But somehow it isn’t familiar, in the sense of being part of general understanding and mainstream coverage of issues like the health reform bill. Talk shows analyze exactly how the Administration can get to 60 votes; they don’t discuss where the 60-vote practice came from and what it has done to public life. I have a gigantic article coming out soon in the Atlantic — long even by our standards! but interesting! — which concerns America’s ability to address big public problems, compared in particular with China’s. The increasing dysfunction of public institutions, notably the Senate, is a big part of this story.
As I think my article will make clear, this isn’t a partisan question — even though in any given administration it presents itself as one. (For the record, I support the health-care plan and am glad the Administration found the 60 votes.) Also for the record, as the chart below shows, the huge increase in threatened filibusters came from the Republican minority, after the Democrats took back the Senate in 2007. Since the time covered by this chart, the number of threatened (Republican) filibusters has shot up even more dramatically. Still, whoever is in control, this is a more basic and dangerous threat to the ability of any elected American government to address the big issues of its time. And the paralysis of working through the legislature is all the worse because of the contrast with modern presidents’ de facto ability to make war-and-peace decisions essentially on their own.
It will take a lot of work to reform the filibuster. Villagers will defend it to the death (there’s a natural kinship there, as the Senate is perhaps the one community in the world that is clubbier than the Village) and Republicans will have a slick set of talking points on the issue.
May I humbly suggest that the filibuster is a more worthwhile target for hippie rage than Obama is?
Just Some Fuckhead
Sounds like Fallows has been listening to me. Just for the record, when the Senate blew up the filibuster in 1975, they did it at the behest of President Ford and VP Rockefeller. Point being, Republicans always get what they want. Otherwise, doing any such thing would be the worst thing evah.
Bruce (formerly Steve S.)
The filibuster is an abstraction and has no existence apart from the people who exercise it.
DougJ
The filibuster is an abstraction and has no existence apart from the people who exercise it.
When has being an abstraction ever stopped bloggers from hating something? I hate contrarianism, for example.
Davis X. Machina
The filibuster will never be defanged unless the first move is made by a party in the minority. It’s not creditable for a majority party to eliminate a tool, which though abused, is a century-old talisman for the protection of minority rights.
General Winfield Stuck
@DougJ:
This is all wrong.
jibeaux
Ay-men. It will take a lot of work to reform the filibuster primarily because it would take a filibuster-proof majority to vote to reform it, if I’m understanding it correctly. I’m pretty sure Lieberman’s not gonna vote to remove his Almighty Power of Assclownedness and Obstruction…
But yes, assuming there’s a way, we need to move heaven and earth to get there.
PeakVT
May I humbly suggest that the filibuster is a more worthwhile target for hippie rage than Obama is?
No. Hissy fits need to be directed at a person to get the maximum enjoyment.
El Cid
That’s often assumed — but what if you didn’t hate contrarianism? Now that would be interesting! See my new essay on Slate about the exciting nature of people who think they hate contrarianism maybe don’t!
Violet
I’ve always had a soft spot for the filibuster, probably because the idea of people reading out of phone books or whatever seems so hilarious. But hasn’t there been some change in recent years where, if a Senator wants to filibuster, they don’t actually have to stand up and keep talking? I think that’s terribly wrong and if they want to filibuster, they should be forced to stand up and talk forever. It’s definitely a way to show the American people how hard their Senators are working – or not – for them.
But practically speaking, using the filibuster all the time is horrible and just gums up the works of our government.
Just Some Fuckhead
@jibeaux: No, that’s not the case.
DougJ
That’s often assumed—but what if you didn’t hate contrarianism? Now that would be interesting! See my new essay on Slate about the exciting nature of people who think they hate contrarianism maybe don’t!
You would think that hating contrarianism means you also dislike it. But once you look past the conventional wisdom of our hippie overlords, you see that….
Davis X. Machina
If not for the old parliamentary law that ‘one legislature cannot bind the hands of another’, one possible compromise would involve an identical bill, upon which cloture fails at 60 votes to be invoked, but commands a simple majority twice, in successive sessions, passing without cloture.
