“Right now,” writes Paul Krugman, “many commentators are urging Mr. Obama to think small.” Of course. After all this effort, culminating in all this rejoicing, will the opportunities and possibilities of an Obama administration be chewed up in the congressional meat grinder? That’s a key question going forward.
There is one thing the Congressional Democrats can do to help, if not guarantee, that they can enact meaningful policies and programs in a timely way. Time was, liberals saw it as essential. I am referring to the elimination of Rule XXII of the Senate-the filibuster. Next January, by a simple majority vote, this “tradition” with its tawdry racist history, can be gone.
So much has been made in the run up to the election, of the need for Democrats to achieve the “magic number” of 60 to avoid filibusters. But this whole convoluted situation can be avoided by getting rid of the filibuster. The filibuster is not only un-democratic, it is anti-democratic. For decades it was used effectively to block any civil rights legislation. Historically, it was used by conservatives to oppose and block a broad range of progressive proposals.
In 1963, Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania-an unsung progressive hero- led an attempt to do away with the filibuster. It failed. And the cause was not taken up again until the Republicans raised the issue (called “the nuclear option”) in 2006. Their reason was that some Democrats were using the filibuster, especially to stop judicial nominations. It’s not a good system. It encourages inaction.
The “center-right” argument runs that both sides need to filibuster to control extremes. But that just ensures stasis and weakness of the Congress, and continued dominance of the Executive branch. Let’s make a bold move to end what James MacGregor Burns notably called, “The Deadlock of Democracy.” We need to consider becoming more like parliamentary systems, where the winning party gets to enact its legislative program. If you are in opposition, you wait until the next election and hope to gain a majority to turn things around. Make a bold move, Obamacrats. Kill the filibuster and get on with the people’s business. At the very least, let the debate about this crucial issue commence-without filibuster.
Why would we want to remove a tool held by the Senate to give some power to the minority side of the aisle? Hasn’t the use or threat of filibuster been used for many years to stop the majority party from doing essentially “anything” they want. Clearly the Democrats control the Oval office, the Senate and the House and you are proposing removing the only tool left to the minority party to have a say in law making.
<
p>I would oppose this change and honestly would say I’d oppose it if the Republicans held those other majorities. While on a completely different subject, it’s like our Gov wanting to change the law on how a Senator’s seat gets filled simply to meet his political party’s needs at the time. These rules are in place for a reason and they should remain in place no matter what party takes over and no matter how large a majority they hold. As a matter of fact they are “sorely” needed exactly when a large majority party takes power.
<
p>How would you have felt if the Republicans did this while they were in power? Luckily most of our rules require years to change and thus allow the American public to weigh in and the ever swinging pendulum of political favor to come back to center. I may be wrong but I thought the Senate had a process to change their rules but those changes require a 67 vote majority to pass not a simple majority. But I could be wrong. Here is interesting story about the merits of removing/keeping the Filibuster and what it would take to remove it.
<
p>I also think it is a stretch to relate the filibuster to having a “tawdry racist history”. I don’t think you can “categorize” a procedural process simply because it was used for certain things in the past. Our referendum petition process in MA has been used for a variety of causes but I don’t think we would say it had a “humanitarian dog friendly” history simply because the tool was used for passing a dog racing law.
<
p>But I’m no political major so my thoughts are intellectually baseless other than life’s experience but I think this would have a short term benefit that would come back to bite supporters should the majority of the Senate go back to the Republicans.
and don’t even say to protect the minority. As I pointed out down thread, there’s a gazillion other protective measures. The only point of the filibuster, whether it’s intended or not, is to stifle progress. If the Democrats abuse a majority vote in the Senate, they’ll lose power next election and the damage will be reversed. That’s how the system should work. But the status quo leads to no progress, no results and no one party to blame, because the system’s broken.
<
p>Government should be ruled by positive results and progress; it should be rewarded at the ballot box when it happens. If there is no results and progress, it should result in the other party gaining seats if not the majority. That’s why I’m not worried one iota about future ramifications; ending the filibuster will ensure that even Republicans have to do what the majority of people in this country want, instead of just their base.
