This week a friend sent me a link to Steven Teles’s New York Times op-ed (“Our Political System Is Unfair. Liberals Need to Just Deal With It.”). I found it hard to disagree with Teles, in contrast to the tact I had taken in response to Kevin Drum on November 1 (‘Is democracy alive and well in the U.S. and unthreatened by a “bugnut insane” GOP?’)

Professor Teles:

… As Ezra Klein has argued, our constitution “forces Democrats to win voters ranging from the far left to the center right, but Republicans can win with only right-of-center votes.” As a consequence, liberals can’t have nice things.

The argument is logical, but it is also a strategic dead end. The United States is and in almost any plausible scenario will continue to be a federal republic. We are constituted as a nation of states, not as a single unitary community, a fact that is hard-wired into our constitutional structure. Liberals may not like this, just as a man standing outside in a rainstorm does not like the fact he is getting soaked. But instead of cursing the rain, it makes a lot more sense for him to find an umbrella.

Liberals need to adjust their political strategy and ideological ambitions to the country and political system we actually have, and make the most of it, rather than cursing that which they cannot change. 

I accept this argument, while I dissented from Drum’s view opposing Ezra Klein. As I summarized at the time:

An off the rails Republican Party threatens democratic governance. Political scientists and other observers have made a strong case for this judgment. Kevin Drum’s appeals to previous eras of American politics, to past partisan skirmishes with wins and losses for each side, and to old school leadership fail to undermine this conclusion.

What gives? The short answer is: what a difference a day makes — in this case, November 3.

When Drum made his case (on October 23 and again on October 24), we didn’t know the results of the election. In particular, we didn’t know that Democrats would fail to retake the Senate and to increase their majority in the House. Barring a double victory in Georgia on January 5 (which I do not rule out!), Democrats will be in no position to advance a pro-majoritarian agenda (including judicial reform and admission of new states).

I agree with Teles because, at this stage (with a Biden victory and down ballot disappointment), we’re stuck (at least prior to January 5). Thus, we “can’t have nice things.”

Drum’s argument — regardless of whether or not Democrats were heading toward a landslide — flatly rejected the pro-majoritarian agenda as misguided, unlike Teles, who begins his op-ed with a reality check:

The American voters chose to give the Democrats the White House, but denied them a mandate. Even if Democrats somehow squeak out wins in both Georgia Senate races, the Senate will then pivot on Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Not only does this take much of the liberal wish list off the table, it also makes deep structural reform of federal institutions impossible.

This is the world we live in. We have to take stock, trim our agenda, and then move forward. Such is life at least until we regain a working majority. Teles agrees with this assessment (at least regarding D.C. statehood): “If Democrats at some point get a chance to get full representation for Washington, D.C., they should take it.”

Editor’s note: I began my November 1 post by noting that Kevin Drum and I do not think alike, nor do we agree on “nearly everything.” We do, though, agree (or very nearly agree) sometimes. On November 7, he posted how he voted on each of the dozen California state ballot initiatives. As it happens, I voted — with one exception — exactly as he did. I too was disappointed in how often I found myself in the minority (though this is nothing new).

The exception: I voted No on Prop 25, which would have ended cash bail. After some consideration, I bought the argument of some civil rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California: “NO on Prop 25 that would eliminate money bail, but replace it with risk assessment tools that are racially and socioeconomically biased. “

Who knows whether this was the right call.

(Image: voters lined up to cast ballots in California’s March 2020 primary.)