Manchin’s Survival
Joe Manchin, Senator from West Virginia, was faced with a difficult choice this week. Manchin is running for re-election in West Virginia, the most “Trumpian” state in the country. He is the last of the “old school Democrats” of West Virginia, the Democrats elected by the coal miners union and the folks “up in the hollars;” the voters that sent Democrat Robert Byrd to the Senate for over fifty years.
As a Democrat, Manchin represents a key vote in the Senate, where the current split is 49 Dems to 51 Republicans. When it comes down to the most critical issues, such as the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, where every single vote counts, Manchin may well tip the balance.
So it is no wonder that he waited to the last to vote on the procedural motion on Kavanaugh. If the cloture vote failed, then there would be no final vote on the candidate. While most Republicans, and all Democrats other than Manchin, had committed, there remained three Republicans wavering. Senators Flake of Arizona, Collins of Maine, and Murkowski of Alaska all had expressed doubts about the fitness of Kavanaugh for high office.
Flake voted to end debate and confirm Kavanaugh. Murkowski voted against. Manchin waited. Clearly, if Susan Collins chose to vote against cloture, then Manchin would be the deciding vote (a tie would bring in the Vice President, who would vote for the Republicans.) By holding his vote, he made it pretty clear that a Collins “no” would mean a Manchin “no” as well, and the end of the Kavanaugh candidacy. It also might mean the end of Joe Manchin’s service in the Senate, as West Virginians were in favor of Kavanaugh 62% to 38% (MetroNews.)
When Collins voted to end cloture, it freed Manchin from the determining responsibility. He voted to protect his re-election, joining the Republicans and the 62% of West Virginians to confirm Kavanaugh. He solidified his position in West Virginia to win.
We can only project which way Senator Manchin would have gone if Collins had voted “no,” but the timing of his late vote indicates he would have joined his fellow Democrats if it had made a difference. And his fellow Democrats gave him the “space” to make that choice.
The more progressive members of the Democratic Party have complained that Manchin is “more Republican” than “Democrat” in his voting. What Manchin really represents is a test of how “big the tent” of the Democratic Party is. If Democrats still represent a broad view of politics, from the “blue dog” Democrats (fiscal conservatives, social progressives) to the “social-Democrats (Bernie Sanders types) then there needs to be room in the party for Joe Manchin.
And on a more practical note: if there is a “blue wave” coming in November, then the Senate could hinge on a single vote. Senate seats in Florida, Nevada, North Dakota, Missouri, Arizona, Tennessee and even Texas are up for grabs: if Democrats can gain a majority, Joe Manchin will be part of that block.
Now is not the time for Democratic leaders to push Manchin into the Republican Party. Now is the time for Democrats to build their “big tent” inclusive of a wide range of political thought. Manchin needs to have a place in that tent, for Democrats to have the best chance of controlling the Senate and to act as a barrier to the Trump Administration.
That “big tent” needs to be the model for the Democratic Party in 2020, when the Presidency will be back in play. As the “more progressive” wing of the Party gains greater power, they should see the need to keep moderates, and even somewhat conservatives like Manchin, as part of the group. That will keep the Party representing the greatest swath of American thought, instead of continuing the current process of polarization.
Joe Manchin did what he had to do. Keeping him in the Democratic fold is important, and accepting his views as part of the mélange of Democratic thought is important too.
