 |
| Speaker Nancy Pelosi & Senate Leader Chuck Schumer |
I understand that part of this is because frequently what Democrats are standing for are much more urgent goals than Republicans. Republicans have long made issues like reducing government spending, implementing tax cuts, and (increasingly) stripping people of their right's if they don't align with the religious beliefs of the party a major part of their campaigns. Those issues don't have the same level of urgency that criminal justice reform or a woman's right to choose or gay marriage do, primarily because there's always a chance to get a tax cut next time, but if you don't have access to an abortion or you are being profiled by the criminal justice system, that affects you now. This helps Republicans to a large degree to play a long game (i.e. slowly chipping away at the judiciary for 50 years to get Roe overturned), and I think is partially why they don't pass as much legislation-they don't really believe in the concept, and they know that many of their beliefs are widely unpopular.
But where I get mad at Democrats is when, to use football parlance, they hand the other team the ball, freely, when they're standing on the 5-yard line. That's essentially what's happening this year. Many Democrats have spent the last couple of years being angry because the party won a trifecta for the first time since 2008, and they "didn't do anything with it." Putting aside that this is factually inaccurate (everything from the largest investments in climate change ever to the largest investments in public infrastructure since the Eisenhower administration to large-scale investments in American manufacturing...the list goes on & on, but this has been a very productive Congress), the party spent most of that time blaming Krysten Sinema & Joe Manchin for their problems. This isn't necessarily wrong (Sinema & Manchin's support for the filibuster cost the Democrats momentum on a number of issues that quite frankly both of them would've voted for), but it also gave the Democrats a clear out: elect two more senators, hold the House, and you will get everything you want.
Frequently when someone says something like that, a Democrat says the words rigged, gerrymandering, or "abolish the Senate" in short order as a quick excuse, and while they're again not wrong (there is a rigged system with a gerrymandered House and the Senate is disproportionately favorable to the Republicans in a way that is seismically unfair), in 2022...that's bullshit. The reality is that if the Democrats who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 voted for their congressional Democratic candidates in 2022-they'd get a stronger trifecta. 226 House districts (four more than they won in 2022) went for Joe Biden in 2020, and while only 25 states went for Biden (not enough to get the 52 senators), because of the way the races are staggered, if Democrats won every Senate seat in states Joe Biden won in 2020...they'd get 52 senators exactly.
This window is a one-time only situation which is why I'm flabbergasted that Democratic grassroots voters are going to let it pass. Three Democrats in Trump states are up for reelection in 2024, so the Democrats don't have as clear of a path as they would just electing John Fetterman & Mandela Barnes this year, and without some sort of gerrymandering protection, it is near certain that North Carolina & Ohio will be redistricted in the next two years, potentially meaning that we'll have more Trump districts than Biden districts in 2024. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and instead of going all-in, Democrats are lazily saying "Manchin & Sinema" and (based on recent polling) throwing in the towel when they are mere moments away from getting everything they ever wanted.
And when I say everything, I mean it. Oftentimes in politics, you have to make compromise on what you want, and there are admittedly progressive positions that the Democrats wouldn't pass in the next two years (you'll need a larger majority than 52 senators with 226 House seats to get, say, 4 more Supreme Court justices, and I think that erasing all student debt is a pipe dream until you start 55-56 Democratic senators). But if the filibuster would bust (and I can pretty much guarantee the filibuster would bust if you got a 52-48 Senate with a House majority), it would for everything, no matter how much politicians might say otherwise a couple of weeks before the election (you can't carve out an exemption for codifying Roe and randomly keep it for something else). And given that this Senate/House combination would be the most liberal Congress since the 1930's, there'd be a lot of potential for Biden to have as consequential of a term as Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first four years in office. Before it becomes a pipe dream (I would give just about anything to be wrong on the Democrats not achieving the 52D Senate + House majority but it doesn't look super promising) in 19 days, I wanted to show you twelve things that would pass in a 52-48 Senate with a 226-House majority.
Obviously the big one, but Roe (providing rights to abortion) and Griswold (providing guaranteed access to contraception) would pass. One of the things that is lost when we talk about filibuster reform is that overturning the filibuster would almost certainly result in more bipartisan legislation passing, not less, and this is a good example of it. Republicans like Nancy Mace, Susan Collins, & Lisa Murkowski would surely vote for the codification of Griswold, and the latter two would likely be convinced to pass a bill codifying Roe even if someone like Joe Manchin (who is anti-choice as a rule), would not. Some would be like "the Supreme Court would just overturn it again" but to that I give a bit of side eye. The Supreme Court overturning an act of Congress that pretty clearly they should be allowed to pass under the 10th Amendment would strongly increase the likelihood that judicial term limits & expanding the Court would become status quo beliefs of the Democratic Party, which no conservative on the Court wants. It would definitely buy us more time on the reproductive rights front as we strive to bring the judiciary to the left. Which brings us too...
