Tug of war

Politico reports that the roughly 100-member progressive bloc in the U.S. House is preparing to hold up the Senate infrastructure bill (should it reach the House) “unless they’re assured that a mammoth Democrats-only social spending bill will also make it to President Joe Biden’s desk.” This is not new. Both pieces would move together. That has been the deal all along:

“Even if there were Republicans that come along” to help the Senate infrastructure bill pass the House this month, said Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), “we will have more individuals, more Democrats who are going to vote it down without the reconciliation bill.”

Jayapal said more than half of her 96-member caucus has privately indicated they’re willing to block the bipartisan Senate bill without their party-line bill in tow — far more than the roughly two dozen liberals who have gone public with their threat.

It is a chance for progressives to flex their muscle in response to centrist Democrats’ sticker shock and general obstreperousness.

Behind the scenes, progressive members have begun discussing how to wield their influence under the worst-case scenario: passage of the Senate infrastructure bill this month, with little progress on the party’s vast $3.5 trillion social spending plan. Still, even as several liberals vow to oppose the infrastructure bill, many senior Democrats contend it will be much tougher to make good on that threat when it actually comes to the floor.

And that’s the rub, eh? Will they or won’t they? Speaker Nancy Pelosi has committed to passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill by September 27. 

Politico continues:

Instead of publicly battling with their leaders, Jayapal and other senior progressives have leaned hard into their list of policy demands — from climate action to immigration overhauls — and helped those ideas win support across the broader caucus. Central elements of their plan are expected to make it into the Democrats’ final proposal.

Liberals aren’t digging in on the infrastructure vote timing to “make a statement” about their power, Jayapal insisted. “It’s about really being able to say to the American people, we are absolutely 300 percent committed to delivering on what we promised you. They want to see us fight for them.”

Part of progressives’ challenge is the breadth of their caucus in the House; it includes enthusiastic Biden backers, swing-district Democrats and even some members of the centrist Problem Solvers Caucus. And while the group is far bigger than its centrist counterparts, liberals are typically less willing to declare war on party leaders.

Progressives do not have a reputation for playing hard ball. They are committed to doing good, after all, and hostage-taking typically cuts against that impulse. This is why those who do take hostages have the advantage.

I wrote once about George W. Bush:

I used to describe George W. Bush as a Jack Russell terrier playing tug of war with a knotted rope. Once he sank his teeth into something, he simply would not let go. You could lift him bodily off the ground and watch his butt cut circles in the air as he wrestled with his end of it. But in the end you would tire of the game first, let go, and he’d retire triumphantly to his doggy bed with his prize. I was never sure myself whether I meant that as a cut or a compliment.

This how the right wins and we lose. The thing is, conservatives often beat the left, not simply with money, but with sheer relentlessness.

Are progressives that relentless? Or will progressives tire of the tug of war with party moderates first and let go of their demands rather than see Biden’s agenda fail? I honestly don’t know.