Yesterday, Democratic senator Kyrsten Sinema stood next to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and said -- "To those who say that we must make a choice between the filibuster and 'X,' I say, this is a false choice. The reality is that when you have a system that is not working effectively . . . the way to fix that is to fix your behavior, not to eliminate the rules or change the rules, but to change the behavior."
I don't believe that Krysten Sinema is stupid or obtuse. Or even conservative. I think she's a bright, accomplished person who is moderate to slightly liberal. I also think absolutely believes what she is saying. And I think she is monumentally wrong about how she has chosen to see and analyze the world of politics and the filibuster. She has also talked about how it's important for democracy to have an outlet for the voice of the minority, and not let the tyranny of the majority rule Congress. The thing is, she has it totally backwards. In a democracy, majority rules. That's the very point. Under a tyrannical system, the minority can lead the way. Furthermore, if she thinks that government can't work if there isn't a filibuster -- there is not filibuster rule in the House of Representatives! And it works fine without out, and has for the past 230 years or so. And more to the point, 36 states in the country do not have filibuster rules in their state government. Perhaps it would be great if some did these days, but the point is that they don't and never have. Moreover, there are protections built into the government against the "tyranny of the majority" should such a thing occur. It's the presidential veto. Which the Congress can override with a two-thirds vote. And even there, there is more protections, where the Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional. And for all that, yes, some draconian laws could pass. But that's how democracies work. And if the public doesn't like what's passed, they can vote their representatives out. And going further, she herself says that the best way to address problems is "not to eliminate or change rules." Except...the filibuster rule itself is a change in the rules. There was no filibuster rule written in the Constitution or the original Senate rules. They "changed rules" to create the filibuster. The first filibuster wasn't even until 1837, half a century after the country was founded. Moreover, the Senate kept changing the filibuster rule. The rule today isn't what it original was, or was changed to over the years. Today, a senator can just say he or she is filibustering, and that's it. The majority now needs 60 votes to end the filibuster. Before this, a person who wanted to filibuster a bill had to actually...well, filibuster. You had to stand and keep talking without stopping. And the moment you did, the filibuster was over. And all the country could see that it was you who was filibustering and keeping the government from moving on. So, to talk about how we shouldn't change the rules misses the very reality of how the filibuster came to be. And came to develop into the problem it is. But her level of interpreting politics today and the filibuster is even deeper than all that. Which is pretty incredibly deep. That's because her talking about a system not "working effectively" and talking about "changing behavior" totally loses sight of the reality that this is not about the system not working effectively, but not working. And it's not about behavior, but cold, calculated political decisions to block the majority. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell does not have a "behavioral" problem. His problem is that he said, quite clearly and bluntly, "One hundred percent of my focus is standing up to this administration." To repeat -- that's "One hundred percent of my focus." That doesn't leave much wiggle room for changing his political actions, and leaves zero room for changing his "behavior." Because it's not about behavior. And "One hundred percent" blocking of your opponent -- again, "One hundred percent" -- is government not working. Personally, as I've written here before, my preference is not to get rid of the filibuster, but changing it. And (and this is important) changing it to how it was before this latest change where you only had to say privately that you filibustering. I'm for returning the filibuster to what it actually was, which was why it was hardly ever used, but when it was, it was for really important issues, not just to "stand up to the administration" one hundred percent of the time. I'm also in favor (as I wrote in that article) of adding some additional tweaks which put the burden on those filibustering, not on the majority. But even without these added rules, the basic changes would be fine for me, simply returning the filibuster to what it was. It made a filibuster difficult. But a filibuster should be difficult. It shouldn't stop government from working. And it shouldn't let the minority rule, because that's not democracy. But it should give the minority a voice and a chance to address bills it wants to stop, and to see if it can win the day over the majority. And if it can't, then the majority wins -- and democracy moves on. As it's supposed to. Kyrsten Sinema -- and Joe Manchin -- and not stupid and obtuse. They are just devastatingly wrong and putting democracy at risk. Which is the very opposite of what they apparently believe they want to do.
4 Comments
Douglass Abramson
6/3/2021 05:55:23 pm
I'm glad you used the word "rule" and wrote about the filibuster like something that required majority permission to structurally change or eliminate. I don't know how the late House version was set up (something I had never heard or read of before this week), but apparently, the Senate filibuster isn't even a rule. It is a convention. A gentlemen's agreement. It doesn't fall under parliamentary rules or the Parliamentarian. This means, that while it would be unprecedented and certainly unpopular, even with many Democrats who want to get rid of it; Schumer can walk in the chamber tomorrow and unilaterally drive a stake through the damn thing's Jim Crow loving heart. It would put the power in the majority's hands where it belongs. It would take pressure off of members in his caucus in weak seats. His seat is practically a rubber stamp when it comes up, even if he retires. He can afford whatever blow back comes with the move. All of this, of course, means he won't do it.
Reply
Robert Elisberg
6/3/2021 07:58:10 pm
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. At issue is really the matter of cloture, to end debate, and that *is* a Senate rule -- Rule 22. And Chuck Schumer can't just unilaterally end that on his own decision. So, perhaps I'm missing what you're saying.
Reply
Douglass Abramson
6/3/2021 08:26:10 pm
According to the Senate rules experts on Morning Joe this morning, nothing regarding the existence or rules of the Senate filibuster have ever been officially adopted rules or procedures. So if they were correct, (and Scarborough wasn't surprised by this, so he knew this, or had it vetted before air time, I am assuming) it has been an ongoing handshake deal between the parties keeping it going all these years. The vote to end a filibuster is part of the deal. What I was trying to say was that since it is just an agreement, Schumer should be able to scrap the filibuster itself on his own. If the filibuster is gone, Rule 22 doesn't apply because the Senate won't leave standard debating procedure. If he gets too much push back, Schumer should still, at a minimum, be able to unilaterally change the filibuster rules back to where the opposition has to physically hold the floor with continuous speeches on the subject of the bill. Rule 22 would still apply, but I think it might be easier to find sixty votes under those circumstances. If I misunderstood what the panel was saying this morning, they didn't explain something well, because I was very wide awake at 3AM, unfortunately.
Reply
Robert Elisberg
6/3/2021 10:07:32 pm
Honestly, I don't know if any of that is accurate. But of course "I don't know" may mean it is. But "Rule 22" is a real thing to end cloture, and that does require a 60 vote margin to change. Or they can use the nuclear option, which only requires 51 votes. So, I don't know what the experts are talking about.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|