Saturday, November 30, 2013

Filibuster Reform: Hip, Hip ... Hooray?

You can, unfortunately, basically color me "meh" on this subject.  I'll explain why after I sum up the two basic reactions from the left on this subject.

One, and no doubt the predominant one, is best illustrated by this piece in The American Prospect, which does as good a job as can be done in listing the reasons why progressives should be doing cartwheels up and down Capitol Hill over Harry Reid's undoubtedly bold gamble to require straight up-or-down votes on all presidential appointments (except, for the time being, for Supreme Court appointments).  The other, less partisan perspective is best summed up here, which correctly identifies Reid's election of the so-called "nuclear option" as the last nail in the coffin of the Senate's bipartisan character.

So, why am I "meh" on this?  Because I'm mourning at the same time I'm cartwheeling.  And, mixed in with the mourning, is my cautionary thinking about the long term impact of this. And I say this despite the fact that there is no doubt in my mind--absolutely, positively none--that Reid had no choice.

I'm familiar with both the plague-on-both-their-houses argument when it comes to filibuster abuse, as well as the incredibly dishonest assertion that the abuse all started with the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.  The Prospect article correctly notes that Bork was not filibustered; his nomination failed on an up-or-down vote.  Likewise, as also noted by the Prospect, Democrats have allowed up-or-down votes on any number of ideologues put forth by Republicans for either executive or judicial positions.  Actually, on that point, the Prospect's argument could have been boiled down to two words:  "Roberts" and "Alito," both of whom clearly lied their way through confirmation hearings to ensure their ability to rewrite American jurisprudence.

As for the plague argument?  Take a look.  It didn't start with Robert Bork.  It started with the election of a black President.  And it reached its culmination when Charles Grassley effectively decided that he was going to single-handedly keep the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Reagan era, even if doing so meant giving that court a back-breaking workload.  Essentially, Reid realized that he was in the position that Obama was in during October's shutdown--one in which he was being blackmailed.  Reid didn't make a choice because he had none.  He had to find a way to make the Senate work, and he did it.

But, as even he knew, he did it at the cost of whatever ability the Senate still had as an institution to facilitate consensus across party lines.  There is and was a lot to be said for that ability.  The difference between democracy and war is the difference between talking to each other and shouting at each other.  One path leads to progress, while the other at best leads to chaos.  You don't have to be a so-called "centrist" to mourn the loss of a tool that facilitated dialogue over destruction.

And make no mistake:  the days are numbered for the filibuster in any form.  Once Republicans regain control of the Senate, they will do away with what's left of it and turn the World's Greatest Deliberative Body into a miniaturized version of the House of Representatives, using their "pain" over Reid's decision as an excuse.  If anything, I believe that their abuse of the filibuster was part of a win-win strategy for them:  deny Obama a working Administration in the short run, forcing Reid to step in, and thereby gain an excuse to make the decision they were too cowardly to make in 2005--when they brought up, for the first time, the idea of eliminating the rule.

So this may be good in the short run, but it may yet prove terrible in the long run, especially if the long run gives us GOP control over both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.  On the other hand, this may also change how voters vote in Senate elections, knowing that their vote is far more consequential without the power of an organized minority to blunt it.  That knowledge, in turn, may reshape reshape voting patterns in unpredictable ways.  We can only wait and hope.

But we can feel a little short-term pride in having a Senate leader who is clearly far braver than his opponents.  Reid, a former boxer, threw the right punch.  We will all need to keep up with him and keep on punching ourselves, if we are to prevent the end of filibuster abuse to lead to a Republican tyranny.

No comments: