Thread by @tzimmer_history

As @ThePlumLineGS’s precise dissection makes clear, Joe Manchin’s position is neither consistent nor sustainable.

So, what’s going on here?

A few thoughts on what is animating the man who seems to be willing to let democracy perish - and where to put him historically: 1/

https://twitter.com/theplumlinegs/status/1401906141857259521

By the way, I’m as tired of thinking about the Senator from West Virginia as everybody else is. It’s not exactly the sign of a healthy democratic system that no one seems to have a clue how to get a member of America’s sole pro-democracy party to actually defend democracy. 2/

Unfortunately, in the system that we have, Joe Manchin’s motivations matter a great deal, and it is important to explore his view of the world. Broadly speaking, there seem to be two schools of thought out there: Political opportunism vs reactionary convictions. 3/

These are not mutually exclusive, of course, and any good explanation will entail elements of both. Analytically speaking, the question is how they relate to each other and what we should put at the center of our explanation. 4/

Are the stated beliefs just ex-post / public rationalizations, or is the opportunism downstream from certain core beliefs? 5/

Many people focus on Manchin’s opportunism and the electoral politics of his actions. I think @julia_azari basically laid out the smartest, sharpest dissection of this argument here: 6/

https://twitter.com/julia_azari/status/1401529823466508296

According to @julia_azari Manchin is signaling separation from the Democratic Party and cultivating his image as a moderate independent - a strategy for which she uses the wonderfully apt term “maverickiness.” 7/

https://twitter.com/julia_azari/status/1401530098126307328

One reason I like @julia_azari’s analysis is that it comes without the “How do you not see that Manchin’s just a good politician?!” nonsense. It’s quite possible to acknowledge some method behind the madness and still be appalled by what @rtraister calls “malevolent reasons.” 8/

https://twitter.com/rtraister/status/1401529069141962754

So why not stop there, with the opportunistic maverickiness? Because we still need to examine why Manchin sees this as a legitimate option - as he obviously thinks his actions are fully justified even when the stakes, as @julia_azari points out, are extremely high. 9/

https://twitter.com/julia_azari/status/1401530888001818632

Why do we need to explore the ideological dimension? Let’s put it this way: If Joe Manchin were strongly committed to the idea of multiracial democracy, this type of opportunism wouldn’t be an option for him right now. 10/

Generally speaking, when debating opportunism vs conviction, the answer, I suggest, is that ideology circumscribes and defines the realm of opportunity. 11/

This is probably a good moment to acknowledge the idea that the answer might simply be: corruption - that there is an even more sinister explanation for Manchin’s actions, namely that he is doing the bidding of wealthy donors and shady plutocrats. 12/

Look, no one should doubt the massive influence of mega-rich donors or the impact of money and corruption in shaping a plutocracy-friendly platform. 13/

But interpretations that focus solely on such aspects have obvious blind spots and pitfalls. First of all, they can’t tell us what politicians are telling themselves when they look in the mirror - an important question if we’re exploring motives. 14/

It’s unlikely that anyone would get up in the morning and say “I’m just a power-hungry servant of plutocratic elites” - with every villain being the hero in their own story and all that... 15/

More importantly, the question of ideological commitments still applies: There must be an ideological dimension that, at the very least, allows for any kind of opportunism - and, yes, corruption - to be a legitimate, viable option. 16/

Finally, in a situation in which the very future of American democracy is at stake, it seems important to situate Manchin’s actions within the context of the fight over democracy that is shaping every aspect of American politics. 17/

So let’s go back to the idea that ideology circumscribes and defines the realm of opportunism.

In this view, it says a lot about Joe Manchin’s core beliefs that he’s willing to boost his electoral chances by sacrificing democracy on the altar of bipartisanship. 18/

Many people have pointed out, as @jbouie does here, that maybe it’s not all that surprising for Manchin to side with those who want to preserve the rule of a wealthy white elite against those who want to create a truly liberal, multiracial democracy. 19/

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1401497480882274310

Here’s @NathanKalmoe making that argument in the most succinct form: 20/

https://twitter.com/NathanKalmoe/status/1401531086686011394

I think it’s worth elaborating on this and trying to unpack what might be Manchin’s core political project - because I believe it can tell us something interesting about the history of democracy in America more broadly, and where we currently are in that story. 21/

I’d argue that Manchin really doesn’t see an urgent threat to democracy. That’s not because he’s delusional, but because the version of “democracy” he prefers - defined solely by the existence of certain institutions and rituals, no matter how hollowed out - is secure. 22/

Maybe Manchin’s understanding of “democracy” doesn’t require majoritarian rules and all citizens counting equally - only that elections be held (doesn’t matter under what conditions) and people like him come together in Washington to hash things out (no matter the results). 23/

This idea of “democracy” can easily accommodate most of what Republicans are doing. Look at Wisconsin, where the GOP has basically installed one-party rule: I don’t think Manchin has a problem with that, as long as it leaves all the rituals and institutions intact on paper. 24/

Manchin does have a problem with open insurrection January 6 style - because it undermines the very rituals and institutions that define “democracy” for him, a peaceful transfer of power being seen as indispensable. 25/

Historically, Manchin’s version of “democracy” has effectively preserved a political order in which white Christians - and wealthy white men in particular - are at the top, and has not allowed for multiracial pluralism. But in his view, that’s a feature, not a bug. 26/

There is, in this view, nothing deficient about the status quo. That’s also why Manchin sees the danger to his version of democracy coming at least as much from the left as from the right. He actually perceives those who criticize the stability of that order as the problem. 27/

Manchin, of course, doesn’t publicly admit that he’s fully satisfied with the status quo, that he’s not concerned with the anti-majoritarian features of the political system or the fact that this system enshrines rather than challenges white elite rule. 28/

Much of the weird inconsistency stems from the fact that Manchin doesn’t acknowledge (or, quite possibly, doesn’t fully understand) the tension between his version of “democracy” and what those who demand a fundamental democratization of the system favor. 29/

He doesn’t say “I want democracy - not the multiracial, pluralistic kind, though, but the kind we’ve traditionally had in this country, the one that’s more restricted, more elite-friendly.” 30/

All sides talking about “democracy” obscures the fact that this term has always described a range of different political orders. It’s not enough to discern whether someone is for or against democracy - we need to ask: What version of “democracy” is it you envision? 31/

Interestingly, Manchin’s version of “democracy” is, of course, much closer to the historical norm in the U.S.: A system that was fairly democratic if you happened to be a white Christian man (and better yet: a wealthy man) – and something entirely different if you were not. 32/

And historically, even those among America’s political elite that revered “democracy” had no problem upholding a system that was decidedly not consistent with the idea of all people counting equally in the democratic process, regardless of race, gender, or religion. 33/

In this perspective, what is remarkable about our current moment is not so much Manchin pretending to be defending democracy while upholding a system that is democratic in abstract form and theory, but privileges minoritarian elite rule in practice. 34/

What is remarkable - because it’s new - is that those who call on him to resolve that conflict by siding with multiracial, pluralistic democracy have gained enough power and influence to make their demands heard and exert real political pressure. 35/

This, in a way, is the glass-half-full reading of our current situation: Manchin’s stance on “democracy” has come under fire because America really has become more liberal, more pluralistic, and is closer to being a truly multiracial democracy than it’s ever been. 36/

That doesn’t change the fact that the current moment is acutely dangerous, with American democracy being on the brink, as reactionary forces are radicalizing because they are feeling their backs against the wall. 37/

But Manchin’s version of “democracy” coming under pressure is, historically speaking, a sign of remarkable progress. /end