More or less the compromise that saved the House of Lords in 1911, IIRC.
BR
I think the safest way to eliminate the filibuster is to first return to the old rules – 60 votes for cloture but you had to stand there and talk.
That’s something the media would have a hard time arguing against, since it’s what most Americans think the filibuster actually is (if they understand it at all). Most folks don’t realize that it’s not like that any more.
MikeJ
It was never the case that one person had to talk. You can always yield for a question, and that question can go for as long as the questioner wants, ie, you can tag team. And then you can keep doing quorum calls and make things just as bad on the majority as they are for the two or three who have to stand there and tag team talk.
As much as I hate to link to huffpo:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html
BR
@MikeJ:
True, but that still means hours of CSPAN footage of Republicans visibly obstructing progress. That’s all that matters – because it reduces filibuster abuse. They don’t want to be visibly obstructing even minor votes all the time, because it will begin to look bad and even our horrifically bad media will begin to report it.
R. Johnston
Does not compute. Obama is the target of hippie rage at the moment precisely for his refusal to use the bully pulpit to address the dysfunctionality of the Senate. If the hippies thought Obama had any inkling to put pressure on the Senate to reform the filibuster their ire would be directed elsewhere to a considerably greater degree.
cleek
reform the Senate ?
we can’t even reform the fucking electoral college: a body that has no vote in the matter. make the Seante reform itself in a way that lessens, even temporarily, the power of any of its members?
outta yer feckin mind, y’are.
Violet
@BR:
Exactly. If they want to filibuster, they should have to do it for reals. Even if they get to tag team with questions, they should have to stand up there and show all their constituents and the rest of the country that it’s more important to read the phone book or ask endless questions than it is to get stuff done.
The media will definitely start reporting on that kind of nonsense and it won’t go over well with those all-valuable independents who get a lot of people elected.
BR
Frankly, I think there’s an issue that dwarfs even health care, and it’s not even going to get discussed let alone addressed by the senate: our dependence on oil.
The energy bill that’s going to be voted on is more of a climate bill, which is good, but doesn’t get at the heart of the problem. The world has plenty of oil left, but does not have plenty of cheap oil left. That means that in roughly 3-5 years we’ll see another oil price spike like last year’s (once the economy is doing well again, since demand has to return), which will have moderate to severe economic impacts. We won’t return to gas lines like the 1970s, but we will see $5/gallon gas. It’ll go back down as the economy takes a hit, but we’ll see oscillating oil price spikes from here on out, probably every 5 years or so, but they’ll get worse.
There are only a few ways of dealing with this, but the primary two I can think of is to:
a) Fund the construction of a 200mph+ high-speed rail system that connects at least the biggest 30 cities in the country. (And 100mph local feeder rail systems.)
b) Tax the living hell out of gasoline.
The first is politically do-able, but doesn’t seem to be on anybody’s radar. They want to do “more studies” on high-speed rail, but there isn’t time to waste on that any more. We need an Eisenhower-like national infrastructure project for rail, and it needs to start now.
This is the biggest problem coming down the pike and it’s not clear that the congress even sees it coming.
beltane
The only thing that makes me hesitate to attack the filibuster is the thought of President Palin and a 50/50 Senate appointing Rev. Hagee to the Supreme Court and then establishing special witchcraft tribunals to persecute all non-Christians and anyone who has ever said anything mean about her.
Anya
@DougJ: From a previous thread I discovered that you have issues with John Stewart Mill and now you hate contrarinism. Man, I don’t know you anymore.
General Winfield Stuck
The only way the cloture rule will be changed without blowing up the senate is just what Davis Machina said. It will have to be initiated by the minority. And I will add that a minority in a closely divided senate, with that minority believing they have some political winds at their backs for the near term.
And no dem in the senate now has any intention, or wont, to blow up the senate with a nuke. Just not going to happen, no way, no how. No matter how much the repubs abuse it. And abuse it they have since 2007 breaking all former sessions from day one of the republic.
