We need people who will get on a little ship and try to sail across the ocean. We also need people who will tell them all the ways they will die doing it.
IOW, we need people who push the boundaries, and we need people who defend the boundaries. That’s not just a philosophical thing, it’s almost written into our DNA. We have to explore, but we also have a disgust reaction.
Our system of government was designed to prevent — or at least slow down — radical swings from one extreme to the other. We were supposed to have processes that allowed for deliberation and debate. The filibuster was part of this. It was a way to say “slow down and think.”
The filibuster has transformed over the years. It no longer requires people to stay up late, ala “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” reading the Bible on the Senate floor. Maybe that was a better model.
The important thing is that we have to have some way to prevent precipitous action, and we seem to have lost a lot of those restraints. We hardly even have hearings on bills any more, and it’s a dead certainty that most of the people voting on a bill don’t know what’s in it.
It’s wise to not allow a 51-49 majority to have their way, only to switch two years later, and the Senate has been the place to do that. The House is more democratic — more responsive to what the people want — and the Senate is supposed to be more deliberative.
I like that, and I want it preserved. I don’t mind if they tinker with the rules a bit to make it better, so long as we retain ways to slow things down and think for a minute before we commit ourselves to some new initiative.
When the Republicans retake the majority in both houses later this year, I will still support this basic concept — that the minority has the power to slow things down. In fact, I would support a rule that nothing can pass the senate without at least 60 votes.
QUOTE: I will still support this basic concept — that the minority has the power to slow things down. In fact, I would support a rule that nothing can pass the senate without at least 60 votes.
Ideally, it’s a good sentiment and in a different time, I would be much more optimistic it. Yet, today’s environment has gotten so partisan that it’s become a game of gridlock on both sides. Each earning points with their base when they “stick it to” the other side. With increasing frequency we have a partisan game of chicken that results in things like silly government shut-downs that causes residual damage. Very little gets done…even when the intent is bi-partisan.
As I said in a previous post, I’m all for the filibuster if it was used to legitimately spark authentic discussion and debate about very serious matters. Currently, it’s used primarily as an obstruction device and sometimes eliminates potential legislation that could be for the common good of the nation. I don’t see Congress working to be more collaborative and bi-partisan nor them being more effective in getting things done in the near future. In fact, it seems the filibuster will increasingly be used as a partisan 2×4 for obstruction and not as a device for thoughtful discussion with a goal of getting to agreement. Given that, I’m wondering if the time has passed for the filibuster.
I don’t follow you here. If it’s true (and I believe it is) that both sides are extremely partisan, looking out for their interests and not the interests of the nation, playing silly games, etc., doesn’t that provide more reason for the filibuster? IOW, a mechanism that can slow down that sort of craziness seems like a good thing.
As I see it, the filibuster is two-edge sword…it keeps the lid on some potentially negative things but also blocks some potentially good things. Since Congress is likely to continue being hyperpartisan with or without the filibuster, I’m wondering if it’s worth biting the bullet to let those good things get through. Perpetual government gridlock certainly hasn’t helped the country.
It’s only obstruction when your side isn’t getting their way. (The “your” is generic, applying to anyone)
Every state has a government. Can they not do what they want? Why should people in California dictate to people in Oklahoma what they can do? And, vice versa? Maybe we should only do federally what we can all agree on? Some states are enacting minimum wage laws. I can tell you it makes no sense for the minimum wage to be the same in NYC and SF as it is in Tulsa. The cost of living here is less.
The infrastructure bill would have passed easily if it was about infrastructure. But, it was about a bunch of other stuff too.
QUOTE: It’s only obstruction when your side isn’t getting their way. (The “your” is generic, applying to anyone)
At one time I would have thought that. Yet, in today’s increasingly partisan environment, the focus isn’t on trying to find areas of agreement but to “stick it to the other side”. So, in that context it’s less about actual legislating and getting to something that would be “generally” acceptable for the country. It’s about using all means to stop the opponent and the filibuster has increasingly become one of the weapons in that warfare.
QUOTE: Maybe we should only do federally what we can all agree on?
That’s a great goal but is it practical? Some wanted women to vote, others didn’t. Some wanted to end slavery, some didn’t. Some want to pay taxes, some don’t. Some want legal marriage to consist of all unions (irrespective of sex), some don’t. Given this dynamic, would any federal legislation be possible with an all agree standard? Would it be better to be governed by state government? If so, what happens when there’s disagreement within a state? Do we go to districts or counties?