Will An Anti-Filibuster Campaign Have Legs? Should It?

[Joanne98]

I think its fair to say that at least the Democrats have been campaigning with a dream of having 60 for a very long time. And the American people gave them a gift, and basically they're squandering it. Any organization needs to decide how it wants to hold itself accountable. But to me there's a question of what are the expectations amongst Democrats in terms of governing? What's the social contract? -- Andy Stern, SEIU
To their credit, the Village Blogs have been writing a lot about the problems with the filibuster (see, e.g., Ezra Klein.) Two questions arise - (1) is eliminating the filibuster a good idea?; (2) is there a chance in hell of eliminating it? My answers are (1) I am for eliminating the filibuster for legislative measures and for Executive Branch appointments but decidedly against elimination of the filibuster for Judicial Branch appointments. Indeed, the filibuster is not used at all for Supreme Court nominees and it should be. And (2) there is not a chance in hell of eliminating the filibuster. There will be a single payer health care system first. Why? Because the filibuster empowers individual Senators in ways that no other procedural device provides. Do Presidents hand back power? Neither do Senators. More . . .


That said, I am all for fighting the quixotic fight, especially in the short term. Why? Because if you make a lot of noise about the filibuster, it could impact short term behavior by Senators inclined to use the filibuster. I do not mean Republicans, who could not care less. I mean Democrats. After all, in theory, the filibuster should not even be an issue right now. Democrats have 60 in their caucus, enough to defeat any filibuster attempt.

While the filibuster is a long term institutional problem for the Senate, the actual problem that Democrats face right now is that it is a crappy political organization unable to maintain party discipline. Let me put it this way, if it was 60 Republicans, there would never ever be a filibuster. And we would not be having any discussions about the filibuster.

In essence, the discussion of the filibuster camouflages the actual problem Democrats face - the political party stinks. The Democratic Party leader is weak and the Democratic leadership in the Senate toothless. And this impacts the Democratic Party's claims to be able to govern.

In the end it means that the Democratic Party can not be trusted in its political campaigns. Not because they are being untruthful in their platform, though they often are. But rather because even if they believe what they say they believe, they can not enact the initiatives they claim to support. In his interview with Ezra, Andy Stern said:

I think its fair to say that at least the Democrats have been campaigning with a dream of having 60 for a very long time. And the American people gave them a gift, and basically they're squandering it. Any organization needs to decide how it wants to hold itself accountable. But to me there's a question of what are the expectations amongst Democrats in terms of governing? What's the social contract?

<. . .> Democrats have failed to create a normative set of behaviors. They rely on rules when they should really act like a party. The fact that they have to change the rules because they cant act collectively is sad. Everyone gets to be the general when they feel their will or their issue or their point of view trumps everyone else's.

Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, everybody held up their vote for the purpose of gaining personal leverage. Now, appropriately, Harry Reid has to say this is the nature of legislation. But I never thought the nature was making compromises on rules rather than substance. This was 'I'll use the rule of 60 to gain substantive advantage.' The idea was not that democrats get 60 so everyone can be king or queen for a day. Everyone has been empowered. Why shouldn't Kent Conrad say that he won't raise the debt ceiling unless he gets his commission? It's the culture we've created. When we reward inappropriate behavior, we breed more inappropriate behavior.

continued>>>
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/12/28/8316/8681

[Wapsie B]

1. Dems need 60 not counting the Blue Dogs.

Blue Dogs = DINO

[ixion]

2. I didn't think it should have legs when rethugs proposed the so-called "Nuclear Option"

and I don't think it should now.

[Recursion]

3. Keep the actual honest-to-God filibusters

I think it's important that a Senator with the floor can in principle speak as long as he or she can remain conscious. But make Senators actually filibuster.

[clear eye]

8. That can only happen by limiting the Senate to working on 1 thing at a time.

The filibuster became virtual when the leadership was allowed to move along to consider something else and would be viewed as collaborating w/ the obstruction if he/she insisted on staying on the filibustered bill. The change from one thing at at time to many things at once took place some time early in the 20th century.

W/ no way of forcing the person to continue talking while other business is being conducted, the leadership now has to get a filibuster-proof majority. I doubt there's much support for returning to the slow old days, unfortunately.

[bemildred]

4. It would mean the end of Congress as we know it now.

A whole new set of dodges, excuses, and charades would have to be invented to prevent reform and progress.

So, what's not to like?

[terrell9584]

5. The converse of this

If the Senate were currently comprised of 60 Republicans, with deals being made to keep those like Snowe and Collins on the line, I guarantee you the situation would be reversed with the right clamoring for the end of the filibuster and the left defending it.


That tells me that this is a bad idea. Any rules change that gets people to support or oppose based solely on political motivation and who is in power at the time is one that is not in anyone's interest and therefore should not be supported.

[burning rain]

7. Wrong.

People should get what they vote for, and they should get it good and hard, whether under Democratic or Republican governance. This would naturally lead to a more involved citizenry, as it would make more of a difference whether Democrats or Republicans were in power. Also, the 60 vote threshold encourages more corrupt dealmaking to get those last few votes, as with Senator Nelson's Medicaid sweetheart deal for Nebraska. The end-the-filibuster movement is clearly not solely driven by ideology, though sure, the filibuster has historically been far more often deployed against progressive rather than conservative proposals. It was certainly a powerful enemy of civil rights. Some argue that the right of filibuster protects vulnerable minorities, but it rarely does so. It protects narrow but moneyed and politically powerful interests such as the arch-conservative white capitalist class of the Jim Crow South, and to this day narrow and widely-loathed business interests.

[burning rain]

6. It would be good & useful progress to end the filibuster.

That would make it so it would take 50-51 senators to stop legislation, not just 41--and 41 are much more easily captured by narrow interests, opposed to the interests of most Americans. As it is, the 60-vote rules makes the Senate the place change goes to die. People talk about voter apathy... Why shouldn't citizens be apathetic? The country votes for real change and can't have it, largely due to the 60-vote threshold.

Any Democratic senator who does not favor ending the filibuster, obviously does not much care to pass good legislation, since the 60-vote threshold precludes it.

[The Wizard]

9. Get rid of it long enough to

pass the legislation the voters expect and reenact it after the bills are passed.
Charging Lieberman with public goat fucking would also help.