All the idle chatter about canning the CR by whatever means is just that, idle chatter
JD Rhoades
Here’s the thing: our government was designed to be slow and inefficient. The Founders had seen governments that operated on the principle of
“I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.”
And they wanted no part of it.
Despotism is very quick.
Comrade Scrutinizer
@Davis X. Machina: Except that the Senate sees itself as a continuing body, since no more than 1/3 of the Senate can be turned over as the result of a single election, and the other 2/3s would always constitute a quorum and continue to serve without interruption. That’s the basis for the Senate having Standing Rules.
DougJ
From a previous thread I discovered that you have issues with John Stewart Mill and now you hate contrarinism.
Where did I say something bad about John Stuart Mill?
Just Some Fuckhead
@BR:
I’m sympathetic to what you are saying but I really don’t think they care what they look like. Remember the final hours of the house debate? They were just shouting out crazy shit. (I know it’s the house v. senate but you get my drift.)
General Winfield Stuck
@Comrade Scrutinizer:
Yes
KG
count me among those who would like to see the majority make the minority actually filibuster (regardless of which party it is).
As for the quorum calls, I think it’d be brilliant political theater to have the majority just sitting at their desks the whole time during the filibuster… then, not only do you have reels of footage of the minority trying to delay and obstruct, but you have footage of the majority sitting there, waiting for the minority to be done. I mean, it’s not like they have anything else to do.
El Tiburon
There is enough rage for both Obama and the filibuster.
I can hate the Steelers and also hate instant replay.
Obama’s apparent hypocrisy and timidity on the health care issue has no bearing on the filibuster. It could be argued that even if there were no filibuster the conserve-a-dems could still mount enough no-votes to get us to this same piece of crap.
It sure would be nice for Obama to make a stand, but we know now that ain’t happening.
danimal
How do people that claim to be conservatives explain that they have intentionally subverted majority rule–one of the foundations of our democracy?
And pretty blatantly for partisan advantage rather than any principled political philosophy. Filibuster abuse is not conservative.
PeakVT
@BR: The problem of this country’s excessive use of oil has been clear since 1973. But we can’t even raise the gas tax so it covers inflation at this point.
We’re going to hit that $5/gal wall at full speed.
Corner Stone
@danimal:
Extremism in the defense of conservatism is no vice. Plus, Republicans have shot dead the words Hypocrisy, Irony, and some other third thing I can’t think of right now.
Jim
@Davis X. Machina:
I’m drawing a complete blank on the specifics of the Harkin bill, but as I recall it preserves the filibuster as a brake (which I approve of) but places a further check on the kind of unchecked tyranny of the minority we’re seeing now.
KG
@MikeJ: oh, fun little tidbit from that story… the Majority Leader can direct the Sergeant at Arms to arrest members of the Senate and return them to the floor. C’mon, you can’t tell me that wouldn’t make for great political theater!
Brian J
Here’s where I am confused. We keep hearing about how the Republicans are holding up legislation and how they are acting as the Party of No, but didn’t the Democrats do the same thing? I mean, when President Bush wanted to invade Iraq, I can’t recall a single Democrat that went along with him publicly. I can’t think of any that went along with his Medicare overhaul. What about the tax cuts? Can you name me one Democrat that voted for the tax cuts?
/snark
BR
@PeakVT:
It’s really sad that Jimmy Carter really had it right, and was setting us on the right course, but the combination of the Iran hostage situation and an economic slowdown brought in Raygun who did just about everything to reverse Carter’s steps in the right direction. We’ve been screwed ever since.
While I agree it’s been clear, I don’t think it’s widely understood by the public that virtually everything in today’s America depends on cheap oil. Virtually every consumer item is made in part or in whole of plastic (and is shipped in by ships/trucks/planes that use oil), our food is planted with oil-powered machines, sprayed with petroleum-based pesticides, then harvested and trucked around the country and world with oil, only to be then wrapped in plastic. And on and on.
