In truth, the filibuster is a relic of a different age in American politics, an anachronism the nation can no longer afford as it faces unprecedented threats and challenges that demand action.
Hello world!
7 years ago
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Hyperbolic, yet predictable attacks on filibustering
Filibusters are strangling the Senate | Steven Guess | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That's, as far as I can tell, a straightforward description of the filibuster that's far from hyperbolic.
It's true, first of all, that the filibuster is a relic of past practice that is anachronistically out of place in modern, American politics. Filibusters first became possible in 1806; the first one didn't occur until 1837. In the bygone days, it was understood as, first, a way for individual members to take a stand by personally obstructing a bill and, later, as a tool for Southern Democrats to obstruct civil rights legislation. The idea that any major bill required a supermajority in the Senate is an incredible modern one. For most of our history, major legislation was passed by slim majorities in the Senate.
The rise of our period's hyper-partisan politics has made use of the filibuster explode. It is employed in a different manner, at incredibly different rates, than was ever envisioned by those who codified it in the Senate rules. It has altered the institution of the Senate in ways never envisioned by those who drafted the Constitution. And it has done so in ways that have basis only in partisan politics and not in any sane branch of political theory.
And, as for the filibuster stifling desperately needed action -- I don't see how anyone can deny that. Obviously, defenders of the filibuster at the moment are in love with it because it's blocking a Democratic, legislative agenda.
When the Senate needs to act on some issue that everyone admits is a political firestorm and a serious policy crisis, though, the filibuster will be a disaster waiting to happen. Consider the looming fiscal crisis in our country, as entitlement expenditures rise and revenue stays too low. Do you think you're really going to be able to find sixty votes to cut spending and raise taxes in the ways that would be needed to save our nation from being financially crippled?
You won't, and a happenstance in the Senate's rules will do major damage to our country. There's nothing "hyperbolic" about noting that.
I'll say it again. This attack is hyperbolic. Though, I'm mainly referring to the "unprecedented threats and challenges" gassery. And yes, I'll deny that these Liberal pet issues "desperately need[]" action.
The problem is N.S., that these folks don't really do filibusters anymore, so we're not comparing apples and apples. The issues and the "stands" for which the filibuster threat is wielded today are sad. The threat is only effective due to (a) the pathetic character of those being threatened or (b) the pathetic proposals/policies at issue.
The Dems need to realize (though they and the MSM have a shamelessly short memory) that they're not likely to be in the majority for many more cycles.
Post a Comment