Hi everyone,
It’s been a while, but I’m back from vacation. Some thoughts about democracy to follow shortly, but first a few random observations, mostly about Covid, from our time in Italy.
You can pick up a three-pack of KN95 masks at just about any gas station or convenience store. That makes so much sense. And it’s a lot easier to get vaccinated people wearing masks indoors if they can find filter masks that give them extra protection, as opposed to cloth masks that only protect the unvaccinated.
All museums and a lot of restaurants required you to have an EU Green Pass (basically our Covid card, but you carry it on your phone) or other proof of vax. It was great. And I suspect it’s good for business - it’s much easier to be comfortable dining indoors when you know that all the other patrons are vaccinated.
Just when we thought Italy was extraordinarily enlightened Covid-wise, we drove past a huge anti-vax protest in the center of Rome. Our Uber driver shook his head and started complaining about misinformation on Facebook. Some things these days are universal.
One last thought: in the run-up to our trip, a lot of people asked if we were thought it was safe. Maybe I’m wrong, but it felt so much safer Covid-wise to be in another country than in the United States. An important reminder that being the greatest country on Earth does not mean we’re always the best at everything. Especially these days.
Which brings us back to democracy stuff. While we were away, chances for any meaningful save-democracy legislations dipped to way near zero and then rather suddenly (at least to those of us on the outside of negotiations) bounced back. Senate Democrats have released a revised version of what started as HR1 and then became SB1.
It’s surprisingly difficult to find a good round-up of all the bill’s changes, but I think a pretty good way of thinking about it is: the bill does most of what HR1 did (such as universal registration and gerrymandering reform), deals with a few new things that have emerged as threats after January 6th (such as election certification, and leaves some stuff out that I would love to see pass but that isn’t existential in the short term (some campaign finance provisions).
But the most important thing about this bill so far is, in my opinion, the name: the “Freedom to Vote Act.”
It’s in my professional interest to believe that language is important. But also, I’m pretty sure I’m right. Let’s start with the obvious: if you’re going to debate a bill, you’re going to say its name a lot. So you should be saying something that defines the bill in a helpful way. I thought HR1 was a great bill, but “HR1” is meaningless to most Americans. Let’s be honest, so is “the For the People Act,” the old bill’s long-form title.
It’s a lot more effective to say, “My opponent voted against the Freedom to Vote Act,” than “My opponent voted against HR1.”
But that’s not the real reason the name change is so important. I’m hoping that what we’re seeing is not just a change in language, but a change in strategy.
Calling a bill HR1 (or SB1) signaled that it came first - in theory at least - for the House and Senate leadership. That was nice. But it was also inwardly focused. It was about signaling the importance of the bill to Congress.
But referring in public to a bill as “HR1” also sent a signal to everyone outside Congress. “This is boring, legislative stuff - not the kind of thing you care about.” Which was totally unfair to a bill that could quite possibly be the difference between democracy and authoritarianism in the United States.
Even worse, it suggested that many (not all!) of the lawmakers advocating for the bill had adopted a topsy-turvy strategy. They wanted to talk in public about process issues - negotiations over provisions, calendar dates, the filibuster. But they were pretty quiet about what was in the bill and why it would improve Americans’ lives.
That made very little sense. Most American voters don’t care deeply about legislative process. I wish they did. I hope more of them do in the future. But right now, they don’t. Activists, advocates, and opinion writers should present process-based messages to lawmakers. That’s a wordy way of saying we should tell Joe Manchin to do something about the filibuster.
But this is not a two-way street. Lawmakers shouldn’t be sharing their process opinions messages with the public, unless they don’t care what the public thinks.
Which is why the “Freedom to Vote Act” is such a relief. Maybe this is a sign that Senate Democrats are going to talk about why this bill would make people’s lives better - polling certain indicates that the American people would be receptive to such an argument - and have their process fights behind the scenes where they belong.
No less important, maybe this means some Senate Democrats are recognizing that if they can pass a popular bill that has a huge impact, voters won’t care whether it passed with 50 or 61 Senate votes. Within DC, any decision to blow up the filibuster, or even tiptoe around the filibuster, is going to be covered like it’s the next Watergate or Obama-Wearing-a-Tan-Suit. But most people whose votes count won’t care.
Strangely, no one knows this better than Mitch McConnell. He’s filibustered everything he can under two Democratic president; refused to give Merrick Garland a hearing; railroaded Amy Coney Barrett through the Supreme Court. None of these procedural moves was popular. But none of them were unpopular enough to make a difference with voters.
The lesson of Mitch McConnell is not that power grabs are good. It’s that voters care more about outcomes than process. If “Freedom to Vote” means that Democrats have learned their lesson, that’s a big, big step in the right direction.
David