The exact number is harder to get than you'd think (because the definition of a retirement is sometimes hard to ascertain) but there are at least 59 judicial nominees that Joe Biden has announced that need Senate approval (and there are more vacancies after that he hasn't announced replacements for). It is very true that Chuck Schumer will confirm many of these individuals during a lame duck session regardless of what happens on November 8th. In fact, if the Republicans win the Senate, I suspect we'd see him try everything within his power to get all of them confirmed. But I struggle to see how even the ballsiest plan gets through 59 judicial nominees, dozens of which have not had committee hearings yet. As a result, if the Democrats got to 52 senators, they'd be able to say with confidence that they'd get all of these appointments, not to mention any openings in the next two years (including the always present possibility that we will see a Supreme Court vacancy). They also would have to worry about less discharge petitions since they'd have an outright majority on the Judiciary Committee. If we've learned anything in the past decade, you want to get as many judges appointed by your party as you can-52 senators gets you there.
When Joe Biden became president, he re-instituted DACA, protecting Dreamers (people who were brought to the country as children) from being deported (something that President Trump favored). However, executive orders only go so far, as any Dreamer who lived under the Trump administration can tell you. Congressional action, through some version of the Dream Act, giving Dreamers a path to citizenship is the only way to guarantee that these people are given citizenship to the country they've known since they were children. What has stopped this (even Joe Manchin has indicated he'd be supportive of some version of the Dream Act) has been the Senate filibuster. Without it, it's probable that the Democrats would be able to pass laws protecting Dreamers and making them American citizens, ending decades of uncertainty.
It's worth noting that the Inflation Reduction Act did more for climate change than any bill in American history, and so the current trifecta, while it certainly didn't fix the problem, definitely took steps in the right direction. But we'd likely see a renewed effort to go after some of the things that the bill missed. This is where specifically you're working around Joe Manchin rather than with him (the bills we've listed above would pass the Senate with his name on it). You would likely see more regulation & charges on methane, power plants, & car pollution, and you'd potentially see expansion of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act under a larger Democratic majority, both of which were not part of the Inflation Reduction Act or CHIPS Act that passed through Congress this past summer. These could go a long way to fighting climate change, adding onto the work that I want to underline Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, and yes, Manchin should get credit for already on combatting global warming.
Medicare will undoubtedly be one of the biggest issues of the next Congress if Republicans gain back either house, particularly with figures like Ron Johnson & Rick Scott trying hard to gut the program. But the inverse is true too-the Democrats, should they have a trifecta without a filibuster, would probably be able to do a couple of key things on Medicare. First, they'd likely be able to expand the coverage under the program to include Dental, Hearing, & Vision, which are not currently covered, and would be a huge win for America's senior citizens. This, again, is the benefit of working around Manchin, as it's likely that he wouldn't back this move, but John Fetterman & Mandela Barnes would. This is a huge issue for Sen. Bernie Sanders, and without the filibuster (and the likelihood that Sanders might retire after his current term), he'd almost certainly make a push to get this passed as a legacy-builder. I'd also think that we'd see a major push to lower the Medicare age to 55 or 60, another thing that Manchin doesn't support. I do not think that we would see Medicare-for-All (I don't think public support is there yet for the bill), but these two expansions of Medicare would be a big test to see if the case could be made to the American people for a future expansion, and would be enormous benefit to millions of Americans.
A pretty simple one, but in the past Congress, a bill to limit insulin costs, not just for those on Medicare (which did pass) but for all Americans didn't make it into the Inflation Reduction Act. Without the filibuster, this would be able to be passed without using reconciliation, and given the popularity of it, it would not only pass, but I suspect you'd run into a lot of Republicans (and every Democrat) willing to sign onto a very popular bill. A simple solve, but a big one if you're impacted.
One of the bigger things that would come out of this hypothetical Congress isn't necessarily sexy in the middle of a contest about rising costs & inflation (I didn't list a lot of bread-and-butter things like tax cuts or reforms, since they aren't synonymous with the progressive grassroots, but know that they'd probably be a priority in the next Congress given the present economic situation) would be elections reform. Without the filibuster, you'd be able to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would strengthen the voting rights of minority communities in this country, particularly when it comes to redistricting, voter ID, and poll place expansion. It would also limit the ability of people like, say, Brian Kemp to remove voters from voter rolls in states like Georgia (which was a contributing factor to Stacey Abrams' loss in 2018). This would also mean that we'd see additional VRA districts in states like Alabama & Louisiana. I suspect that given the probability that both the Supreme Court and the state Supreme Courts of Ohio & North Carolina would redistrict the current House of Representatives before 2024's election, you'd see some provisions about gerrymandering reform in the next Congress both based on it being good policy, but also out of self-preservation.