And IMHO it probably shouldn’t. Eliminating the filibuster would be tantamount to nuking the final shred of bipartisanship that remains on Capitol Hill. It would transform legislating into a partisan free-for-all, and yes, someday the pendulum is going to swing back in a way that we don’t like. Keep the filibuster, and work hard to bring over Collins, Snowe, Specter, etc. to support important legislation. Now that there will be a Democrat in the White House, those guys have no particular reason not to sign on to bills they secretly like but in the past couldn’t openly support.
… of rushing legislation through the budget reconciliation process.
<
p>
There are lots of clever ways around the filibuster problem, none of which involve the PR debacle of blowing it up completely.
If the Republicans are fracking up legislation from being passed. Let’s get true, blue universal health care on the table – as the American people want – and let the Republicans filibuster it. Then let’s get a energy bill up for vote that will set us on track for becoming largely energy independent within 10-15 years – and watch that get filibustered. Then bring up other measures that are universally popular – and watch them get defeated. Then go nuclear.
<
p>Don’t be shortsighted. Sure, the punditocracy will cry bloody murder, but don’t assume that means the public is too. (See bailout bill). And even if they do, they’ll cease in about 2 seconds after we pass universal health care, a true energy reform bill and half a dozen other things that the people are calling for. Indeed, ending the filibuster may just save or increase the democratic majority, should it be accompanied with results. The people asked for change this election – they demanded it – and we must give it to them. All this “bipartisan” crap that the punditocracy is now spewing is assuredly NOT what the people called for when they gave us 20 more seats in the house, 6-7 more seats in the Senate and a presidential mandate.
<
p>David, I think you’re in full-blown democratic “grasping defeat from the jaws of victory” mode, along with the others in this thread who are scared of ending the filibuster. If it works (better) every where else, why couldn’t it work here? And if we want our checks and balances, we already have dozens of them!
Theoretically.
We gave up nearly 20 years of universal health care because the Republicans were being obstructionists and the Democrats didn’t do anything about it. Was the mythic need of the filibuster worth all the hundreds of thousands who died needlessly since then, because they didn’t have decent health insurance?
<
p>We can’t be shortsighted. Any anger directed toward us for going nuclear – which wasn’t directed at the Republicans when they threatened it, btw – will be quickly forgotten when 40 million Americans are kissing our feet for giving them health care and another 200 million are thankful we made it better ad more affordable. (And, finally, let’s remember: Republicans didn’t go nuclear only because we promised not to actually filibuster. They would have gone nuclear in a second had we actually filibustered any of their judicial picks. They WILL go nuclear in the future when they’re back in power – that’s a guarantee. We have to stop playing with these people as if they can be trusted or won’t stab us in the back. We have to stop grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. We have to start actually standing up for the Americans that put us in power!)
we get plenty of ‘checks and balances’ in our own party, which is ideologically all over the map anyway. There’s no need to fear going nuclear in the Senate when we have Byrd and Bill Nelson around.
When it leads bills being passed that does nothing, or it leads to the failure of bills like the immigration bill (which couldn’t get 60 votes, if I’m not mistaken, despite its bipartisanship)… or bills that are passed using pork instead of for their promise – see every farm bill, energy bill and most recently the bailout.
<
p>The Democrats will lose power if they can’t achieve real results. I don’t mind bringing over the Snowes and Spectres of the world, but sometimes bringing over them will mean the bills will have to be so thoroughly dilluted that that’s not going to help the American people or be what they wanted anymore. In that case, bipartisanship will lead to something universally unlikeable (see bailout bill).
<
p>No other major democracy in the world has this ‘bipartisanship’ thing quite like we do. Instead, they do government by results. And what are those results? Universal health care that’s cheaper, better and, well, truly universal. European countries and countries like Japan are doing far more to tackle global warming and to provide great public transportation. All of these measures cannot get 60 votes in the Senate and therefore will likely never happen in America, even if half of Florida sinks as the glaciers melt.
