3 ms·

1. The much-mythologized founders disagreed on how strong the federal government would be; the first political parties were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists

1. The much-mythologized founders disagreed on how strong the federal government would be; the first political parties were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (technically the Democratic-Republicans, but carrying on that same ideology). 2. Filibusters are not in the Constitution, weren't possible for decades after it was signed, weren't used for half a century after it was signed, and didn't become the "sixty votes required for anything" tool they are today until 10-15 years ago. The founders had nothing to do with it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pirate787 3y ago
You're incorrect, the first filibuster was 11 years after the Constitution was ratified and have been common since 1917 and common in their current form since 1970 (that's 53 years not 10-15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  Using the filibuster the way it's used now and not actually trying to come to a compromise is definitely new. It's not something that changed about the rule itself, but about the way it's used. See the graph in this article: https://www.statista.com/chart/25929/number-of-senate-filibusters/ https://www.statista.com/chart/25929/number-of-senate-filibu... IMO it all comes down to the insight that the opposition party has nothing to gain from cooperating. If something good gets passed, the majority party gets the credit. If nothing gets passed, the majority party gets the blame, regardless details how that outcome was achieved and what role the minority party played. So blocking everything is the best strategy. IMO, it's disgusting to have politicians put party over country, but here we are.
  - lumost 3y ago
    I wonder if there has been a change in how senators are judged by their constituents. We’re they judged on their individual records rather than party records in the past?
    - coredog64 3y ago
      Prior to spending reform, the party had some broad behind-the-scenes levers to “encourage” support (read: pork). Today, power vests in subcommittee chairs which typically go to those with tenure (e.g. DiFi who can’t manage to do her job because of old age but also can’t really be kicked out by Schumer)
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      I would imagine all politicians have always been judged similarly: The ones who represent me are highly skilled, very experienced, and have the seniority to ensure my hometown gets it’s fair share, The ones who represent you are lazy, entitled scammers who should be prevented from fleecing my hometown by the imposition of term limits.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Maybe 15 to 30 years ago. These days it seems more like: "The ones who represent me give me feelings of schadenfreude over how they deal with the other party and people" "The ones who represent you give me feelings of angst over how my party is treated"
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        I think I just got called out as elderly, but I can’t point to anything that you said that was false. Well put.
    - arrosenberg 3y ago
      The legislative process changed when the baby boomers entered Congress in the 1970s and started opening up committee processes and requiring publicly recorded votes. At the same time, there was a corporate reaction to a glut of environmental and consumer safety regulation. In 1973, you see the birth of the lobbying industry as ALEC is the first of many "think-tanks" to form. Now legislators are accountable to corporate donors, not their constituents. It's easy to track which legislators provide a good ROI. There's more to it than that, but those are the major causal events that lead to the change in legislator incentives.
- cipheredStones 3y ago
  > common in their current form since 1970 (that's 53 years not 10-15) A chart of filibuster usage over the past ~century speaks for itself: https://bit.ly/3mL6IOU https://bit.ly/3mL6IOU And that's not even fully up to date: the 2019-20 session ended with 298 cloture votes and the 2021-22 session with 289, per https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm . > the first filibuster was 11 years after the Constitution was ratified Sure, whatever - your citation is "wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United States_Senate" and mine is "wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Senate". The exact details don't matter: the relevant points are that it's not a mechanism created by the Constitution, was not common in the lifetime of the Constitution's drafters, and has massively different effects on the governance of the country now than it did in the 20th century, much less the 19th or 18th.
freedomben 3y ago
Not coincidentally, 10 to 15 years ago is around when people started viewing the "other" party as "evil." You can justify a lot of behavior when you declare yourself full of righteous indignation.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  I'm not sure that makes sense. The modern filibuster is a bipartisan agreement for inaction. It's really a bipartisan agreement to defer to Senate Republicans on everything controversial, and to let them take both the blame and credit for it. Democrats are happy with that because when their votes don't count, they can pretend to support anything. When Democrats lose, it energizes their base. Republicans are happy to take credit for economically liberal and nationalistic legislation. And for the legislation that just rewards the wealthy for being wealthy (say, bailouts), movement right-wing and libertarian Republicans can vote against it (and they're mostly in the House) while small consistent groups of Democrats can cross over to make sure it passes anyway. This is friends cooperating.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    You definitely could be right. The motivations of the politicians there make perfect sense. Plus it allows them to fit in the "republicans are evil" to their base, and the republicans can fit in the "democrats are evil" to theirs. Meanwhile the politicians are working together.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Seems like a fair number of democrats probably thought Nixon was a criminal and Reagan was satan and ghwb was a liar and gwb was a warmonger and trump was a fraudster. Also seems like a fair number of republicans probably thought Clinton was a degenerate and Obama was subhuman and Biden is illegitimate, which makes 10-15 a pretty low estimate.
  - eek2121 3y ago
    [flagged]
pyuser583 3y ago
The filibuster began its current form almost immediately after the Constitution was amended to require the election of Senators.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
Where not otherwise stated, the branches of government are free to decide how to conduct their own internal business. The House and the Senate, for instance, get to decide the rules on how to conduct the votes for legislation, how the bills are even made ready for voting in the first place, etc. It can really be no other way, short of stuffing all the parliamentary rules like that into the Constitution.
fwungy 3y ago
The fact that they founded a nation that has last as long and successfully as the USA is extremely impressive, in the same way Apple is impressive even though Steve Jobs was not a perfect person, except the USA is orders of magnitude more impactful. Simply on the basis of accomplishments, whether for good or bad, the founders rank amongst the greatest people to ever exist.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pirate787 3y ago

