How Biden Got the Infrastructure Deal Trump Couldn't

[TiberiusB]

25. Serve the people, yes, but that doesn't mean beltway bipartisanship

In a sane and rational world, which you acknowledge we don't currently enjoy, bipartisanship would make sense, but now it's just a long slog toward corporate pacification and has little to nothing to do with the will of the voting public.

The Republicans are effectively a non-factor in any negotiations simply because their allegiance to wildly regressive social mores to pander to their conservative white power base combined with their decades long efforts to consolidate and expand corporate power are thoroughly established and documented. Going from zero support to suddenly a filibuster proof majority led by the openly vile Mitch McConnell is either a complete about face from the past, what, twenty years, or something far more sinister. The fact that millions vote for them is not a reason to accept their policies. If half the public favored returning to slavery, we wouldn't agree to split the difference and just go with indentured servitude for a few decades. Policy should be driven by data and our purported adherence to fundamental human rights, a term that tends to be rather elastic depending on the circumstances.

It has become ever more clear that Manchin, Sinema, Tester, Coons, and other blue dogs and corporate Democrats are seriously compromised where issues of corporate influence are concerned, such as the environment and progressive taxation. Perhaps most problematic is the opposition to the passage of the For the People Act, which threatens to enshrine minority GOP control for the foreseeable future. If the GOP retakes Congress in 2022 thanks to voter suppression and gerrymandering, what's to stop them from impeaching and convicting Biden for virtually anything they want? They will certainly stop any and all pretense at cooperation. Extend that logic to 2024 and states like Arizona and Georgia and you have a GOP electoral advantage that could very well deliver them the Presidency as well. Should that occur, does anyone believe they wouldn't throw away the filibuster if it suits them? What would a Republican voting rights act look like? Who would be able to stop the federal imposition of voting restrictions on blue states? What will "bipartisanship" mean then? I think a look back over the past four years answers that.

Consider the new revelations that Exxon may be largely responsible for excising the climate elements from the current bill.

[link:https://newrepublic.com/article/162901/biden-white-house-exxon-infrastructure|

Manchin, perhaps the most prominent of the "centrist" group, has made millions from coal investments. This bill has devolved into a corporate give away and tax dodge. There is some good in it, but gambling that there will be other chances in the future to try again ignores historical precedent and a rapidly closing widow on a mind numbing number of crises, from the climate to representative democracy.

I don't question the use of experts in any deliberation. The problem lies in the presumption that experts crafted this bill without actually establishing who those experts are or whether they might be biased. It's much like when some Fox reporter chimes in with a "people are saying..." generic inquiry with the sole intent of drawing out a response from the White House. It's an assumption of legitimacy without verification.

Though I oppose this bill, I, like many others, would be willing to accept the many painful compromises if it resulted in the passage of much more expansive and effective legislation. I'm virtually certain, though, that the second this bill passes, reconciliation will become a dirty word again and Biden's administration will be hobbled for the remainder of his term.