3 ms·

Filibustering is supposed to be for something extraordinary -- the idea is that majority-rules is the norm, but for a given issue a minority can really dig thei

by jbooth 17y ago

Filibustering is supposed to be for something extraordinary -- the idea is that majority-rules is the norm, but for a given issue a minority can really dig their heels in as an added brake on the system. Adopting the filibuster as a matter of routine for nearly every matter before the senate, and hoping that the country will reward you for it by being disgusted with congress's lack of ability to get anything done, is not what they were envisioning when they enacted it.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Filibustering is supposed to be for something extraordinary Political junkie history trivia interjection here. It used to be that any one senator could stop laws from passing. Later on cloture was reduced from unanimous consent to 2/3rd of the Senate. Finally it was reduced again to 3/5th of the Senate. There are lots of other issues here, and I didn't want to interrupt your discussion, but I find it fascinating that, if anything, it was always intended that very few senators could/should hold up things. The Senate was intended to be the more deliberative and slow-moving body, and large latitude has always been given for the minority to shut things down with discussion. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Thanks, good point. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I thought that traditionally it was rarely used, usually only when there was a very strong difference over a particular policy. (Also, I believe there are still single-senator anonymous holds in the senate but those are a different thing). Filibustering every single routine bill to come through the senate out of cynical political game-playing is a travesty. These people swore an oath to serve the country, and they're disgracing their office with about 8/10 of the filibusters they're invoking.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    I believe you are correct in that the threat of a filibuster is being used way more with each passing year. (Might as well weigh in with an opinion) Part of this is because politicians just don't like each other that much anymore -- nobody gets together for poker or dinner parties. That's a shame, and it hurts the country. Part of it is that Congress is under incredible scrutiny by cable news outlets, talk radio, and the blogs -- people are being sent there to fight an ideological battle, perhaps to the exclusion of doing the nation's business. Both sides are keeping these long lists of grievances with the other side. Lots of bitterness and lack of trust. This isn't an unsolved problem, however. The Republic has a long history, and we've seen all kinds of partisanship in the past. Traditionally president of the party in power finds a few members of the opposite party and makes deals with them for bills. This usually ticks off the president's base, but it also splits the opposition and makes them ineffective. Once the opposition is split, moderates from both camps can join in to pass a bill with a dozen or so holdouts at both extremes voting against it. It's been done lots of times. Clinton very effectively did it when he announced "The era of big government is over" He took the other guy's issues and crafted bills that made it impossible for some of the other guys not to vote for them. Once he snagged a dozen or so Republicans, the rest of the process worked out fine. But it really ticked off his base! I'm not seeing that same strategy being applied today -- perhaps because it wouldn't work. I don't know. I tend to think it would have worked a year ago. It may be too late now. Beats me.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      The same strategy was applied. The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts. How many republicans voted for it again? How many republicans would vote for any healthcare bill? Even one that gave kittens to every republican in the country, spit in the eye of liberals and was named "the healthcare bill"? I posted below that republicans filibustered PAYGO rules and a deficit reduction committee... right after filibustering the routine raising of the debt ceiling. The republicans see a clear incentive to gridlock every single thing that goes through congress because they think people will blame it on the democrats. It's working out for them ok, so shame on us, I guess.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        Perhaps you are right. Like I said, I don't know. It could be that Republicans are somehow much more recalcitrant than they were 20 years ago. It could also be that the administration has a more belligerent and inept political team than Clinton's administration did. Or a combination. Or something else. Remember that as the party in power, the administration's role (under the divide-and-conquer strategy) is to be accommodating and generous. Intimidating the minority party -- even if they deserve the bashing -- is just going to solidify their position and make the problem worse. Hey. Just my opinion. I have a friend of mine that no matter what the subject can give me a list of all the bad things the Republicans did. I have another friend that can do the same for the Democrats. I'm really glad that neither of these friends are in public office. :)
        jbooth 17y ago
        Well, I'm biased, but my reading on the situation is that Obama's a born conciliator who's tried to loop in the R's on numerous occasions (Baucus-Graham negotiations on the healthcare bill, drastically altering the stimulus in order to get Snowe on board), while the current group of republicans in congress have been far more recalcitrant than recent minorities. Obama hasn't even made a recess appointment yet, and way more of his appointees are being held up than Bush ever had to deal with. Kennedy worked with Bush on NCLB. Gingrich, although not in the minority, worked with Clinton on welfare reform (although Clinton did have to veto it 7 times before they would pass something he could agree to). I just don't see any willingness from current republicans to share a victory with Obama on anything. Either they're personally committed to not working with him on anything, ever, or they're afraid of tea party primary challenges, or both. The fact that the current republican caucus is primarily old white men from the south probably doesn't help, for reasons that are too inflammatory to go into too deeply except to note that I'm commenting on old white men from the south, not on republicans necessarily.