I still think a major national commitment to high-speed rail/public transit would help a lot, as would a push for folks to plant victory gardens.
mvr
As unprincipled as it sounds, I thought the fillibuster was there to stop the appointment of the likes of Alito. It didn’t so now I think I’m against it. (It also didn’t stop the Bush tax cuts through reconciliation, so what good is it?) Actually, I do think that rules of procedure are tested by their effects and at this point all the fillibuster does is slow down or stop good stuff. The Rs get what they want with it or without it.
BR
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Yeah, they’ll shout crazy shit, but during those debates it was during their “scheduled time”. If it was a filibuster, they’d be, objectively speaking, obstructing the progress of congress to do its business. That it, it wouldn’t be “legitimate debate” and would be hard for the MSM to frame it that way.
Just Some Fuckhead
@mvr: This. At any rate we’re gonna have to figure out how to pass good legislation in the Senate if we’re to have any hope of tackling financial reform, climate change, etc.
Brett
@General Winfield Stuck: When the option was tried in the 1960s, did it actually “blow up the Senate”? I really don’t know. As the minority becomes more intransigent, don’t the benefits of using the nuclear / constitutional option seem more attractive? Procedural changes are hard, but eventually the minority will see that it will have a shot at using the new procedures as well, and they won’t remember their complaints when they get a majority again. After that cycle, the issue will be settled. Just a thought.
Martian Buddy
@danimal: Because we’re a republic, not a democracy–unless the public votes in favor of a gay marriage ban or something similar, in which case the hallowed will of the majority must be obeyed.
Alan in SF
Did a single Democrat of any importance (Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders and Tom Harkin don’t count) indicate the slightest interest in reforming the fillibuster? This is a total non-starter, and an excuse for the Democratic Party’s inability to govern. What kind of organization allows its key members to actively oppose its central purposes?
Corner Stone
@BR:
Honestly, the fact that Reagan tore down the solar panels from the WH, and was cheered for it, should have really clued in everyone what fucked hot mess we were in for.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
Talk about a weird experience. Just sat here and watched on C-SPAN as Ben Nelson rose on the Senate floor to speak glowingly of the HCR bill. The Senate will be back on the air in 30 mins to hold a vote on the thing.
This is an amazing, if sometimes baffling, country.
GregB
The third one is fascism.
-G
General Winfield Stuck
@Brett:
In the here and now, we are as polarized as we have been in this country, in my lifetime. Maybe since the just before the civil war.
And we are talking about blowing up the filibuster for all legislative matters, not just judges. And the dems were gearing up to do just that, blow up the senate in response, and would have been justified imo. And that was just for judges where few filibusters have been used via a degree of tradition. It’s just my opinion, but it would be an unmitigated disaster for all concerned. There are still plenty of rules the wingnuts could use to bring the senate to a halt, making moot any hoped for advantage in passing more progressive legislation. I could be wrong, but don”t think so.
Yutsano
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: He’s been paid off. He’s going to collect his loot and play ball now. It’s Lieberman I’m worried about at this stage.
flavortext
Why stop at the filibuster? Kill the Senate! Kill the Senate! Kill the Senate!
Just Some Fuckhead
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
The malevolent chinchilla that lives on his head and controls his thoughts must have received a pretty big threat from Rahm. Is there anyone standing nearby holding a large housecat?
SiubhanDuinne
Bloody Charter Communications (my town’s answer to bloody Comcast) arbitrarily decided a year or two ago to drop C-SPAN 2 from the basic-plus package. I haven’t heard whether CNN or MSNBC will carry the Senate vote live at 1:00 am, but hope one of them does (if I am still awake by then, which is increasingly doubtful).
Just Some Fuckhead
@Yutsano:
Look, as long as the Jane Hamshers of the Left continue screaming, Lieberman will give you your crappy bill. They know the part they’re supposed to play.
Just Some Fuckhead
@General Winfield Stuck:
No, you had it right at the first.
