Our Paralyzed Government
I believe that part of social justice is advocating for policy changes with and on behalf of the least, last and lost. However, history shows that social change comes slowly and with considerable effort. Its rare that the powerful will voluntarily make sacrifices when they may not see an immediate benefit.
However, social change has gotten much more difficult in the last three years with the advent of the constant filibuster. Though this supermajority requirement has been invoked over the years, the idea that every piece of legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate is a recent phenomenon. Ezra Klein, a blogger for the Washington Post, demonstrates this:
Here's a fun fact: The Senate filed 214 cloture votes (votes to break a filibuster) between 2007 and 2010. That's more than it held between 1919 and 1976. And during that period, it was actually easier to filibuster, as you needed 67 votes to break the obstruction, not 60.
Meanwhile, you'll note that 2010 is only a couple of months old. By the end of the year, we'll be nearing 300 cloture votes, if we haven't passed that milestone altogether. That brings the 2007-10 total to about what the Senate saw between 1919 and 1984. Say what you will about the Senate, but this is not traditional. The "cooling saucer" of democracy was never meant to be left in the freezer.
Thus, for those who want to advocate for the poor, one of our tasks will be to determine how to change this trend. It is not enough to count on individual Senators playing nice. We must advocate changing the rules so that no matter who is in power, we play by majority rules. Now, I may not like everything that gets passed in this new environment- but I’m quite confident that those who have power won’t have nearly the trouble getting 60 votes as those who do not have it. Thus, in the long run, eliminating the filibuster will serve the cause of justice.
Cross posted at Open for Ministry.
RSS Feed
Cousin,
As you are a progressive it does not surprise me that you would want to change rules to pass legislation. The progressive movement has been working to undermine and change the constitution for decades.
I must caution you though calling for end to the filibuster rule is dangerous and shortsighted. I know you are probably equally frustrated with the healthcare reform bill being held up as you are with all the other grid lock in Washington. While I do not share those same frustrations now, I had similar feelings back in 2005. At that time Republicans owned majorities in both houses and held the Presidency. The Republicans were upset because the minority Democrats were stalling judicial nominees using the filibuster. In an attempt to circumvent the Democrat’s filibuster the Republicans were getting ready to use “the nuclear option”. This would allow them to seat their nominees with a simple 51 vote majority in the Senate. The nuclear option almost came to be except for a compromise between John McCain and the rest of the “gang of 14” which killed the nuclear option. McCain reminded me and the Republicans then, that “ we won’t always be on the majority”.
Ending the filibuster will open the flood gate to simple majority, thus by-passing the input of the minority. Ending the filibuster through reconciliation may get the disastrous Healthcare Reform Bill passed now, but if poll numbers and legislative retirements are any indication the Democrats will be out of power by November. When the American people realize they will have to pay into the Healthcare System for the next four years before seeing any benefits, it isn’t unrealistic to think President Obama will not be holding onto the Presidency in 2012. Imagine then a complete power shift to the Republicans now able to rule with by a simple 51 majority. After repealing the healthcare bill in the first legislative piece passed only God knows what the majority will be able to pass from there. Do you really want to be in a position where your party has no say in the Senate because the majority has 51 votes to the minorities 49? Taking away the filibuster takes away the minorities only recourse against the majority.
You say you want to change the rules so that “we play by majority rules”. Well if Healthcare reform could not get passed with a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat majority in the house, and a Democrat super majority in the Senate does that really indicate that a true majority is behind it?
Don’t take my word on it though. Back in 2005 President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and others were singing a very different, but correct, tune in regards to filibusters and the nuclear option.
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/democrats-reconciliation-is-bad-under-bush-but-great-under-obama/
As for me, I think gridlock is good anyway. The less legislation passed by our ineffective and wasteful government, the more opportunity there is for free market solutions.
Dane
Jared,
I agree with your cousin--screw large government programs! Let's start by cutting those idiots we call the military.
Everyone knows those yellow-ribbon fascists are the biggest, most wasteful federal government hand-out project around. Let's have every person be responsible for fighting terrorists, rogue nations, and our sworn foreign enemies on their own, without big government inefficiency getting in the way.
And while we're at it, let's do away with the Nazi-socialist interstate system too; getting from city to city without 34 road changes is just wildly overrated. And what about those communists in the fire department? I pay taxes so other people's houses can be saved? To hell with that, I say; let 'em burn!
Free market solutions are clearly what Jesus advocated, aren't they? If we help the poor and the disadvantaged, they would just be more likely to stay where they are. We all have to be motivated by profit like good capitalists, Acts 4:32 be damned! Seriously Jared, you need to get your priorities straight, or soon you'll be spouting that "blessed-are-the-poor" crap and talking about the Kingdom of God to everybody like Jesus actually talked about that stuff.
Terry
Dane,
Thanks for your lengthy reply. A couple of points I'd like to dispute:
"The progressive movement has been working to undermine and change the constitution for decades."
The filibuster has nothing to do with the consitution. If the founding father's wanted non-majoritarian rule in the Senate, they could have set those rules up when they divised the consitution. Thus, I'd argue that if anything, returning to majoritarian rule is more in line with the wishes of the constitution.
