4 ms·

Can someone point to any concrete results of debate on the Senate floor from anytime in the last 20 years or so? I am genuinely asking, because it seems to me

by slg 7y ago

Can someone point to any concrete results of debate on the Senate floor from anytime in the last 20 years or so? I am genuinely asking, because it seems to me that the value of debate on the floor is like you said only pretense at this point. Mandating that pretense and in turn making the Senate slower to react in an emergency seems like an actively harmful requirement.

otachack 7y ago
Due to extreme partisan politics, I have to agree that there doesn't seem to have been any good debates on Senate floor. COVID19 has finally broken the dam of it but doesn't seem long lasting. For the most part the majority party seems to call the shots and are all aligned in effort, making any debates a waste of time. Until the partisan politics stop and we have parties reaching across the aisle again, that is.
- matthewbauer 7y ago
  I don't think partisan politics have anything to do with it - it's just always going to be much easier to decide things behind closed doors. The '94 Republican Revolution didn't really make these things more transparent - just more theatrical.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ryanmarsh 7y ago
it seems to me that the value of debate on the floor is like you said only pretense at this point Yes, is this basically what C-SPAN serves as? The hours of Senators reading speeches, is that the "deliberation"? Serious question. I never thought of the Senate as a "deliberative body", not that it shouldn't be.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
guerrilla 7y ago
"It doesn't work, make it worse" is what I hear here. These are the kind of arguments that move states further towards fascism.
- slg 7y ago
  That is a misinterpretation of my comment. To reframe it using your language "It doesn't work now and is actively hurting us during times of emergency, so does removing this requirement make it worse?" No one here has yet to put together a convincing argument on the real world ramifications of debate on the Senate floor. I am open to changing my position on this, but I need to hear a stronger argument than someone proving Godwin's law.
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    You can try to dismiss the fact that circumventing debate and transparency in government is authoritarian as Godwin and run your apologetics for such authoritarianism while two countries have just slipped into literal fascism and fascist parties literally founded by retired Nazis are pulling 25% in some European countries if you want.
    - javagram 7y ago
      This is ridiculous. Senators don’t have to literally be on the senate floor to debate, it’s the 21st century. This has nothing to do with nazism anymore than all the companies who have moved their work meetings to Zoom have become Nazis. Never mind that the “debate” on the floor is just them making speeches to to the TV camera, something they could just as easily do from home - and often do by calling into cable news or major broadcast networks. Often the speeches they are making are to a nearly empty chamber as well - you’re not seeing actual debate in most cases, the other side isn’t there listening and considering the arguments.
    - slg 7y ago
      I asked you for a reason and your answer was basically "do it my way or you are a fascist." I am happy to engage in debate or change my mind on this issue, but I need something more specific and tangible than allusions to "debate and transparency". How do these speeches on the Senate floor lead to debate and transparency in ways that can't be replicated remotely?
blisterpeanuts 7y ago
It's not exactly a pretense, but rather it's playing to the audience, which is the country and the rest of the world. It's theatrics, not intended to sway the lawmakers themselves, who in general are not persuadable by their colleagues. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, lawmakers are horse trading and calling in favors to get their pet projects passed. This is pretty much how Congress has worked for the past 100 years or so.
- matthewbauer 7y ago
  This was true in the 19th century as well.
  - slg 7y ago
    I am reminded of this historical document [1] (A real source [2]). This private horsetrading likely has and will always be part of any legislative body. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySzEXKUSZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySzEXKUSZw [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1790

by slg 7y ago

otachack 7y ago

Due to extreme partisan politics, I have to agree that there doesn't seem to have been any good debates on Senate floor. COVID19 has finally broken the dam of it but doesn't seem long lasting. For the most part the majority party seems to call the shots and are all aligned in effort, making any debates a waste of time. Until the partisan politics stop and we have parties reaching across the aisle again, that is.

matthewbauer 7y ago
I don't think partisan politics have anything to do with it - it's just always going to be much easier to decide things behind closed doors. The '94 Republican Revolution didn't really make these things more transparent - just more theatrical.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ryanmarsh 7y ago

it seems to me that the value of debate on the floor is like you said only pretense at this point Yes, is this basically what C-SPAN serves as? The hours of Senators reading speeches, is that the "deliberation"? Serious question. I never thought of the Senate as a "deliberative body", not that it shouldn't be.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

guerrilla 7y ago

"It doesn't work, make it worse" is what I hear here. These are the kind of arguments that move states further towards fascism.

slg 7y ago
That is a misinterpretation of my comment. To reframe it using your language "It doesn't work now and is actively hurting us during times of emergency, so does removing this requirement make it worse?" No one here has yet to put together a convincing argument on the real world ramifications of debate on the Senate floor. I am open to changing my position on this, but I need to hear a stronger argument than someone proving Godwin's law.
- guerrilla 7y ago
  You can try to dismiss the fact that circumventing debate and transparency in government is authoritarian as Godwin and run your apologetics for such authoritarianism while two countries have just slipped into literal fascism and fascist parties literally founded by retired Nazis are pulling 25% in some European countries if you want.
  - javagram 7y ago
    This is ridiculous. Senators don’t have to literally be on the senate floor to debate, it’s the 21st century. This has nothing to do with nazism anymore than all the companies who have moved their work meetings to Zoom have become Nazis. Never mind that the “debate” on the floor is just them making speeches to to the TV camera, something they could just as easily do from home - and often do by calling into cable news or major broadcast networks. Often the speeches they are making are to a nearly empty chamber as well - you’re not seeing actual debate in most cases, the other side isn’t there listening and considering the arguments.
  - slg 7y ago
    I asked you for a reason and your answer was basically "do it my way or you are a fascist." I am happy to engage in debate or change my mind on this issue, but I need something more specific and tangible than allusions to "debate and transparency". How do these speeches on the Senate floor lead to debate and transparency in ways that can't be replicated remotely?

blisterpeanuts 7y ago

It's not exactly a pretense, but rather it's playing to the audience, which is the country and the rest of the world. It's theatrics, not intended to sway the lawmakers themselves, who in general are not persuadable by their colleagues. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, lawmakers are horse trading and calling in favors to get their pet projects passed. This is pretty much how Congress has worked for the past 100 years or so.

matthewbauer 7y ago
This was true in the 19th century as well.
- slg 7y ago
  I am reminded of this historical document [1] (A real source [2]). This private horsetrading likely has and will always be part of any legislative body. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySzEXKUSZw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WySzEXKUSZw [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1790