General Winfield Stuck
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Gawd, you are clever.
Just Some Fuckhead
@General Winfield Stuck:
Right??? The whole Wrong, Not Wrong, Right about being wrong thing?
How about the chinchilla and the housecat stuff? Not my best work, but it’s up there.
Betseed
I think it’s great that Fallows is bringing up the filibuster for discussion, but he’s unfavorably comparing the US to China? Sure, it’s easy to get things done when you’re a dictatorship: Wen’s the decider. I’m pretty sure we should be aiming to be more democratic, not less.
BR
@Betseed:
I think his point is that on the big issues, China seems to be able to get things done as we once were able to.
Since I was talking about high-speed rail upthread, take that for example. China is on track to be the nation with the most miles of high-speed rail in the world (by now, or within a year or two – I can’t remember). They had very little in way of good rail infrastructure but decided to invest in it. (Wisely, I might add.) On other things they aren’t so smart – like regulating pollution, which is going to catch up with them sooner or later.
Point is that Eisenhower saw the need to build a national highway system and the congress was able to get it done. Now we have the need to do all sorts of big things, such as build a high-speed rail system, but I have no faith that congress can get it done.
eemom
not quite on topic……..but lo, the days of peak left wingnut are upon us:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/20/welcome-kossaks/#comment-2038963
even our good John gets dragged into it, down at the bottom of the thread.
Anya
I should go to bed since I have an early meeting tomorrow but I am still up listening to the Senate Republicans whine.
BTW, I have a crush on Mark Udall, is he corporatist sellout or is he good on issues.
mcc
So everyone knows there’s a huge problem where the Republicans have made the filibuster the “new normal”, where 60 votes are needed for even the simplest of things and no one questions it. There is no excuse or justification that, say, Dawn Johnsen is still blocked. But–
Are we talking about the health care bill hill?
Because can you really think that this was [i]ever[/i] going to pass without hitting the 60 vote threshold? The biggest domestic government project in decades? This is the kind of huge, paradigm-changing legislation where 60 votes for cloture would be expected under the old normal.
Neurovore
This is a bit of an open ended and some would say “stupid” question, but…
Part of the problem of the dysfunctional Senate is the inherent weakness in a system that depends on its members to fix or reform a system that a significant number of its members stand to personally benefit from. This is part of human nature, as why would anybody voluntarily limit their own power? As there are no rules in the Senate (unlike the Judicial system) that forces senators to abstain from voting on issues that they have a conflict of interest in (That I know of, anyway), this practically opened the door for corruption from day one. However, any attempt to force senators to excuse themselves on matters that they have a personal stake would simply result in a huge mess as they would simply find some way to wiggle out of it.
It has been a VERY long time since I have taken a civics class, but other than the judicial or executive branches, would there be a hypothetical way to impose reforms on the Senate through the House of Representatives?
General Winfield Stuck
I love my doggie. I do.
SiubhanDuinne
(Watching CNN). Jeezus Gawd I hate John McCain.
But I’d still rather have at least the option of listening to Walnuts than having Dana Bash and David Gergen and the rest of the CNN Villagers pontificating during the Senate floor debate.
/sniff/ I miss my C-SPAN 2.
Just Some Fuckhead
@mcc: Sure, now what about climate change legislation?
used to be disgusted
One way you could reform the filibuster is to make a rule change with delayed effect. I.e., have it disappear four years, or eight years, from now. So no one can really predict who will be in the majority at that point. There was a piece to this effect in TNR a few days ago.
Let me also point out that we don’t actually have to abolish the filibuster for this conversation to have a salutary effect. Fallows’ graph is useful because it casts light on the routinization of obstruction in the Senate — and as they say, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Yutsano
@BR:
Two words: authoritarian society. China just says do and it happens. There is no pushback from the populace even if a system like that is unpopular. There really is no comparison with the US (or really any Western country) since legal redress is a VERY different system there.
