This is one of the clearest summaries of one of the more interesting critiques of the NYT call for a narrower, targeted and viable HR1.
But to me, it's very hard to read the reporting on HR1 and think it's the right interpretation of the politics here
But to me, it's very hard to read the reporting on HR1 and think it's the right interpretation of the politics here
https://twitter.com/ProfNickStephan/status/1400966194522435589?s=20
At first, it's easy to see why you could think of HR1 as a broad bill that's the basis for a negotiation that eventually gets to something viable--like Biden starting off at $2 trillion on something in hopes of $1 trillion. In this view, narrowing is a premature concession.
But if you read the articles about HR1 in Congress, it's fairly clear that it's not on track to even serve this limited purpose.
It's basically DOA, and it is not poised to serve as the basis for serious negotiations.
It's more like the Green New Deal than a $2 tn infra. offer
It's basically DOA, and it is not poised to serve as the basis for serious negotiations.
It's more like the Green New Deal than a $2 tn infra. offer
Now that's not to say that either HR1 or the GND are bad. It's just to say that neither can even be the starting point of a negotiation that has even the slightest chance of becoming an actual law, at least not in this Congress. The other side just walks out.
I think this is basically common sense, fwiw, given the origin, purpose, and scope of the bill.
But you can glean it out of the reporting, too. The bill is plainly regarded as an unserious messaging bill; Manchin's instinct is to demand a suggest a totally different direction
But you can glean it out of the reporting, too. The bill is plainly regarded as an unserious messaging bill; Manchin's instinct is to demand a suggest a totally different direction
HR1, in other words, doesn't merely lack support. Right now, it's DOA and going to be tossed to the side. If that's not true, as the NYT oped says, then ok nvm. But it sure seems true. And if analysts/activists don't put forward a bill that can be a starting pt, someone else will
As painful as reformists will find it, the narrower bill suggested by the NYT--limit subversion, suppression, and gerrymandering, plus preclearence--is more like the $2 trillion dollar starting point.
Even from that starting point, most elements would wind up compromised away.
Even from that starting point, most elements would wind up compromised away.
I should note that this is true under *any* scenario--even the one where Manchin gives up the filibuster.
In my replies, there seems to be a belief that if the Dems axe the filibuster that HR1 can just pass. And that's not so.
In my replies, there seems to be a belief that if the Dems axe the filibuster that HR1 can just pass. And that's not so.
This is part of a larger misperception, that the filibuster will be killed so progressives can enact progressive bills.
That may be the ultimate effect of axing the filibuster. But that's not how the filibuster will die, if it can be killed
That may be the ultimate effect of axing the filibuster. But that's not how the filibuster will die, if it can be killed
Instead, the only bill that could kill the filibuster is one that Manchin, etc., believes serious *ought* to have 60 votes--given both the process and the merits--and *must* pass, given the stakes. In failing, the bill proves to Manchin etc that the filibuster must go.
Voting rights could conceivable be the *must* pass condition, but nothing about HR1 is tailored to pulling off the rest
Or put differently, the bill that kills the filibuster probably also looks a lot like the bill that could get 60 votes in the Senate
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
