Slash and Burn

The United States is admired in the world partly because it is unusual for a government to change hands without bloodshed and according to the Rule of Law.  In recent years, nations in western Europe and elsewhere also hold peaceful elections and honor the results.

We take this for granted, but it is not the rule.  Historically, transfers of power have been bloody, violent, and seldom based on elections.  Government is about power.  Those in power get to do what they wish, and those out of power are at a great disadvantage.  In many cases, losing power means suffering and death.  Ask those in Cambodia in the 1970s, China in 1949, the French Revolution, and many, many others.  We do not appreciate how rare and precious our government is.  Our Rule of Law, based on the consent of the governed is truly a magnificent, precious gift given to us by our forebears, and it is our duty to "preserve, protect, and defend" it.

Core to the politics of our Republic is the idea that political differences are resolved by debate, according to process.  The US Senate has a mechanism called the filibuster that allows any senator, at just about any time, to stop any legislation if he or she opposes it strongly enough.  The idea is that by giving this power to every senator, laws that trample on the rights or interests of minorities can be stopped.

The filibuster boils down to a simple rule - debate in the senate is unlimited.  As long as a senator wants to talk about something, that senator can get the floor, and talk about it.  A filibuster used to be an actual marathon talk, complete with readings from cookbooks and the bible.  These days the filibuster is less dramatic, with the mechanics being done through subtle procedural techniques, but the result is the same.  If a senator wants to hold things up, that senator has the power to do it.

Filibusters are stopped with "cloture" votes, which require a 3/5 majority vote to pass.  All the talk about the senate needing 60 votes to pass legislation is because so many of the bills are subject to filibusters.

If filibusters are becoming more common, it might be that legislation trampling on the rights or interests of someone is also becoming more common.  Is this "obstructionism", or is the senate doing exactly what it is supposed to do?

Senator Reid is pushing the "nuclear option" which would change the rule in the senate and make it possible to cut off debate with a simple majority vote.  The Republicans talked about doing this in 2005, in a similar circumstance, when they were being blocked by the Democrats, then in the minority.

In defense of the filibuster, I want to point to an opinion piece that quotes Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Lyndon Johnson.  I agree with them.  You can read it here.

I agree with then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2005, as the Republicans discussed the "nuclear option":  "One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority... . (W)e need to rise above an 'ends justify the means' mentality because we're here to answer to the people -- all of the people -- not just the ones wearing our party label."

The best quote is from Senator George Mitchell: "when I was majority leader, I didn't always enjoy unlimited debate. There were times when I was frustrated by the ease with which the Senate rules can be used for obstruction. But with time and distance comes perspective ... (T)he right of unlimited debate is a rare treasure which you must safeguard. Of course, it can be, and it is, abused. But that is the price that must be paid, and the privilege is worth the price."

The filibuster is the heart of the senate.  It is a vital safeguard preventing the tyranny of the majority.  It ensures that minorities cannot be simply brushed aside.  It ensures that those minorities have the power to prevent their abuse by powerful majorities.

By taking the "nuclear option", Senator Reid is ripping the heart out of the very institution that is intended to ensure consensus.  What he proposes will cripple the filibuster and guarantee that more aggressive and less deliberative politics will follow.  Senator Reid claims that this is a minor change, but once breached, that wall will quickly crumble.  "Unlimited, but....." is not unlimited.  Without unlimited debate, simple majorities will rule.  Even in the United States, we may yet have "One man, One vote, One time".

I opposed the so-called "nuclear option" when the Republicans threatened it in 2005.  I oppose it today.  The filibuster is too precious for political games.

This is "slash and burn" politics at its worst.  It is destroying the institution to get a few minor officials confirmed.

Senator Reid's office number is: 202-224-3542