You're incorrect, the first filibuster was 11 years after the Constitution was ratified and have been common since 1917 and common in their current form since 1970 (that's 53 years not 10-15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...

ajmurmann 3y ago
Using the filibuster the way it's used now and not actually trying to come to a compromise is definitely new. It's not something that changed about the rule itself, but about the way it's used. See the graph in this article: https://www.statista.com/chart/25929/number-of-senate-filibusters/ https://www.statista.com/chart/25929/number-of-senate-filibu... IMO it all comes down to the insight that the opposition party has nothing to gain from cooperating. If something good gets passed, the majority party gets the credit. If nothing gets passed, the majority party gets the blame, regardless details how that outcome was achieved and what role the minority party played. So blocking everything is the best strategy. IMO, it's disgusting to have politicians put party over country, but here we are.
- lumost 3y ago
  I wonder if there has been a change in how senators are judged by their constituents. We’re they judged on their individual records rather than party records in the past?
  - coredog64 3y ago
    Prior to spending reform, the party had some broad behind-the-scenes levers to “encourage” support (read: pork). Today, power vests in subcommittee chairs which typically go to those with tenure (e.g. DiFi who can’t manage to do her job because of old age but also can’t really be kicked out by Schumer)
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    I would imagine all politicians have always been judged similarly: The ones who represent me are highly skilled, very experienced, and have the seniority to ensure my hometown gets it’s fair share, The ones who represent you are lazy, entitled scammers who should be prevented from fleecing my hometown by the imposition of term limits.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Maybe 15 to 30 years ago. These days it seems more like: "The ones who represent me give me feelings of schadenfreude over how they deal with the other party and people" "The ones who represent you give me feelings of angst over how my party is treated"
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        I think I just got called out as elderly, but I can’t point to anything that you said that was false. Well put.
  - arrosenberg 3y ago
    The legislative process changed when the baby boomers entered Congress in the 1970s and started opening up committee processes and requiring publicly recorded votes. At the same time, there was a corporate reaction to a glut of environmental and consumer safety regulation. In 1973, you see the birth of the lobbying industry as ALEC is the first of many "think-tanks" to form. Now legislators are accountable to corporate donors, not their constituents. It's easy to track which legislators provide a good ROI. There's more to it than that, but those are the major causal events that lead to the change in legislator incentives.
cipheredStones 3y ago
> common in their current form since 1970 (that's 53 years not 10-15) A chart of filibuster usage over the past ~century speaks for itself: https://bit.ly/3mL6IOU https://bit.ly/3mL6IOU And that's not even fully up to date: the 2019-20 session ended with 298 cloture votes and the 2021-22 session with 289, per https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm . > the first filibuster was 11 years after the Constitution was ratified Sure, whatever - your citation is "wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United States_Senate" and mine is "wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Senate". The exact details don't matter: the relevant points are that it's not a mechanism created by the Constitution, was not common in the lifetime of the Constitution's drafters, and has massively different effects on the governance of the country now than it did in the 20th century, much less the 19th or 18th.

freedomben 3y ago

Not coincidentally, 10 to 15 years ago is around when people started viewing the "other" party as "evil." You can justify a lot of behavior when you declare yourself full of righteous indignation.

pessimizer 3y ago
I'm not sure that makes sense. The modern filibuster is a bipartisan agreement for inaction. It's really a bipartisan agreement to defer to Senate Republicans on everything controversial, and to let them take both the blame and credit for it. Democrats are happy with that because when their votes don't count, they can pretend to support anything. When Democrats lose, it energizes their base. Republicans are happy to take credit for economically liberal and nationalistic legislation. And for the legislation that just rewards the wealthy for being wealthy (say, bailouts), movement right-wing and libertarian Republicans can vote against it (and they're mostly in the House) while small consistent groups of Democrats can cross over to make sure it passes anyway. This is friends cooperating.
- freedomben 3y ago
  You definitely could be right. The motivations of the politicians there make perfect sense. Plus it allows them to fit in the "republicans are evil" to their base, and the republicans can fit in the "democrats are evil" to theirs. Meanwhile the politicians are working together.
singleshot_ 3y ago
Seems like a fair number of democrats probably thought Nixon was a criminal and Reagan was satan and ghwb was a liar and gwb was a warmonger and trump was a fraudster. Also seems like a fair number of republicans probably thought Clinton was a degenerate and Obama was subhuman and Biden is illegitimate, which makes 10-15 a pretty low estimate.
- eek2121 3y ago
  [flagged]

pyuser583 3y ago

The filibuster began its current form almost immediately after the Constitution was amended to require the election of Senators.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

Where not otherwise stated, the branches of government are free to decide how to conduct their own internal business. The House and the Senate, for instance, get to decide the rules on how to conduct the votes for legislation, how the bills are even made ready for voting in the first place, etc. It can really be no other way, short of stuffing all the parliamentary rules like that into the Constitution.

fwungy 3y ago

The fact that they founded a nation that has last as long and successfully as the USA is extremely impressive, in the same way Apple is impressive even though Steve Jobs was not a perfect person, except the USA is orders of magnitude more impactful. Simply on the basis of accomplishments, whether for good or bad, the founders rank amongst the greatest people to ever exist.