Brett
@General Winfield Stuck:
You might be right. But I think that there are gradations here and the pitch would really matter. Harkin’s proposal is subtle, for example, and there are surely other options for filibuster reform, ones that link to the history of the measure as a way of extending debate but not providing a sure avenue for killing measures that have Senate majority support. And public institutional changes have a way of becoming normalized and invisible in a few years.
The elimination of cloture for judicial candidates would have already become routine if the Democrats had lost that battle. Some are now wishing that they had lost, I’ll bet.
The minority couldn’t stop the health care bill, and unless I am mistaken, they were really pulling out all the stops. Concretely, what else are they going to do (a) that they haven’t tried yet, and (b) that couldn’t be stopped or mitigated?
used to be disgusted
Re climate change: a cap-and-trade bill would reduce the deficit, and so it could in principle be passed with a simple majority through the budget reconciliation process.
Now, when that possibility was raised in March people got balky — notably Kent Conrad, who chairs the crucial committee.
But I think maybe we all agree that we’ve had about enough obstruction from influential committee chairs in the Senate. If the people made enough noise, obstructionists like Conrad would have to lead, follow, or get out of the goddamn way.
BR
@Yutsano:
Ok, agreed. I’m talking about ends, not means. On the issue of means, I don’t in any way envy the Chinese system. But on ends – measured results – there are times in our past where we could effectively tackle big issues.
Just Some Fuckhead
@used to be disgusted:
Please tell me yer being ironic.
Yutsano
@BR: We usually got there the way we always do: kicking and screaming and dragging our feet. We really are just a country in its infancy that on paper should not work by any objective metric. We have issues facing us that have led other nations to war after war and endless emnity that seems to never get solved, yet at the end of the day we make it. It’s why I knew we would eventually catch up with the rest of the West as far as health care and economics. I just have this weird faith in this nation that even eight years of Bush couldn’t wreck.
jcricket
We’re never going to end the filibuster. People write articles about the perfectly sensible idea that cursive (a recent practice, no longer practical or useful) should no longer be taught – and the average Joe/Janes goes apoplectic with rage.
A totally bipartisan idea (let’s offer free counseling to help people write down whatever end-of-life directives they want) gets turned into death panels.
Now tell someone that the Democrats want to fuck with the very fabric of American democracy (this is how it will be presented) and let’s see how it goes.
Believe me, the filibuster needs to be shot dead. Half the house and senate rules need to be thrown out. We have an over-abundance of checks and balances, and right now the serve mainly to convince the public the government can’t do anything. I’d rather the Republicans “get their way” when they’re in charge, and make it clear what the consequences of elections are than the current situation. Where no matter who you elect you can always blame the government for failing to make progress on important issues.
That said, budget reconciliation and Democratic Blue Dog-ness sure make tax cuts easy. Whee!
ds
@jcricket:
But Democrats don’t actually have to pass any laws or get in a protracted fight to get rid of the filibuster. They can just choose not to renew it on the first day of the session. Senate rules don’t automatically continue from session to session.
In the 2010 election they could campaign on a promise to restrict the filibuster if they’re returned to a majority.
Now, they won’t, because individual senators like being able to extract bribes in exchange for being the 60th vote. It has nothing to do with the filibuster being some sort of cherished tradition that voters desperately want to keep around.
It’s very much possible to get rid of the filibuster. When Republicans are in the majority, the Democrats are well aware that if they go crazy filibustering everything they’ll quickly lose that privilege, so they don’t.
Quiddity
The way to get public awareness is to let, say, half a dozen filibusters actually take place on the floor of the Senate.
dSquib
@Yutsano:
@Betseed: Which makes me apprehensive about this article I must say. Why not look to Western Europe? I don’t think there’s anything about China’s approach we should be looking to emulate. And it’s not like the only options we have here are gridlock or a government able and willing to plough over people’s lives and eject millions of people from their homes to build high speed rail routes or host mass feats of athletic prowess.
oh really
I’m assuming there is already a super-majority of senators willing to filibuster any effort to reform the filibuster. Of course the filibuster is a senate rule, not legislation, but the same principle seems to apply.
