Regardless of your political leanings, Joe Manchin offers a lesson in courage not to mention a master's course in Ninth Grade civics
In 1956, a young senator from Massachusetts used his convalescence from back surgery to write an intriguing book about senators who defied the opinions of their party and constituents to do what they felt was right, and suffered severe criticism and losses in their popularity because of it. That young senator was John F. Kennedy, and he would go on to win the 1957 Pulitzer Prize for Biography for his book Profiles of Courage and subsequently the presidency in 1960. As a matter of fact, in the In-depth Perspective Series for 03 JAN - 09 JAN 2021 entitled The Senate - Profiles of Courage is featured as our book selection.
It's always interesting to speculate how past historical figures would view current events, but over the past several weeks I've been particularly intrigued to know if JFK would have included Joe Manchin in his list if he were rewriting his book today. And that's even before one contemplates the legislation at the root of the angst between Senator Manchin and his badly divided party, which is a far cry from -"ask not what your country can do for you - but rather, what you can do for your country."
Kennedy's motive for writing the book has been long-known, he wanted to boost his appeal with East Coast intellectuals before running for the presidency - still - his choice of senators (John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Thomas Hart Benton, Sam Houston, Edmund G. Ross, Lucius Lamar, George Norris, and Robert A. Taft) were all interesting subjects, and his book makes for a compelling read - as does the nature of the courage the author chose to explore; everything from State's rights to extra-territorial military tribunals.
Whereas on the surface an appropriations bill may not seem to meet the high-mark of Senator Kennedy's opus, Senator Manchin has not really viewed this legislation as an appropriations bill. As the Senator sees it, a sweeping change to the fundamental social fabric of the country should not be done through a reconciliation procedure (as was done with the Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare" as it's more commonly known, and which at the time fostered exceptional resistance from the opposition) but rather, should try to conform to senate rules and national consensus by seeking wider, filibuster proof support. This is why Senator Manchin's stand is, at its root, so courageous whether you support the legislation or not. Not only is the senator resisting harassment from within his own party, he's protecting the very integrity of the Senate itself, not to mention the constitutional spirit of avoiding tyranny of the majority.
Our founders (and the British and Romans before us) understood this well. Bicameral legislatures were formed to make sure nations don't run amok just because "the people" "want something." People (like children) want lots of things, but that doesn't mean they really need them or, worse yet, can afford them. Allowing for two congressional houses and a presidential assent means we have several hands on the checkbook and the credit card, and when voices of reason intercede (as is their right) they need not be branded as obstructionists for exercising that right, let alone their sworn duty as elected representatives.
Unfortunately too many currently in congress seem confused by this distinction. Hearing a congressperson describe a senator as being "undemocratic" for not voting in a matter a congressperson from another state views as a "popular mandate" misses two key points. U.S. Senators don't represent ANY individuals or their mandates (popular or not) in their state or anywhere else, and to do so would be a gross breech of their constitutional duty. U.S. Senators represent their state governments only. Their constituents have representatives to proxy them in expressing popular mandates and it's the senator's job to shoot them down if it's not in the interest of the state where they live.
Rather than lauding this virtue however (or even understanding the strength of divided government) our current approach to life and politics inverts courage into cowardice and vice a versa. "Activists" "protesting" in kayaks or following senators into bathrooms may seem harmless when compared to Thomas Hart Benton (see above) and his fondness for dueling, let alone when he was nearly shot pointblank on the floor of the senate by Mississippi senator Henry Foote, but it's not; a better understanding of our civic institutions could go a long way in mending our body politic.
What's more disconcerting to me however, is the lack of courage as a valued virtue in modern society, or worse yet, a misappropriation of what courage represents in the modern mind. Lauding the plight of social outcasts for example is a noble vocation to be sure, but is it courageous when to do otherwise will lead to social ostracization? At what point does this become bullying rather than courage?
For my money [as I have written in this column many times before, namely in The Politics of Magical Thinking (29 SEP 2020 - The Socratic Originals) The Quest for a Loyal Opposition (21 OCT 2020 - The Socratic Originals) and Our Governmental Teeter-Totter: Why "unity" is neither tenable nor desirable (21 JAN 2021 - The Socratic Originals)] I am not so concerned about "unity" as I am about consensus, and this is in all things private and political. We need leaders (and citizens) with the courage to express their views without fear of chastisement, and we need politicians with courage to tell their constituents "no." And while we're at it, it might be nice to have parents willing to tell their kids "no" as well so when they grow-up they will have a better understanding of limitations.
Courage is not found in self-victimization, self-persecution, or class warfare. There is nothing brave or heroic in undermining institutions, mincing history or blaming others for our lot in life. Ignorance (or willful disregard) of the law and our democratic traditions to disparage and discount the honor of others is not courage. Courage comes in many forms, but perhaps the most courageous form of all is to debate and compromise. This is a form of courage sorely lacking at every level of our society, and until we regain it, the next young senator who wants to write about the courage of his or her peers, will have a very hard time finding any subjects worthy of the ink.
Comments