John Fetterman’s purple pivot could make him the next Joe Manchin

Residents of Lilliput, one of the islands of “Gulliver’s Travels,” dubbed Gulliver “man-mountain.” In the plight for his freedom, “said man-mountain” promised to, “be aiding and assisting to our workmen, in helping to raise certain great stones.” 

Perhaps a figurative stone is the weight of the political moderates. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) the senator, as opposed to John Fetterman the candidate, seems to be doing this in a Sen. Joe Manchin-esque (D-W.Va.) manner. 

We might want to start calling the 6-foot-8 Fetterman man-Manchin. 

Capturing the politically murky middle is a difficult task, particularly in a journalistic environment where extremes get clicks. It nevertheless remains where the majority of votes lie. Manchin has managed to capture them since his arrival to the U.S. Senate. 

Is Fetterman replacing the outgoing senator from West Virginia, not in his seat, but in his role as the moderate thorn in the Democrat’s progressivist side? Let’s compare the two men a little and see. 

We can start with Fetterman no longer being considered a progressive. In Fetterman’s own words, “It’s not so much that I left the title” of progressive, “the title left me.” The congressional progressives who refused to sign a resolution condemning Hamas represent an ideological paradigm shift, one that would move Fetterman from progressive to moderate in the eyes of most Americans.  

On Israel, the two men seem sympatico. Manchin has voted against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which aims to limit Israel’s power in the Middle East by impacting the country financially. In an interview with Semafor, Fetterman reflected similarly.  

When asked before the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, Fetterman stated he was “passionately opposed to BDS” because “Israel is really a beacon of the kind of values, the American values and progressive ideals, that you want to see.” Calling the nation our “strongest ally” in the region, he questioned how anyone could “vote against the Iron Dome or want to harm Israeli businesses or the nation,” and said tying Israel to colonization likely comes from “TikTok or some kind of obscure classroom talk.”  

This position aligns more with the GOP than with his own party, let alone the Democrat’s progressive wing. Recent polling shows just 17 percent of Democrats sympathizing with Israelis, while about 69 percent of Republicans polled felt the same. 

This is one issue, but there are others. As with Manchin, he remains a Democrat and usually votes in line with his party. But, as a moderate, he is more likely to reach across the aisle. Sure, time will tell, but Fetterman’s actions of late show this positioning emerging with the senator from Pennsylvania coal country.  

There are plenty of differences between the two. Indeed, Manchin, a man of tradition and decorum, did take issue with Fetterman appearing on the Senate floor in shorts and a hoodie. This led Manchin to propose the Show Our Respect to the Senate, or SHORTS, Senate dress code resolution. 

Fetterman admitted that he was initially “kind of angry” at Manchin, but then noted the West Virginia senator is “not going to be around much longer and I’m going to get his parking space.” 

Maybe that replacement transcends a mere parking place and can be elevated to being another Senate filter of at least some progressive agenda items. 

More similarity is found in their energy industry positions. Manchin was fighting for the future of coal a decade ago, even calling for coal to be West Virginia’s state rock in 2009. Fetterman is protective of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in Pennsylvania. 

During the 2022 senatorial race against Dr. Mehmet Oz, Fetterman plainly said he’s “always supported” fracking “as long as it’s done environmentally sound and making sure that we’re not contaminating our waterways.” His rationale may be found in a 2018 statement he made on the subject when running for lieutenant governor: 

“We’re Democrats. We are supposed to look after working-class families. If the steel mill that wants to do this goes under, that’s 3,000 jobs lost. All they need to do is drill two wells.” 

He has been called out for inconsistencies on this point, but his support being contingent on “environmentally sound” execution and avoiding contamination of waterways seems to be the position of many moderates. We all want and need clean water. Calling for that does not make one a leftist progressive. 

Fetterman tips his hood to moderates and the GOP in other ways as well. One such example is his insistence that China and other U.S. foes “should own zero agricultural land in our country.” His mindset here aligns very well with Manchin’s on minerals and energy: Ownership by or reliance on nations less friendly to the U.S. should be limited or ended entirely. 

Further evidence of Fetterman showing a more moderate perspective is seen in the most recent bill he has put forward, the Consistent Egg Labels Act of 2024. The bill — with its two GOP cosponsors — provides, “enforcement against misbranded egg alternatives.” 

In other words, an egg is an egg. Not very lefty, is it? 

Jonathan Swift also wrote in “Gulliver’s Travels” that, “No person can disobey reason, without giving up his claim to be a rational creature.” Let’s all hope this is a truism. Let’s hope that reason prevails over blind progressivism for Senator Fetterman. Let’s hope that he is man-Manchin for the Commonwealth. 

In a politically purple state like Pennsylvania, that is what the majority of voters will likely desire.

Christopher Brooks is a  professor of history at East Stroudsburg University.