The foxes own and operate the hen house. When the solution to a problem requires that the people who are creating the problem “just do the right thing,” there doesn’t seem to be much hope of fixing that problem.
Why would Republicans want to reform the filibuster? It has allowed them to control the Senate even when they are in a shrinking minority. And they aren’t the ones who have to (threaten to) filibuster anyway. Joe and Ben have taken care of that for them.
ds
I’m assuming there is already a super-majority of senators willing to filibuster any effort to reform the filibuster. Of course the filibuster is a senate rule, not legislation, but the same principle seems to apply.If you change the Senate rule before it comes into effect, it would not be subject to a filibuster. You would have to do it on the first day of the Senate session, but you could do it with a simple majority.
bob h
Striking the way the filibuster threat curve resembles the global warming hockey stick curve of atmospheric CO2 levels.
R. Johnston
Actually, no. If, for example, Russ Feingold decided that the really wanted to reform the filibuster he could do it on his own. The Republicans in the current Senate have made it possible for any Democrat to do so. All that Democrat has to do is join every Republican filibuster until the Democratic leadership gives in or the Republicans stop enforcing party unity. Make it a handful of Democratic Senators doing the same and the filibuster would be ended almost immediately.
All it would take to reform the filibuster is the willingness of a Democratic Senator or two to bring the government to a halt until the filibuster is reformed, and things have definitely gotten to the point where such a move is justified.
gVOR08
OK, the filibuster is a problem, but it’s a distraction. The root problem is lobbying and money.
Dr. Squid
They can’t go back to the old filibuster rules. The Georgetown cocktail party circuit finds the concept of actual debate to be très gauche.
used to be disgusted
Like I say, I don’t think the filibuster itself is going away anytime soon. But it’s important that we keep shining a bright light on the culture of obstruction in the Senate, because there are subtler, related side issues.
One of them is the degree of willingness to use budget reconciliation. There’s a lot we could get done through the reconciliation process. E.g., there was discussion last March of moving a climate bill forward using that provision. Cap and trade absolutely does reduce the deficit, and it could be done through reconciliation. But to get Senators to do it, there needs to be a national surge of outrage about the sclerotic nature of the Senate process. Fallows’ article, and Krugman’s today, are the first glimmers of that surge, and the netroots can do their part on the issue as well.
Just Some Fuckhead
@R. Johnston: Very nice.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@used to be disgusted:
Fallows and Krugman are still being too genteel. David G Phillips knew how to call it like it was back in 1906 (“The Treason of the Senate“). Of course the contemporary equivalent to the progressive muckracking press of that era would be blogs today, so carry on.
Ed Drone
@MikeJ:
Actually, if there were only two or three in the minority present, cloture could be invoked and passed. You have to keep a lot more on the floor for it to work.
I think a compromise is needed, and it can be done with a rules change from the majority (the “nuclear option”). Some suggestions:
invoke Senator Harkin’s suggestion of a reducing number for each cloture vote, from 60 to 57 to 53 to 51 or some such;
have only one cloture vote before passage of any bill, but allow unlimited filibustering of the conference committee (the final) bill;
allow one cloture vote up to final passage, but require two separate votes for final passage, as was suggested above;
disallow cloture on legislation but not on lifetime judicial appointments;
some combination of the above.
Not that we’re going to see it, though. I do think that actual debate should be required, though, instead of the recurring cloture votes without keeping ’em on the floor, as Reid is handling it now.
Ed
Lawrence Kramer
Someone needs to explain to me why the majority doesn’t demand that the minority actually take the floor and talk the bill to death. C-SPAN carries senate debate. Let the people see the world’s greatest deliberative body pretend to deliberate.
On second thought, the filibuster is a useful tool for constraining majorities, so maybe we should just turn off the cameras so that the populists don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. But by all means, let’s make the filibusterer, well, filibuster to prove he really cares about the issue.