<
p>We have to think of new ways of doing things in America and embracing change. We can have our checks and balances cake and eat it too. Ending the filibuster will not make things easy to pass. One party government is incredibly rare in America, so usually there’s that added check already. But even in cases when there isn’t, it’s not like passing one thing in the Senate and the other in the House is easy. There’s committees to get it through, people needed to cosponsor, then the conference committee to work out a compromise and, finally, a presidential veto. And IF there’s one party rule, then the people of this country will no who to blame should any party misuse its power or even just suck at getting results. The filibuster just confuses things and allows people to blame everyone in the Senate. It’s a key reason why the Congress in America is even less popular than Bush!
Robert’s Rules actually requires 2/3 to shut down debate so 3/5 is not unreasonable. However, I would prohibit the hours-long floor holding by reading a phonebook or something else irrelevant. I would also eliminate holds and possible amend the Constitution to require a supermajority for approval of judges.
<
p>Poppycock. We have different thresholds for different actions. 50%+1 is a threshold, 2/3s is a threshold, even 3/4ths in rare cases. Requiring 3/5s for a particular action doesn’t make it un- or anti-democratic.
it’s a majority.
<
p>We’ve decided that some things are so important that they require a supermajority to change it. But almost everything in America is decided by majority, including whether or not we have the filibuster in the senate. The filibuster on basic things is absolutely, positively un and anti democratic. It was used to suppress civil rights and it is used to kill things that the majority or even supermajority of people want, that have the votes to pass by flying colors… just not 60 of them. How many hundreds of thousands have died in this country because we can’t get a universal bill that tackles affordability through the filibuster, despite the fact that the people of this country are pleading for it? If that’s not undemocratic, antidemocratic – and just plain old evil – I don’t know what is.
<
p>I have an aunt who died from cancer in part because she didn’t have insurance and couldn’t go to the doctors in time to stop it. Maybe she would have died anyway, but at least she would have had a fighting chance. Like I said, evil.
Firstly, 50% + 1 is a threshold. It happens to also be a majority. An orange feathered friend is both an oriole and a bird.
<
p>You then continue to bang the same drum you’ve posted about five times on this thread, even 4-rating folks you disagree with on content while simultaneously debating.
<
p>
<
p>We get that you want 51 votes to pass every bill. That’s cool. But, to claim that any other threshold is “absolutely, positively un and anti democratic” is nonsense.
<
p>Is requiring two thirds of Congress in agreement to change the Constitution undemocratic? Of course not. How about three fourths of states? That too is neither un nor anti democratic. Heck, in most states a majority isn’t even required to be elected — a simple plurality is all that’s needed.
<
p>Democratic is not analogous to simple majority. It’s simply not. You can jump up and down and scream all you like, but on that point, you are wrong. Support the removal of the filibuster. There’s plenty of good arguments to do so. Insisting that democracy requires simple majority isn’t a good one though.
The founders were concerned about rampant unchecked power of any kind. The Constitution has checks and balances between branches of the federal government, between the fed and the state, between the people and the feds, and among the “people” themselves. Their intent was not, necessarily, to block or impede “democracy” or the “will of the people”, but to force consensus and compromise and – this is the biggy – to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
<
p>I think Prop 8 in California is a good example of the later, a majority of the people voting to deny rights to a minority. Conservatives screamed bloody murder about the “anti-democracy” tactics used to keep our own version of Prop 8 off the ballot. Liberals response was that the majority should not be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority.
<
p>One person’s “checks and balances” is another persons roadblock. The filibuster is not anti-democratic. We do not have complete and total freedom. You cannot, for example, yell fire in a crowded movie theater. Limits on the rights of some insure rights for all.
<
p>The filibuster sucks, yes. But I think:
<
p>a. we don’t need to get rid of it, or get over 60 seats. I think we can peel off enough Republicans to get over the 60 for cloture.
