Mediaboss Marketing

Michael T. Hayes is Professor of Political Science at Colgate University.

Over the past few weeks, Joe Biden has sustained two devastating defeats: the Build Back Better bill and a subsequent attempt to pass voting rights legislation by eliminating the Senate filibuster for that issue. Both these defeats were entirely predictable given the Democrats narrow margin in the Senate and the clearly stated opposition of Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to both efforts.

Biden has more Senate experience than any other U.S. president. How is it possible that he misjudged these two situations so badly, setting himself up for embarrassing defeats? I cannot believe Biden misjudged these two situations; rather, he was boxed in by the unrealistic expectations of the progressive wing of his party.

A distinction between realists and idealists, first drawn by international relations scholar Hans J. Morgenthau, helps us better understand Bidens situation. Realists believe that our clearly imperfect world is a product of forces rooted in human nature, and it is necessary to work with these forces rather than against them. Despite our best efforts, moral principles can never be fully realized because nation-states have conflicting interests and inevitably seek power in order to advance those interests.

By contrast, idealists take for granted the essential goodness and malleability of human nature and sincerely believe that a rational and moral political order can and should be achieved. Where realists believe states have national interests and a legitimate right to pursue them, idealists believe the pursuit of power is immoral and national interests should be subordinated to altruistic values such as human rights or international law.

Applying this realist-idealist distinction to domestic politics, Biden is a realist. He recognizes that all political actors have interests of their own and a legitimate right to pursue them. Because conflict among contending interests is inevitable, negotiation is a normal part of politics and compromise is not a violation of principles understood as sacrosanct.

By contrast, progressives tend to be idealists. They believe solutions to pressing public problems are both urgent and self-evident, and those who oppose their idealistic visions must be immoralor at least willfully blind. For the idealist, transformative policies are not only attainable but the only policies worth pursuing.

In order to get elected in the first place, and to keep his coalition together once in office, Biden has had to pay lip service to progressive proposals that had no realistic chances of passage. To pass bills in the real world, one must taper down bills from the optimal to the acceptable, modifying bills as necessary to obtain the votes needed for passage.

Biden understands this. I am sure the president never expected a social infrastructure bill costing $3.5 trillion to pass, but the only way to convince progressives of this fact was to let them make the attempt and discover for themselves that the price tag was too high. But the negotiations, and the ultimate failure, were conducted in full view of the media, making Biden look weak.

Similarly, Biden surely knew all along that there was no realistic prospect for passing either one of the two voting rights bills favored by the progressives, which is probably why he put off dealing with them for so long. The quixotic nature of this quest was made absolutely clear when Biden went to Georgia to make an angry speech equating opposition to the voting rights bills with racism.

This was out of character for Biden, who (as a realist) normally respects the right of others to disagree with him and pursue whatever they see as their legitimate interests. But this entirely symbolic gesture proved futile in the end, as everyone surely knew it would, when Sinema reiterated her longstanding support for the filibuster.

Politics is the art of the possible. Some policies, however desirable, are simply unattainable with a weak electoral mandate and an evenly divided Senate. Progressives need to absorb this lesson.

Progressives also need to acknowledge that all actors who disagree with them are not depraved. While I believe the filibuster should be abolished for all issues, I recognize that my view may be wrong, and I respect those who disagree with me. Vilifying Sinema and Manchin, whether through censure resolutions or threats of primary challengers, is characteristic of idealists, who believe opposition to their enlightened views must be immoral.

A key moral insight of realism, which idealists seem to miss, is that a nation pursuing its national interest is not necessarily evil just because it gets in your way. This same insight applies in domestic affairs, as well.

Also in Opinion: Editorial cartoons for Jan. 30, 2022: Breyer retires, Ukraine tensions, done with Covid

Read this article:
Progressives unrealistic demands are hurting Biden, the realist (Guest Opinion by Michael T. Hayes) - syracuse.com