AMAC Exclusive – By Andrew Abbott
President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign hinged on a promise of unity and competence in government. Yet, only one year in, his legislative strategy has proven to be neither component nor unifying. Despite passing two significant spending bills, 2021 was an overall failure for Democratic legislation. But now, with Biden’s radical agenda stalled and electoral defeat looming, Democrats may be turning to a new strategy of stuffing old, failed legislative provisions into ostensibly “bipartisan” bills in the hopes of sneaking or forcing through a number of their progressive priorities before voters boot them out of office this November.
After promising to work in a bipartisan manner, selling himself to the American people as a pragmatic moderate, Biden pivoted hard to an aggressively partisan legislative strategy that failed even to unite all Democrats soon after taking office. Even the so-called “bipartisan” $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill that earned the votes of a few Republicans left conservatives worried about the raft of far-left measures tucked in beneath the bipartisan branding.
From there on out, Democrats’ progressive ambitions were too blatant for Republicans and even some moderate Democrats to ignore, as Biden’s $5 trillion “Build Back Better” bill and repeated attempts to force a federal takeover of elections failed in the Senate. Try as they might, Democrats have also failed to make much progress on other aspects of their progressive agenda like abolishing the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, and adding Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as two new solidly Democratic states in order to cement a permanent majority in the Senate. Now, with their public image in shambles and polls foreshadowing a Republican wave this November, Democrats appear increasingly desperate to force through at least some of their policies by any means possible.
They may now have an opening with renewed support for supposedly “bipartisan” initiatives like a reform of the Electoral Count Act (ECA). The ECA, which was originally passed in 1887, aims to set rules and procedures for how Congress counts electoral votes following presidential elections. Specifically, the law governs how Congress and the Vice President should handle disputes about which candidate won in specific states. However, critics going all the way back to the original passage of the bill have argued that the law is both overly vague and confusing, and could lead to even more uncertainty in a contested election.
Since 2000, the ECA has been used three times by Democrats to challenge the results of a presidential election, most recently during the certification of former President Trump’s 2016 election and both of George W. Bush’s elections. The ECA was also cited by a group of Republicans during the effort to oppose the certification of the 2020 election and was at the center of the controversy over the events of January 6th, 2021. The proposed reforms to the ECA would make clear that neither Congress nor the Vice President has the authority to overturn the official results of statewide elections.
Yet this proposed limited reform of the ECA, which has bipartisan support and a clear, specific goal, might be the latest target for a progressive takeover. In an interview with Jake Tapper this weekend, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) revealed that Democrats were aiming to inject “expansive laws codifying federal voting rights” into the bill. That language is alarmingly similar to the misleading rhetoric used to try and sell Democrats’ other three failed attempts at a federal takeover of elections. For Democrats, “codifying federal voting rights” has become synonymous with a complete ban on common-sense election integrity measures like Voter ID and an embrace of ballot harvesting and universal mail-in voting. Their additions would turn the bill from a transparent and bipartisan agreement into essentially the very same election takeover bills that have now failed to pass three times.
Democrats may have thus revealed their true intentions. By filling the bill with enough progressive priorities, they could force Republicans to either vote for it or turn against it. Should Republicans turn against it, Democrats would have a new weapon in their ongoing effort to tie the entire Republican Party to January 6th by arguing that Republicans opposed an effort to curb the ability of the Vice President to “overturn an election.” While the language of the bill is still being hammered out, Republicans have little reason to believe that Democrats are negotiating in good faith.
With Democrats desperately trying to distance themselves from the progressive brand and sell themselves as moderates ahead of the midterms – while nonetheless remaining committed to progressive policies – Republicans should be wary of other such attempts throughout the spring and summer. For example, growing bipartisan momentum for changes to regulations governing stock trading by members of Congress may also be ripe for progressives to use as a vehicle to target vulnerable Republicans.
President Biden has also signaled that he will now attempt to pass his failed Build Back Better Act in “chunks.” He did not indicate a willingness to bring Republicans back to the table, only that he would attempt to pass the same bill in individual parts that contain the same radical provisions. Given the smaller price tags, moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema may now be more willing to play ball, and Americans could end up with the same radical policies, just passed piecemeal instead of all at once.
As Biden and Congressional Democrats’ approval numbers continue to decline, their efforts to pass some semblance of the radical agenda they promised in 2020 will only grow more desperate. Republicans should be cognizant of this fact, and remain vigilant in opposition to any progressive scheme that uses the front of bipartisanship to ram through an agenda that otherwise stands little chance of becoming law.
Andrew Abbott is the pen name of a writer and public affairs consultant with over a decade of experience in DC at the intersection of politics and culture.