<
p>b. I think the push to get 60 senate seats may have backfired. I think the GOP got traction playing on fears of our getting 60. Republicans outdid the polls in several contests (Stevens, McConnell, Chambliss, Coleman) at least partly by playing that “checks and balances” card. McConnell in particular played that card, to McCain’s chagrin.
<
p>
have been dead for more than 200 years.
<
p>Furthermore, the founders did not insert the filibuster into the constitution. They did not see it as necessary to prevent abuse of power, or as needed to ensure proper checks and balances. And moreover, they NEVER used the filibuster and didn’t even intend for it to be used.
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…
<
p>
<
p>So, like I said, it was not a mechanism intended by the founding fathers. If it were, they would have enshrined it in the constitution. They saw the two houses, President and courts as plenty for checks and balances – indeed, they’re more checks and balances than any other country has that I’m aware of, most using a parliamentary system. Even the President of France’s veto power is a veto that only works for 2 weeks.
<
p>
<
p>A few things will happen: bills will be diluted to bring along 2-3 more people, largely to the point that they won’t be effective, won’t be what the people want and won’t help us maintain our majority next election. Often, these Republicans will be bribed with pork to get them along, so not only will these bills be FUBAR, they’ll be expensive FUBAR and include provisions like money for a golf club in rural Pennsylvania just to get Senator Spectre along for an energy bill. No thanks.
<
p>
<
p>And that’s a very shortsighted look at things. People want results. They’ll quickly forget any fears once they get results. Long term and medium term views are important in government – it’s one thing Republicans lacked in their quest for political power.
<
p>Furthermore, when the Republicans threatened the nuclear option, the people in large part were not rebuking them. Most people didn’t even realize it was about to happen. And they would have gone nuclear had we not basically promised not to filibuster. They WILL go nuclear in the future, as soon as they get power and we try to block someone or something they really want. I don’t understand why liberals keep thinking we can trust the Republican Party? They’ll eat your baby if it helps them pass a bill.
<
p>
<
p>If you’re comparing it to the filibuster, that’s a TERRIBLE example. For starters, Prop 8 may be unconstitutional. There’s 3 challenges to it right now and I think they have at least a 50% chance of winning. Furthermore, Prop 8 was a constitutional issue. We already require a supermajority to change the federal constitution, so again, your comparison fails.
<
p>The filibuster can be used to prevent basic bills from passing – if you want a better Californian example, compare it to their budget process. They require a 2/3rds majority to pass the budget, making budget matters nearly impossible and helping explain why that state has had so much fiscal problems despite being the world’s 5th largest economy and a very wealthy state.
<
p>The tyranny of the majority is a very silly argument to bring into this conversation – incredibly silly and niave. No offense. For starters, Alexis de Toqueville, who coined the term in his book Democracy in America, never thought it was a huge problem in this country. Furthermore, that’s why we have the House, Senate and courts to help – and that’s why we have elections every 2, 4 and 6 years to replace these people. That’s why we have term limits for Presidents. We have so many checks and balances that the filibuster can only be used to stifle progress, not to really protect us from anything. The only thing I think we should keep the filibuster for is presidential appointments – and that’s only if Democrats are willing to actually filibuster in the future as Republicans surely will. So, actually, no, it’s better to just get rid of it.
… is indeed something to be protected against when it comes to civil rights. Just pointing it out.
but if our constitution, separation, president, courts, individual states and federal agencies can’t do that – what makes you think the filibuster can?
<
p>Indeed, as has been pointed out in this thread, the filibuster has been used frequently in the past to prevent civil rights legislation or things like Martin Luther King, Jr. Day from becoming a national holiday.
<
p>The filibuster is far more likely to prevent civil rights expansion than to protect them. And, heaven forbid the republicans ever did strip civil rights from the Senate, the nation will be in position to punish them at the next election.
