Bring Boring Back
Friday, December 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm
In the wake of the Senate’s failure to pass the bailout for the “Big Three” automakers due to a threatened Republican filibuster, I’d like to expand on an excellent point made by Josh Marshall over at TPM.
What I do think makes sense is for the majority to actually require the minority to filibuster — as in talk and talk and talk. We’ve arrived at a point in which it’s become standard, even in the most contentious of cases, for the minority to be allowed merely to signal the intention to filibuster rather than doing the actual thing itself. Filibustering is a tool of obstruction. It’s a critical right of the minority in the senate. But it is, by definition, obstruction. So it makes sense to put the obstructionists to their task, make them do it publicly. I don’t know why the Democrats are not doing that in this case.
I couldn’t agree more. As the bar graph at right (courtesy of Campaign for America’s Future) clearly shows, the Republican legislative strategy since slipping into the minority in 2006 has been obstruction. Republican senators threatened a filibuster and forced a cloture vote more than 100 times and counting during the current 110th Congress — breaking the previous record of 62 filibusters in a two-year legislative session in less than one year. Is it any surprise that Congress’ approval rating fell, as Sen. John McCain liked to say on the campaign trail, to just nine percent, and the Republicans subsequently took a walloping at the polls last month.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the Republicans out on their threat and forced a traditional all-night “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”-type filibuster only once during the current session, on a proposed amendment to a 2007 defense authorization bill that would have mandated the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. In many cases, the mere threat of a filibuster was enough to effectively kill a piece of legislation.
If Reid forced the Republicans to actually go through with all, or at least some, threatened filibusters, chances are pretty good we’d see a lot less of them. GOP leaders might pick and choose their battles a bit more strategically if they knew there’s a good chance they’d have to make good on their promises and stay up all night.
Of course, it would suck for the Democrats as well, as nobody likes to stay up all night to listen to politicians ramble on and on, but do it a few times on key issues just to show you mean business. With Democrats holding 58 or 59 Senate seats, a few real filibusters with the threat of more might be enough to wear down one or two moderate Republicans and separate them from the pack once in a while.
At the very least, it would be a symbolic gesture that would let the American people see clearly why its so difficult to pass legislation, and who is responsible for gumming up the works — and might help solidify a 60-seat filibuster-proof super-majority in 2010.
5 Comments
Comment posted December 12, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Mr. DeLong,
I have been arguing this same point with anyone who would listen to me since the Democrats took over as the majority party in the Senate in 2007, for the reasons that you mention.
If nothing else, it would be some entertaining coverage in the media. Since most Americans do not even understand what a filibuster really is, it would be a fascinating survey to see how Americans feel about each of the parties in Congress after a few filibusters.
Comment posted December 12, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
I'm right there with you. I've long been a supporter of forcing old-school filibusters, for entertainment, civic and strategic purposes, but only recently have had a forum to voice that support. Let's hope Reid and the Democrats take the GOP to task in the 111th Congress.
Comment posted December 12, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Exactly. Make them read the damn phone book.
And when the Dems caved during the “Gang of 14″ days so the GOP wouldn't go nuclear and shut down the Senate I gagged. So what if they shut it down back then? We'd have been better off. This was during the time of the judicial nomination battles. Some battles, with capitulator in chief Reid in charge.
Am I wrong to think that it's unlikely to get 60 votes anyway, taking into account the Blue Dogs?
Comment posted January 28, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
I've been hearing that automakers have been trying to get billion dollar loans and if they don't the nation could go into another depression. I don't understand why they're so important.
Comment posted January 29, 2009 @ 9:15 am
Thanks for the info. May God have mercy on us all.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss