-by Patrick Toomey
Occasionally, one cartoon can summarize a long history of events. This Peanuts classic sums up, once again, how the party treated its progressive wing on the debt ceiling “negotiations.” It’s the latest in a 30 year line of betrayals that apparently will continue for the foreseeable future.
The chain of events that led up to the latest act of bad faith have been well-documented on DWT already. I will merely note that, NOT ONCE did Biden ever even threaten to play his strongest card and invoke his 14 Amendment authority. I will further note that neither the White House nor the party machinery tried to rally public opinion in opposition to the GOP hostage-takers. I will also note that Senate Dems voted 46-5 for this deal while GOP senators were 31-17 against. In other words, Senate Dems voted 90% for a deal allegedly forced upon them by GOP extortion while GOP senators were 65% against it.
I will finally note that Biden’s speech and public statements in favor of this bill are all consistent with his 50+ year history in public life. Cutting already-approved programs, freezing social spending, increasing military spending, and approving Joe Mansion’s beloved pipeline was summarized by our president:
"No one gets everything they want in a negotiation, but make no mistake: this bipartisan agreement is a big win for our economy and the American people."
Democratic progressives got NOTHING in this “negotiation.” They didn’t get a minimum wage increase, they didn’t get a public option, and they didn’t get any tax increases on the 1%. No priority of theirs was ever even on the table in this process. That didn’t stop senators like Brown and Warnock and House members like Omar and Raskin from voting for it.
As I’ve noted in Comments before, this paragraph from Yves Smith sums up this sorry process:
Now the President is running for a second term. His fundraisers openly declare that the campaign intends to raise more than a billion dollars. In recent presidential elections, contributions from labor union amount to about 6 or 7% of total political spending. Money in the amounts the Biden campaign seeks can come only from one place: from the superrich and very affluent Americans. And in a Congress so dependent on money flows, relatively few representatives in either party are likely to do much more than posture when it comes to raising taxes. For Democrats in particular, the advantages of first actually passing programs, then standing back and reluctantly sustaining votes to take them back are a dream come true for squaring big money politics with folk appeal. That is the real reason Democratic party leaders go along with the debt ceiling ritual.
For party mandarins (as well as most rank and file Dems in both houses), this budget deal was a Win/Win. They got to appease their investors who will fund their next re-election campaign while not having to justify their actions to dissatisfied Democratic voters. They can claim to have saved the country from a potentially ruinous default that was threatened by those lunatics on the other side. The details of how they did so are of secondary importance.
One problem with this process that the donkey doesn’t acknowledge is that this deal tacitly legitimizes the lunacy on the other side. The Democrats, as a party, have essentially given up on the concept of building durable electoral coalitions by providing tangible benefits to their constituents. The party’s remaining core argument is that they’re the only ones protecting us from an opposing party that has totally lost its bearings. When, however, you credit the opposing party for its “bipartisan” bona fides, you undercut that argument.
The other problem with this process is that it reinforces the idea that an incumbent president whose net job approval numbers are -14.2% (and fading) should be re-nominated by acclimation.
Party insiders love this deal. Outsiders who really care about this deal don’t. The chasm between party insiders and kind of party outsiders who will be needed to knock on doors next year widened a little further. Maybe it doesn’t matter—maybe the GOP nominee and his campaign will be so toxic next year that 2020 Dem turnout levels can be attained again. The margin of error for generating that turnout, however, just narrowed.
Part of me is still angry after seeing the latest act in a routine played out since Clinton and NAFTA in 1993. Part of me realizes that being angry here is like being angry that it gets hot & humid here this time of year. The party has limited use for me and for my kind in even-numbered Novembers, and it has no use for us otherwise. What to do about those sad facts remains an open question.