Watching West Virginia senator Joe Manchin’s efforts to build bipartisan support for a voting rights bill, I had a deja vu moment.  This all seemed much too familiar.  But when and where had I been exposed to a similar situation?

Memory recall in instances like this often depends on finding a unique connection between the past and the present.  Parsing the leadup to this afternoon’s procedural vote to limit debate paving the way for consideration of the “For the People Voting Rights Act,” I identified several possibilities.  Was the nexus related to the topic itself?  Was this debate akin to the 1965 deliberations over the previous voting rights act which Southern Democrats tried to derail using the filibuster?  Or was it just one more reminder of the multiple times a GOP senate minority used the filibuster to block popular legislation?  Or was it something more subtle?

To find the answer, I decided to examine the situation as follows.  From Joe Manchin’s perspective, what was his ultimate goal?  What would he consider success?  And there was the answer.  Bipartisan success required his identifying 10 Republican senators who would vote for closure, averting a bill-killing filibuster.  Exactly, 10 righteous men and women who would put democracy above party.  Joe Manchin was akin to a modern day Abraham who pleaded with God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if only he could find 10 individuals worthy of redemption.  Except, in this case, he was pleading with GOP not to blow up the Senate.

The exact deja vu moment was Genesis 18:22-33, “Abraham Pleads for Sodom.”  As did Abraham, Manchin began his negotiations thinking that he might be able to build a consensus with all 50 Republicans joining the Democrats.  But then he wondered, “What if such a high goal is unattainable?”  That is when he began to bargain.  Paraphrasing Abraham: “What if the number is five less than fifty?  Will you destroy this institution for lack of five votes?”

And his conscience answered, “If you find forty-five, there is no need to destroy it.”

Manchin to himself: “What if only forty are found there.”

His conscience: “For the sake of forty, our democracy will not be destroyed.

This back and forth continued, until Manchin reached what he believed was the minimum number of righteous senators to save democracy.  “I know I am asking much, but let me speak just once more.  What if only ten can be found there?”  Rabbinic commentaries of this account question why Abraham stopped at 10.  They asked, “If God would not destroy Sodom for the sake of 10 righteous men, would he not do the same to save just one?”

Not that it would have made a difference this afternoon in the Senate.  The vote was 50-50.  There was not a single righteous GOP senator who would ask, “How dare we call this chamber the world’s most deliberative body if we are not willing even to debate voting rights much less enact legislation?”  As did Abraham, after making his case, maybe it is time for the Senate to “leave and return home. (Genesis 18:33)”  Because they do not need a god to destroy democracy.  This afternoon, they proved they are more than capable of doing it on their own.

Democracy can still be saved.  Not by blowing up the Senate.  By ending the filibuster in its current form.  And again, Manchin is the key.  All it takes is a change in perspective.  Instead of looking across the aisle for 10 righteous men and women, he must recognize there are 51 within his own ranks.  He can still be the lead negotiator.  He can vote to waive a cloture vote, avoiding a filibuster, if his colleagues are willing to consider his compromise proposal which protects early voting, makes election day a national holiday in exchange for an ID requirement that can be met in a number of ways.  Urging fellow Democrats not to make “the perfect the enemy of the good,” both Stacy Abrams and Barack Obama have called the Manchin proposal a good start.

POSTSCRIPT

In truth, there is nothing “magic” about the number 60.  Several times since the filibuster was introduced in 1837, the rules governing cloture have been revised.  Most notably from two-thirds of those present to three-fifths of all members (thus the current 60).  And Senate actions subject to the filibuster have also been modified, most recently a GOP rule change in 2017 that waived the filibuster for confirmation of federal judges.

If the ultimate goal of the filibuster is to protect the rights of the minority, let me suggest a solution.  What if a bill’s adoption was viewed as bi-partisan if the majority required for passage contained at least one Republican and one Democratic vote.  For example, the recent bill establishing a January 6th commission would have passed with 55 votes since it included five Republicans.  In the current Congress, a Republican proposal would likewise pass if Mitch McConnell, et. al., could recruit one Democrat to support it.  Otherwise, a filibuster could be called only on a straight party vote regardless of the number of seats held by each party.

In biblical terms, passage of a bill would then be dependent on finding “one righteous member” of the opposite party.  I know.  That is a LOT to ask for.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP