Filibuster - An Interesting Observation

[jclay]

It seems pretty accurate from where I sit.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...PBi7uyNXomLwcg

[dennis]

Our understanding of politics is shaped by the point we entered the timeline. At 53 I cannot remember a time there wasn't gridlock in the senate. Kind of assumed it was always like that. Hard to imagine it being a functioning body at some point. Interesting article.

[smontanaro]

Our understanding of politics is shaped by the point we entered the timeline. At 53 I cannot remember a time there wasn't gridlock in the senate. Kind of assumed it was always like that.

Cue obligatory quote: "Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it."

A lot of my recent political reading looks back as far as the near-Civil War era. It's kind of amazing that many of the arguments being made today were the same ones being advanced 150 years ago. Things like, "redistribution of wealth," "states' rights," etc. Nothing really new under the sun I guess (to borrow another well-worn phrase).

[bdaghisallo]

Interesting fact:

The Senate filibuster was used 328 times in 2020 - once by Republican senators and 327 times by the other guys.

[lavi]

Interesting article. I never fully understood how something like the filibuster came into being. The article is a good history lesson.

What I don't understand is how these type of rules are made up. I'm guessing there are rules and voting and such.

So the McConnell Filibuster requiring 60 votes to pass a bill: how/when did this come into being? And, with it being such a clog to legislation, why was it "voted" in? If this came to be while McConnell was the minority leader, how does he have that power.

In other words, educate me.

I have a hard time following politics (of any brand) as I think it largely bullshit and about money and power. Actually caring for constituents seems to have gone the way of the dodo. Don't even get me started on campaign finance "rules" or lack thereof. And CERTAINLY don't mention how the pricks in Senate have their own retirement system, don't pay into SS, and get to vote for their own pay raises. OH, not to mention no term limits. Such BS!

[bdaghisallo]

The filibuster has been around since 1806 in the US Senate. It is not new. The concept originated in the Senate in Ancient Rome where the length of time senators could speak was not limited.

In modern times it is a mechanism to enhance the power of the minority in debates. Compare it to the rules and procedures of a Westminster style parliament, like the UK and Canada, where all one needs to do anything is 50% plus 1 vote. The minority in Westminster parliaments has very little power.

It is not a "McConnell rule".

[smontanaro]

The Senate filibuster was used 328 times in 2020 - once by Republican senators and 327 times by the other guys.

Sure, you play by the rules you have before you. When The Republicans were in the minority they used it every chance they could to stymie Democratic efforts to pass legislation. The expectation that they will filibuster everything now is what makes this discussion timely.

Adam Jentleson was deputy chief of staff for Harry Reid. After he left the Senate, he researched and wrote a book, “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy." He was interviewed on the Ezra Klein podcast a couple months ago. Ezra Klein has also been hanging around Congress as a journalist for a long while and also has a book, “Why We’re Polarized." The interview is more like a back-and-forth conversation. I highly recommend it. They discuss reconciliation, and why it's a poor substitute for normal legislative processes. Here's an extended quote about how we even got the filibuster (emphasis mine):

And just to level set on this, the framers did not intend the minority to have the right to unlimited debate in the Senate. They were very clear about this. I’m not an originalist, but I think it’s important to establish this because this is where the conversation often goes. They implemented many rules and procedures that would allow a majority to end debate when it had become obstructionist and ceased to be about persuasion and just about blocking things. One of the major rules got taken off the rule books by mistake in 1806. No one noticed for decades, and then [John] Calhoun ["spiritual godfather of the Confederacy"] in the 1830s realized that taking away this ability to end debate created the potential for unlimited debate. And so he started to say that this was what the Senate is about. And it’s about the minority’s ability to always speak as long as they wanted. [James] Madison was alive, and at one point, he wrote to Calhoun and responded to his ideas. He wrote in response to Calhoun’s ideas that this is not what he intended at all. But then he died, and he was the last of the framers to go. And so then, Calhoun sort of had the floor to himself to reinvent the idea of the Senate.

I am happy to discuss this stuff, and I think it can be done without rancor. I do think it's important to understand the underpinnings of the system we have today so we can understand what the heck is going on in the Senate, "the world's greatest deliberative body" (my eye).

[72gmc]

Take it back to what it was. Make Cancun Cruz or Chuck-out-the-bike-lane Schumer stand and read Green Eggs and Ham for 18 straight hours (no sitting!) to block a bill. The current incarnation is lazy.

[bdaghisallo]

Take it back to what it was. Make Cancun Cruz or Chuck-out-the-bike-lane Schumer stand and read Green Eggs and Ham for 18 straight hours (no sitting!) to block a bill. The current incarnation is lazy.

Agreed.

[Scott G.]

Take it back to what it was. Make Cancun Cruz or Chuck-out-the-bike-lane Schumer stand and read Green Eggs and Ham for 18 straight hours (no sitting!) to block a bill. The current incarnation is lazy.

Fillibusters should be Mr. Smith style...

James-Stewart-Mr-Smith-Goes-to-Washington.jpg

[bcm119]

Clinton was guilty of carelessness and, like many baby boomers, cluelessness about technology.

[j44ke]

The rug was pulled out from under them. The current talk of, and I don't recall the precise term or details (just heard about it), but essentially/something like forcing a common, corporate (and substantial) tax rate across manufacturers regardless of global location is at least the beginning of discussions concerning how to dis-incentivize corporate utilization of wealth inequalities to the detriment of the developed countries (where these technologies were hatched, and paid for).

One thing that continually amazes me is that social/political conservatives scream "free enterprise" and "deregulation" yet fail to realize that manufacturing flight (and increasingly white collar jobs) to areas of lower opportunity cost is precisely what capitalism does, absent opposing externalities or regulatory prevention. That flight wasn't the result of some innate governmental (or Democratic Party or Socialist or Commie) conspiracy but rather the rational pursuit of maximum ROI (or annual performance bonuses??); and buying legislators to prevent hindrance. I wonder how many of those social conservatives woulda supported strong government regulations dis-incentivizing such flight?

The reason it hasn't happened is because it's practically and politically difficult....and we'd rather have, metaphorically (and literally) five cheap TVs rather than one Curtis Mathis...even if it means self (industrial/social) evisceration.

I was employing ironic understatement.

[jclay]

I was employing ironic understatement.

Fast ball smoked this batter.

[Matthew Strongin]

This thread has gone off the rails. I hate closing threads, particularly on subjects that I think are ripe for interesting discussion like the role of the filibuster in politics. But the pissing match and logical fallacies are tiresome. So here's what I propose...we keep this discussion reasonably centered on the filibuster, we support our arguments with sound reason and we use references where possible to back up a claim. Or we can just keep shouting past each other and I'll gladly shut it down.

I'll go first...

While the Manchin opinion piece in WaPo is easy to agree with (in broad strokes), I'd like to know what he's doing to actually improve the situation. He claims that representative government depends on trust in the elected members of Congress to do what's right and then goes on and on about all that they do wrong. So, is this just bloviating to justify his unwillingness to take a hard stand against the Republican obstructionists or is he/will he try to unblock the machine? Also, what about putting the hard work back into the filibuster. I'd like to see more of this:

[72gmc]

If Manchin really wanted my support, he'd stand and read that op-ed over and over again until tomorrow.

[Too Tall]

So here's the deal (cough). One of the most compelling reasons to continue this discussion are the fair points being made about a topic few of us understand. The most compelling reason to shut the mother down are the foghorn replies.

Please please start another thread, this one's cooked.