"Ending the filibuster will open the flood gate to simple majority, thus by-passing the input of the minority."
Yes, that is the point. We live in a democracy. No where else do we declare an election, or a vote, invalid if they do not receive a 60% majority. If all play by majority rules, I am willing to live with the consequences. We still have checks and balances that will help to balance things out. Furthermore, if we all live by majority rule, legislation can be repealed in addition to passed.
"Don’t take my word on it though. Back in 2005 President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and others were singing a very different, but correct, tune in regards to filibusters and the nuclear option. "
I'm in full agreement that everyone has been hypocritical on this issue. I think Democrats would have been better served to have taken the deal back in 2005 and eliminated the filibuster all together. I invite you to hold me accountable to this statement if the roles are reversed in the future.
"As for me, I think gridlock is good anyway. The less legislation passed by our ineffective and wasteful government, the more opportunity there is for free market solutions. "
I actually disagree here. The type of budget cuts and tax increases that will be needed to balance the budget will be contraversial. So long as 60 votes are needed in the Senate, it is far less likely that Congress will be able to react to fix this growing issue. This will help neither party.
Dane: Thank you for your own lengthy reply. It certainly is more constructive then Mr. or Ms. Williams sarcastic post. It's going to be a pain to read now that we are going line-by-line but what can you do...
Jared: "The filibuster has nothing to do with the consitution. If the founding father's wanted non-majoritarian ...rule in the Senate, they could have set those rules up when they divised the consitution. Thus, I'd argue that if anything, returning to majoritarian rule is more in line with the wishes of the constitution."
Dane: I did not intend to imply that the filibuster was in the Constitution. What I was saying was that your advocating a rule change to force through an agenda is typical of a progressive. The progressive movement does this all the time in their continual assault on the Consitution.
Speaking of ignoring the rule of law. Check out President Obama's interview with Bret Baier in which he says he is not concerned with "the process" that it takes to get the healthcare bill passed. Keep in mind while watching he took an oath of office saying that he would uphold the Consitution and the rule of law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJT6XNChso0
Jared: "Yes, that is the point. We live in a democracy. No where else do we declare an election, or a vote, invalid if they do not receive a 60% majority. If all play by majority rules, I am willing to live with the consequences. We still have checks and balances that will help to balance things out. Furthermore, if we all live by majority rule, legislation can be repealed in addition to passed."
Dane: That is incorrect. There are votes in our democracy that require more than simple majority. Besides the filibuster, which has been an established rule since the early to mid 1800s, two thirds is required to override a Presidential veto, three fifths is required to propose an amendment to the constitution, and three fifths of the states are require to ratify an amendment before it can become law.
Jared: "I'm in full agreement that everyone has been hypocritical on this issue. I think Democrats would have been better served to have taken the deal back in 2005 and eliminated the filibuster all together. I invite you to hold me accountable to this statement if the roles are reversed in the future."
Dane: Why wait for the future, I am trying to hold you accountable for your statement now. In 2005 while the Republicans were in power you were not speaking out against the filibuster. It is only now that the Democrat majority cannot get their legislation passed, that you a speaking out.
Besides, what is the point of holding you accountable anyway? You are not holding your political leaders to account for their statements. You are in full agreement that those in the video are hypocritical but you support them just the same. Why?
The founders believed that integrity and virtue matter in the character of our public servants; in fact they felt it was vital. I know "All have fallen short" and nobody is perfect, but we need to hold our leaders to a higher standard. We can start be requiring them to mean what they say and say what they mean.
Again, watch the interview with Bret Baier. Obama does not deny the arm twisting, the shady deals, and rule circumvention. His attitude, like your statement, is that the end justifies the means. I don't think it does.
Jared: "I actually disagree here. The type of budget cuts and tax increases that will be needed to balance the budget will be controversial. So long as 60 votes are needed in the Senate, it is far less likely that Congress will be able to react to fix this growing issue. This will help neither party."
Dane: I disagree with this whole premise. You want a non-controversial idea for balancing the budget? CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Cut salaries, cut staff, cut crazy union contracts, end earmarks, and cut any other spending project the federal government has no business being involved with (like the late John Murtha's airport). The only way the government can "fix" the problem is by not creating it in the first place.
Dane-
As I agree the cut and paste gets confusing, I'll just try to post a brief general response:
You have never addressed the main trust of my argument. My claim in the post and as shown with the graph is that the filibuster is being used in an unprecidented fashion and to an unprecidented agree. If you are truly concerned with having the nation be governed as per the long history of how the filibuster was used, this should concern you to. As to my consistency in advocacy of reform, I'm quite certain I didn't pay as close attention nor did blog or facebook back in 2005. I only dimly recall being upset by a certain someone's re-election.
You are right, however, that some votes are consitutionally mandated to be more than majority. However, my larger point was that democracy opporates at the beheast of the majority. We do have numerous safeguards to protect those minorities that could theoretically be subject to the tryanny of the majority.
Your final point actually concurs with mine. Ultimately, the filibuster serves conservative, not progressive purposes. As such, it is fully logical that I would argue for it and you would against. I do think in a majority environment you would actually see some conservative causes make progress (quite possible on abortion). Thus, I feel I am consistent in advocating for this change so long as I continue to do so no matter which party is in power.