by jbooth 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Filibustering is supposed to be for something extraordinary Political junkie history trivia interjection here. It used to be that any one senator could stop laws from passing. Later on cloture was reduced from unanimous consent to 2/3rd of the Senate. Finally it was reduced again to 3/5th of the Senate. There are lots of other issues here, and I didn't want to interrupt your discussion, but I find it fascinating that, if anything, it was always intended that very few senators could/should hold up things. The Senate was intended to be the more deliberative and slow-moving body, and large latitude has always been given for the minority to shut things down with discussion. Back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

jbooth 17y ago
Thanks, good point. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I thought that traditionally it was rarely used, usually only when there was a very strong difference over a particular policy. (Also, I believe there are still single-senator anonymous holds in the senate but those are a different thing). Filibustering every single routine bill to come through the senate out of cynical political game-playing is a travesty. These people swore an oath to serve the country, and they're disgracing their office with about 8/10 of the filibusters they're invoking.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  I believe you are correct in that the threat of a filibuster is being used way more with each passing year. (Might as well weigh in with an opinion) Part of this is because politicians just don't like each other that much anymore -- nobody gets together for poker or dinner parties. That's a shame, and it hurts the country. Part of it is that Congress is under incredible scrutiny by cable news outlets, talk radio, and the blogs -- people are being sent there to fight an ideological battle, perhaps to the exclusion of doing the nation's business. Both sides are keeping these long lists of grievances with the other side. Lots of bitterness and lack of trust. This isn't an unsolved problem, however. The Republic has a long history, and we've seen all kinds of partisanship in the past. Traditionally president of the party in power finds a few members of the opposite party and makes deals with them for bills. This usually ticks off the president's base, but it also splits the opposition and makes them ineffective. Once the opposition is split, moderates from both camps can join in to pass a bill with a dozen or so holdouts at both extremes voting against it. It's been done lots of times. Clinton very effectively did it when he announced "The era of big government is over" He took the other guy's issues and crafted bills that made it impossible for some of the other guys not to vote for them. Once he snagged a dozen or so Republicans, the rest of the process worked out fine. But it really ticked off his base! I'm not seeing that same strategy being applied today -- perhaps because it wouldn't work. I don't know. I tend to think it would have worked a year ago. It may be too late now. Beats me.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    The same strategy was applied. The stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts. How many republicans voted for it again? How many republicans would vote for any healthcare bill? Even one that gave kittens to every republican in the country, spit in the eye of liberals and was named "the healthcare bill"? I posted below that republicans filibustered PAYGO rules and a deficit reduction committee... right after filibustering the routine raising of the debt ceiling. The republicans see a clear incentive to gridlock every single thing that goes through congress because they think people will blame it on the democrats. It's working out for them ok, so shame on us, I guess.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      Perhaps you are right. Like I said, I don't know. It could be that Republicans are somehow much more recalcitrant than they were 20 years ago. It could also be that the administration has a more belligerent and inept political team than Clinton's administration did. Or a combination. Or something else. Remember that as the party in power, the administration's role (under the divide-and-conquer strategy) is to be accommodating and generous. Intimidating the minority party -- even if they deserve the bashing -- is just going to solidify their position and make the problem worse. Hey. Just my opinion. I have a friend of mine that no matter what the subject can give me a list of all the bad things the Republicans did. I have another friend that can do the same for the Democrats. I'm really glad that neither of these friends are in public office. :)
      - jbooth 17y ago
        Well, I'm biased, but my reading on the situation is that Obama's a born conciliator who's tried to loop in the R's on numerous occasions (Baucus-Graham negotiations on the healthcare bill, drastically altering the stimulus in order to get Snowe on board), while the current group of republicans in congress have been far more recalcitrant than recent minorities. Obama hasn't even made a recess appointment yet, and way more of his appointees are being held up than Bush ever had to deal with. Kennedy worked with Bush on NCLB. Gingrich, although not in the minority, worked with Clinton on welfare reform (although Clinton did have to veto it 7 times before they would pass something he could agree to). I just don't see any willingness from current republicans to share a victory with Obama on anything. Either they're personally committed to not working with him on anything, ever, or they're afraid of tea party primary challenges, or both. The fact that the current republican caucus is primarily old white men from the south probably doesn't help, for reasons that are too inflammatory to go into too deeply except to note that I'm commenting on old white men from the south, not on republicans necessarily.