Understanding Joe Manchin

Understanding Joe Manchin
© Getty Images

In bastions of blue in New York and California, I hear variations on this question: “Why did Joe ManchinJoseph (Joe) ManchinThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Senate panel approves Interior nominee over objections from Democrats Labor head warns of 'frightening uptick' in black lung disease among miners MORE, a Democrat, vote to confirm Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughGraham urges Trump not to abandon infrastructure talks with Democrats 2020 Dems break political taboos by endorsing litmus tests Maker of 'F*ck Trump' lipstick vows to donate proceeds to reproductive rights groups MORE to the Supreme Court?” The question comes through pulsating necks and locked jaws, asked in tones of incredulity and shock.

In October 2016, I stood with Sen. Manchin (D-W.Va.), along with Sens. Heidi HeitkampMary (Heidi) Kathryn HeitkampOn The Money: Stocks sink on Trump tariff threat | GOP caught off guard by new trade turmoil | Federal deficit grew 38 percent this fiscal year | Banks avoid taking position in Trump, Dem subpoena fight Fight over Trump's new NAFTA hits key stretch Former senators launching effort to help Dems win rural votes MORE (D-N.D.), Claire McCaskillClaire Conner McCaskillLobbying world Big Dem names show little interest in Senate Gillibrand, Grassley reintroduce campus sexual assault bill MORE (D-Mo.) and a few others, in one of the most dangerous places on the planet, the demilitarized zone that separates South Korea from North Korea. Manchin led the delegation, and I was the only lowly House member.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now Republicans think they’ve placed many of those same senators on even more perilous territory, on the wrong side of a Kavanaugh vote in states that solidly support President TrumpDonald John TrumpFeinstein, Iranian foreign minister had dinner amid tensions: report The Hill's Morning Report - Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Harris readies a Phase 2 as she seeks to rejuvenate campaign MORE. The thinking is that voting for Kavanaugh would gut the small Democratic bases in those states, while voting against would energize Trump supporters.

Putting aside the more vital issue of using a lifetime Supreme Court nomination as a partisan wedge right ahead of midterm elections, how does one explain the considerations those senators made in approaching the vote on Kavanaugh? Is it about party, principle, or the people they represent? What goes into the political calculus of defeating a judicial nominee or losing more Democratic Senate seats?

To understand his vote, you have to understand Manchin. He is, on principle, a conservative Democrat. It is part of his value system. No one should be surprised by his record because it is reliably right of center. He never pretended to be anything else. (Disclosure: I’m friendly with Manchin, Heitkamp and McCaskill. I’ve raised money for each of them but have not discussed with any of them what motivated their votes.)

By the way, that is what got him elected in a state that Trump carried by more than 42 points, a state whose Democratic governor switched to the Republican Party, and also endorsed Manchin’s reelection. If Democrats have any hope of winning back at least some of those now hardcore Republican voters in Charleston, Huntington or Wheeling, a guy like Manchin will have to design and engineer the bridge.

But what about voting like a Democrat, I hear you say? Certainly a fair point. If politics was removed from the imperative of actually winning elections, Manchin could vote in a way he felt irreflective of his constituency and his values, and then Senate Democrats would potentially have one less vote to replace Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes Threat of impeachment takes oxygen out of 2019 agenda Chances for disaster aid deal slip amid immigration fight MORE as majority leader, as well as one less vote on other critical issues.

Speaking of other issues, Manchin is now campaigning on core Democratic values like affordable health care and investing in education. Slowly and methodically, he has conservative West Virginia voters acknowledging that expanding coverage for preexisting conditions isn’t a socialist plot. It’s, well, it’s good for West Virginians.

Oh, so just because he’s with us on some issues, we should tolerate him voting against us on this one issue? Not necessarily. You don’t have to tolerate anything. But could you better stomach a Republican senator voting with Donald Trump on every issue? Because that’s the most likely alternative if Manchin loses or leaves. What if he ends up becoming a Republican, like West Virginia’s governor. Then what?

I once asked Manchin about Republican attempts to woo him to their party. He scoffed: “I was a Democratic member of the House of Delegates for four years, a Democratic state senator for 10 years, a Democratic secretary of State for four years, a Democratic governor for almost six years, and a Democratic United States senator for eight years. If I became a Republican, don’t you think people in West Virginia would see through that pretty fast?”

I hope he’s right. Just not too far right.

Steve IsraelSteven (Steve) J. IsraelThe Hill's Morning Report - Trump says no legislation until Dems end probes The lonely world of Justin Amash Israel needs bipartisan support MORE represented New York in Congress for 16 years. He served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015. He is a novelist whose latest book is “Big Guns.” You can follow him on Twitter @RepSteveIsrael and on Facebook @RepSteveIsrael.