his "rule", yes, it would have been a gamble he would have lost but it wouldn't have perpetuated the hypocrisy and acrimony so common in our politics.

    Collapse
  5. CatoTheElder

    A suggestion to all readers of The Dispatch—er, well, to everyone, really—read more history, and do so critically.

    Collapse
  6. dane christian granicher

    Hmmm... not sure I agree with the premise here. Manchin is just one out of 48 senators. if 47 others either favor court packing, or are mum on the issue, I don't see that lone voice making a big difference outside the beltway class. Jonah assumes that voters in Georgia are all diligently educating themselves, and not more prone to hyperbolic rhetoric. The 'defund the police, AOC agenda' boggy man is still fresh., and will be for the next few months. And, it's way more compelling. Plus, it's easy to write off Manchin's position as a guy in a dark red state just trying to keep his seat. (He's a good man, though.)

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      If the Democrats get the majority it will be a slim majority. They will need his vote. If he has publicly stated he won’t vote to pack the courts then it won’t happen. Will the majority of people understand this if they are made aware?

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    JAB

    I have been wondering lately if the American system of governance just really isn't built to accommodate the exclusively ideological parties that we are seeing today. This seems especially true considering that in any given geographic entity in the US now, there is essentially a one-party system.

    It seems to me that the US system worked best when the parties were more coalitions of convenience, with members of a wide variety of ideological persuasions. In that situation, compromise, discussion and governing were much easier, and it often had the effect of turning down the temperature of any particular political controversy.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Angie

    Yeah for Joe and the other moderates ( there are others, on both sides)

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    I respectfully dissent from the second half of this sentence:

    ===begin quote===
    The GOP wants to turn the Georgia races into an apocalyptic choice between socialism and freedom, and Manchin made that spin harder by essentially taking the Sanders-AOC agenda off the table.
    ===end quote===

    This presumes that Georgia run-off voters will agree with Mr. Goldberg's perception that Manchin has essentially taken the Sanders-AOC agenda off the table.

    To begin with, as Mr. Goldberg correctly points out, conversations about AOC "dominate" the political bandwidth. Conversations about Joe Manchin, don't. Between now and January 5 (the date of the Georgia runoff elections), AOC, and Bernie, and Chuck-n-Nancy, and the most camera- and cabinet-hungry Democrats on the Hill, will all be out there competing for political bandwidth. On a daily or near-daily basis, they'll furnish additional data points for the "socialism vs. freedom" apocalyptic model.

    Joe Manchin, who's not up for reelection until 2024, won't be doing that, and neither is he going to be crowing about how he has, indeed, effectively neutered the realistic chance of the Dems nuking the filibuster or packing the courts. (That, by the way, still leaves a TON of other mischief on the table that's entirely doable by the Dems with a VP and a Senate tied at 50, including everything they can squeeze under the reconciliation banner to bypass cloture.)

    And of course, neither GOP candidate is going to acknowledge the intellectual force of Mr. Goldberg's observation and throw away his or her playbook for the "socialism vs. freedom" campaign.

    Note well: I completely agree with Mr. Goldberg that Manchin's declaration is more consequential than anything the Hard Lefties, including AOC, might do or say between now and January 5.

    I just don't see that point as getting the attention and traction among Georgia primary voters that in a better-educated, more rational world, it ought to. I have a hard time imagining that Manchin's declaration will affect either turnout or voting to any perceptible degree, despite its political importance to those who're paying close attention.

    TL/DR version: "Hey, honey, do you want to swing by the polling place to vote in the Senate runoffs, or are you content to Netflix and chill since Manchin's taken the filibuster and court packing off the table?" I just do not think this conversation will actually happen in the Peach State.

    Collapse
  10. ROBERT

    Great job highlighting a little known but hugely important demonstration of adult governance. Thanks Jonah!

    Collapse
Load More