<
p>The Tyranny of the Majority is something to be watched, for sure, but we can’t let the bogeyman scare us away from progress – because the bogeyman is fictional while the need for progress is real. The two closest things to demagogues in this country – and this is where de Toqueville had some minor fears re: the Tyranny of the Majority – have been sent packing by a) our current check and balance called executive term limits and b) the will of the majority with help from a suddenly half-decent media who fell in love with a $150,000 story.
… to filibusters per se. Just that the term could be applicable. Upon further thought though, you’re right in that it would be unlikely to apply vis a vis filibusters.
<
p>I have to disagree with you about term limits. I’m not sure what they protect against… the will of the people? When it comes to protections against a ‘tyranny of the majority’ I’d rather people get to elect who they want and the structures in which officials operate contain the protections. It’s a little unnerving to think of being ‘protected’ from an election.
which is where de Toqueville thought that the Tyranny of the Majority could become a problem, because a demagogue could control the majority.
<
p>I favor term limits for the President only. Furthermore, I don’t think that Presidents should be excluded from running again later on… just that they shouldn’t be able to run for more than 2 terms consecutively.
… the system the Romans had for Consuls. One year term… no more than one term in ten years.
and there’s an election midway through to see if they should stay on… then, yeah, it’s similar =p
I always thought of term limits as an attempted protection against “entrenchment of politicians”, with the effect that incumbents just keep buildig their war chests, thus discouraging any opposition, so that people remain in office less on their merits as on the political inertia and the ability to outspend potential adversaries. For instance, have either of you ever considered running for senate or even Congress? Why is the idea so completely out of the question for the vast majority of perfectly decent, intelligent, and hard-working citizens?
Maybe term limits wouldn’t solve this problem, and maybe it makes perfect sense for there to be a certain “career ladder” for politicians- but still I always thought that some of the founders envisioned serving in government as more of a temporary thing than a career, with frequent turnover being a healthy thing.
Are the incumbents that much smarter, better educated, and more talented than the average person? Is this why we feel compelled to send them back year after year (on a local level, as well as nationally)? Or is it that very few people even consider opposing them, because the prospect is just way too daunting?
In other words, is Tom Menino really that good a mayor?
I’ll have to ponder on it and get back to you (tonight probably).
There is something to be said, of course, of the non-meritorious aspects of ‘inertia’. That being said, there is also something to be said about ‘professional’ politicians… that is people who make a point of developing the skills of navigating legislative procedures and such. I’ve got to imagine the learning curve isn’t inconsequential. Maybe that is an acceptable trade off, but then again maybe it isn’t. I’m not sure what the founders had in mind historically, but I’m not sure its relevant anyway since the modern context might demand a different response anyway.
<
p>I think the problem of incumbency is primarily a problem of money. The surest bet you can make is against a persons election when the opponent can out spend them. Once ensconced in power, one becomes the person lobbied for any particular issue one has influence over. It can become a sort of shake down. I think the single best think we can do to make the system more of a meritocracy is to deal with the campaign finance issue. Hell… it’d be cheaper. I recommend Mark Green’s Book.
It’s already incredibly damn hard to pass a bill without the filibuster. We just don’t need it. At some point government mechanisms can cease to become protective measures and become tools to stifle progress. For too long, that’s what the filibuster has become.
<
p>At the very least, we should reduce the number it takes to defeat a filibuster, if it’s too hard to get rid of it to begin with, to around 55. Or we could keep it only for decisions that the Senate makes on its own – judicial and executive confirmations, for example. Otherwise, there’s committee votes, house committee votes, the entire house, conference committees and then the veto to deal with.
<
p>There is no other country in the world that has so many “protective” measures. Most have complete majority rule – and it works, better than our system. Why? Because consensus still has to be built from within a party and if that party makes any huge mistakes, it’s going to get severely penalized in the next election. Our system helps reduce accountability, making it look like every party can be seen as just as guilty (after all, Democrats voted for the war, too! – Republicans would say), while other systems are far more accountable and transparent. That’s not to say I don’t like our system and don’t think it can work, but can’t we just at least get rid of or diminish the filibuster?
