IF PERCEPTION IS a construction of language, as an American anthropologist by the name of Benjamin Lee Whorf explained, how Joe Biden’s party must regret the expression “Democrats in disarray”. Since it first appeared in local newspapers in the 1960s, reporters have used the term alliterative whenever Democrats quarreled with each other – whether existentially, such as during their desert years of the 1980s. ; or in the normal course of seeking consensus among their many parts. Reading the New York Times The website finds Democrats in deep disarray during the 1992 presidential primary, shortly before Bill Clinton’s nomination, and just after the 2006 midterms, in which they became the first party to control the House and Senate for over a decade.
Their recent performance on the Hill – to which the epithet has also been applied – might sound more deserving. After Senate Democrats struck an impressive bipartisan infrastructure deal, the party’s slightly larger majority in the House failed to pass it. Leftists insisted the bill had to go hand in hand with a partisan budget bill, containing billions of dollars in climate and social spending that had made some moderates nauseous. Together, the bills represent most of Joe Biden’s domestic policy ambitions. Yet Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the Democratic House, was forced to put them aside.
For Representative Josh Gottheimer, this was a case of his party’s “far left” employing “Freedom Caucus tactics” to “destroy the president’s agenda.” Strong stuff, which must have resonated with the many Conservative voters of Mr. Gottheimer (he became in 2017 the first Democrat to win his district of New Jersey since 1933). Yet it was incorrect. The content of the budget package is also on Mr Biden’s agenda. Exploiting both bills, as the president himself later acknowledged, has made it more likely that both will eventually pass. Moreover, far from mimicking Republican Freedom Caucus headbangers, House leftists, led by Washington’s Pramila Jayapal, have suggested they will make whatever compromises are necessary.
Early in this process, the left demanded that the budget bill contain $ 6 billion in tax cuts and largely unfunded spending. After the moderates opposed, it fell to $ 3.5 billion, paid for in tax hikes and spread over a decade. Most Democrats were happy with it. But among a handful of dissenters, Senator Joe Manchin, conservative and opponent of ambitious climate change policy, said he could not tolerate a package costing more than $ 1.5 billion. Ms Jayapal suggested this week that she would settle for $ 2.5 billion, and Mr Manchin, a die-hard wheel dealer, that he was “not ruling anything out.” Without underestimating the difficulties the party still faces in trying to push its agenda forward, it looks less like a real crisis than the cutting and pushing of legislation.
This is something, as the infrastructure agreement briefly recalled, that the parties used to do together. The idea was that by winning enough sensitive people on the other side, the ruling party could make its own radicals irrelevant. So the fact that Democrats now have no choice but to go it alone on climate change and other big issues that inactive Republicans ignore has therefore given party extremists a bigger voice. Especially given its tiny majorities: To pass the finance bill, Democrats can only afford to lose three caucus votes in the House and none in the Senate. Yet the intra-party struggle this has brought about distracts attention from yet another big change. Democrats are mostly unanimous.
According to the FiveThirtyEight site score, the House Democrats are the most unified caucus of the last three conventions; 203 of their 223 members voted with Mr. Biden 100% of the time. So, by the way, has M. Manchin. There are several reasons for this strange complicity.
For lack of a central credo – the kind Republicans once found in conservatism and now find in Donald Trump – Democrats are more of a collaboration of interest groups. Hence their periodic quarrel. Yet in recent years they have become less ideologically diverse, especially in economic policy, on which they have reached an interventionist consensus. Moderates and leftists still disagree – often wildly – on the details. Yet Mr. Biden, the center of gravity made flesh, has set parameters in which the two appear to be able to live. In last year’s primary, leftists talked about abolishing private health insurance. Their current feud with Manchin over renewable energy incentives seems limited by comparison.
It is less a testament to Mr Biden’s authority (which has been tested in recent weeks as his ratings have plummeted) than to the fact that all Democrats are eager to rule. The party base expects this; no Democrats were elected on the promise of torpedoing their platform like members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus were. Even the most ardent leftists have therefore finally shown themselves ready for compromise. And the specter of Mr. Trump – whose rise of Democrats often attributes to failures of the system of government for many years – makes this pattern even more likely to endure. “We will get there,” Jayapal assured your columnist, when asked if she would be willing under any circumstances to let the bills fail. Even with so little slippage, it still seems the most likely outcome.
Whether such a victory improves Mr. Biden’s miserable grades is quite another matter. Among the many depressing truths lurking in political science books is the fact that voters mostly ignore a government’s legislative record. Elections are decided by the emotions and fundamentals of the tribe, not by child tax credits. Increasingly tribal Republicans – who did not issue any manifestos until the last election – have taken this into account. By comparison, it’s good that Democrats are still ignoring it. ■
For more information on Joe Biden’s presidency, visit our dedicated hub
This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the title “Democratic Discipline”