It is a decent probability that in the next two years, unless Congress acts before then, we will see some action from the Supreme Court overturning the Obergefell verdict. It seems inevitable after Roe that this is coming, and a Democratic trifecta (without the filibuster) would be able to get ahead of this. It's possible (though I wouldn't bet on it) that Chuck Schumer is able to get a gay marriage bill passed in the lame duck session, but I don't think it happens unless it's inevitable the Democrats could get it through the next Congress. Without the filibuster, it easily passes, codifying Obergefell and Loving into law. I also think we'd finally see the passage of the Equality Act, which is particularly vital in order to pass protections for transgendered people, who have been unduly impacted by legislation in red states in the past two years. I think you could peel off votes from Collins or Murkowski here (and maybe even Manchin), but regardless-it'd pass in a 52 Senate/226 House situation.
The next two items on this list are items that Democrats honestly lost on in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), specifically because of Joe Manchin (and, of course, 50 Republican senators who refused to help). One of the biggest aspects of the Build Back Better (BBB) bill that got cut for the IRA was around early childhood education spending, which would be back on the table & almost certain to pass if you didn't have to worry about the filibuster & Manchin. I'd be curious to see what details might change (would they make it as easy for red states to opt out as they had in the initial bill if they didn't have to?), but it would be a huge step toward arguably the most important education goal for progressives (that isn't talking about the costs of college): making sure every American child has access to education at ages 3 & 4-year-old.
The other big ticket item that was cut from the BBB bill was around universal childcare, paid sick leave, and maternity leave. These would all be back on the table, and while the universal childcare bill would be the toughest sell (this is extremely ambitious compared to some of the other things on this list due to the high cost and the potential impact that it could have to parents' wallets), I would assume we'd see some version of this passed in a Democratic trifecta Congress. Maternity leave, for sure, would be on the table, ending one of America's most shameful practices (not guaranteeing pregnant women the right to take sick leave after they give birth), and expansion of access to paid leave, particularly for low-wage workers, would be a huge step forward for the labor movement. One thing that probably falls in this same department that would definitely be discussed, but I'm not entirely sure would pass would be a raise in the minimum wage. Particularly given we're about to go through a recession, I'll be honest-I don't know if even a Democratic trifecta could get it done, though undoubtedly people like Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren (who'd have gavels in this hypothetical) would be bringing it up.
I've listed a couple things (judicial reform, minimum wage law, and student debt reform) that I think would be tough sells even in this expanded Democratic majority. The last two listed here would be tough sells...but ones I suspect you could get through if you pushed hard enough. The first is DC statehood. It's clear that this would pass the House, and that Biden would sign the bill. The question would be-can you get enough votes in the Senate to pass it. Joe Manchin is opposed but both Barnes & Fetterman are on the record as passing DC statehood, so it'd likely come down to four people: Mark Kelly, Angus King, Kyrsten Sinema, & Lisa Murkowski. These four senators have been cagey on whether or not they'd support DC statehood, but it's possible when it transformed from "hypothetical" to "you're going on the record" that they might swing toward passing DC statehood. You'd need two of them to pass the bill-King & Kelly, in particular, could probably be persuaded. This would be an enormous moment given that DC would almost certainly send two Democratic senators to Congress (it'd be the most liberal state in the country), thus giving the Democrats a potential leg-up for future Senate majorities.
While Joe Biden has made major steps on marijuana legalization (pardoning many past offenders as well as moving to reclassify the drug), this is just based on executive action. A future Republican president could easily reclassify it (though the pardons are forever), making future offenders pay the price. Congress, though, could pass a bill legalizing the drug that would override a future executive order. It's not clear, though, whether or not this would pass. While acceptance of marijuana legalization has grown in recent years, it is not as universally supported in the Democratic caucus as something like abortion rights or gay marriage is. It's not just Manchin on this one. People like Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, Jon Tester, Bob Casey, & Mark Kelly have spoken with trepidation about fully legalizing marijuana, and without their votes, the bill wouldn't pass. It's probable that you would get a a compromise (like national legalization of medical marijuana), which would be something though the backlash of only taking a baby step even with a trifecta would be real. Proof that while we could have the most progressive Congressional session in decades...you could always do more with more Democrats.
0 Yorumlar