When the House and Senate are closely divided, what usually happens is that highly controversial or transformative legislation is sidetracked or buried because party leaders have learned that some of their members see it as a difficult vote. That’s why only when one party has a massive voting advantage are bills like BBB brought to the floor. The leaders know that some of their members can’t vote for the bill, but they can afford to lose those votes if they have a large enough majority. This did not happen with the BBB. Although the House and Senate were closely divided and many members probably had misgivings about the vote their leaders demanded, the Democrats who represented red states or districts were told to walk the plank, and they complied.

Moreover, this is not the only case in this Congress where a leader demanded a vote that his members would have preferred to avoid. In early January, Senator Chuck Schumer (New York) required the Democrats in the Senate to vote on whether they would abandon the filibuster on two legislative matters — bills that would have changed voting rules that had previously been considered the province of the states. Although the effort failed, 51–48, it was highly significant for the future operations of the Senate. Forty-eight Democrats are now on record as opposing the filibuster on legislation — something that will change how Congress operates in the future. Not only will this vote jeopardize the reelection of these senators; it also tells the voters that if they ever again give the Democrats a majority in the Senate, there will be no protection for the rights and views of the minority. It also tempts the Senate GOP to preempt the Democrats by overturning the filibuster themselves. Again, like the vote on the BBB bill by House Democrats — many of whom were elected from red states — the Senate Democrats’ vote on the filibuster was an ideological statement, not one cast with the preferences of their constituents in mind.