<
p>The filibuster – the need for 60 votes – is one of the biggest reasons why we don’t have a true national health care system, or why we can’t lead on key issues that society needs to solve… and why special interests have so much damn power. They don’t even need a majority of politicians in their pocket, all they need is 41. It’s absurd. If we get rid of it and that leads to results, the American people will vote for Democrats for a long time to come. If we get rid of it and there’s still no results, then Americans will know which party to blame. This is why ending the filibuster will work and why it won’t lead to much abuse; when the abuse happens, Americans will respond.
but many also have ballot structures which allow for more than two parties. Often it’s the case that no party has a majority — instead coalition government gets things done, and in it’s own way that serves as a functioning filibuster within the coalition.
<
p>Get rid of first past the post and direct election of president and we can talk about comparisons to the parliaments of other nations…
The UK, for example, rarely has a need for split government. It’s also the exception in places like Canada and France.
<
p>Furthermore, the Democratic party is so ideologically diverse that it may as well be 2-3 different parties. In many other countries, it would be. So, there’s already checks and balances from within the party – it would be very difficult for anything very liberal to pass in a Congress, for example, where Jack Murtha holds so much sway, or a Senate with Bill Nelson.
<
p>I’m not suggesting we should become a parliamentary system in America. Far from it. I’m just suggesting that the filibuster is onerous and stifles progress, while doing almost nothing to actually protect Americans. The few cases where it has protected Americans is minute compared to the damage its done, especially given the fact that if we got rid of the filibuster it would be easier to pin bad bills and decisions on Senate Republicans and the entire party.
Not only does the filibuster rarely protect Americans, but its biggest use in the coming days will be to protect special interests. Mark my words.
I’m opposed to elimination of the fillibuster for the reasons David gives. In addition, I think it is important to recognize the value of the culture of the Senate, which differs substantially from the culture of the House. If we abolish the fillibuster, why not abolish the Senate’s customs regarding unanimous consent? And if we do that, and turn the Senate into a smaller (and less representative!) version of the House, haven’t we lost something valuable?
<
p>All that being said, let’s require the minority to have a real filibuster if it wants to stop a bill. In other words, let’s bring in the cots and require the minority to keep speaking and speaking until the majority gives up. As I understand things, today the majority usually gives up on passage of the bill when it doesn’t have the support of enough senators to pass a cloture motion, but it doesn’t actually require the fillibuster to take place. If the Republicans feel strongly about a bill, let them take the PR hit that will come from being seen to be obstructionists. My sense is if that we take that step, the fillibuster will again become an extraordinary occurrence.
<
p>TedF
let’s require real filibusters. Unlike the Democrats, obstructionist Republicans will likely pull them off.
<
p>And, even if they don’t, when we’re they gain back the Senate they’ll go nuclear as soon as we actually grow a set as a party and actually decide to use the veto to block bad things from happening (as opposed to Republicans, who will use it to protect their special interests and to make sure Obama gets nothing done).
<
p>We will be used and abused yet again, all because we’re a party filled with pansies. The Republicans would have gone nuclear and done the dirty deed for us, except for the fact that we decided that instead of risking that we’d just give into every single little thing they wanted. With Alito and Roberts on the bench now for decades to come, that worked out great for us. Huh?
… theater. Probably more so in the minority.
Why don’t we wait to see how obstructionist the Republicans are prepared to be before we start talking about blowing up the Senate?
<
p>TedF
but it’s only a matter of time. People can be for or against the filibuster all they want, but its death is inevitable and America will be a better place when it happens.
<
p>Within a year from now, mark my words, the people of BMG and Dkos will be overwhelmingly calling for the end to the filibuster.
But let’s get real, folks. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Let’s devote our energies to things that actually matter.
it’s inevitable.
<
p>Wait for 6 months of obstructionism. You’ll be calling for it too.
(1) Will it happen? No.
<
p>(2) Will I be calling for it? Very doubtful — but even if I did, it still wouldn’t happen.