Time to end the filibuster
This whole Lieberman kerfuffle is as topical as anything when it comes to the problems of the filibuster – no matter what side of the aisle/power balance you happen to be on. The best argument in favor of the filibuster is that it allows the minority to rein in the excesses of the majority and therefore leads to somewhat slower government. As such disasters as the Patriot Act have illustrated, fast-acting government can be a very bad thing, a threat to our fiscal future and to our individual liberty.
But in practice, the really bad legislation – like the Patriot Act – always make it through without running into any major stumbling blocks, while legislation that actually might make a difference in people’s lives never does. Social Security reform was a non-starter for the Bush administration, even though it quite possibly could have helped protect the long-term solvency of that program while helping Americans better buy into the system and accrue real wealth.
Similarly, healthcare reform today is facing the very likely threat of a filibuster, and even before reaching that point has undergone months of deliberations and watering-down even though the chances that any of that would actually lead to compromise (and thus avoid the filibuster) was slim to none.
At some point, the American people deserve to have their elected officials actually do something based on their political leanings. The filibuster gives Congress the ability to say “we tried” even when the bill they finally came up with looks nothing like what they said they were trying for. If Democrats only needed 51 votes they wouldn’t have to pander to the silly whims of Joe Lieberman or court Olympia Snowe quite so hard. They could just put together the legislation they wanted and pass it, and then the Republicans could run on a platform of reform which promised to undo whatever the Democrats did. And the voters could decide whether they wanted that reform undone or not and vote accordingly. Instead we have Joe Lieberman calling the shots, as though Americans across the country voted for him.
That’s just silly. It’s time we got what we paid for from our representatives in Congress. The filibuster is too much of a distortion. However valuable divided or slow government may be, the filibuster isn’t the way to achieve it. The filibuster just opens the door for the worst of the bad ideas, the worst of the centrist nonsense that you get from the Liebermans of the world.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Mr. Kain,
I think you hit the key point, while filibusters have a nice Jimmy Stewart / Frank Capra “good” patina, if one scratches their surface it is pretty clear that they have only been used for the worst purposes. I cannot think of any bill that was really filibustered that did not eventually get passed or any one alive today would be embarrassed to oppose. For example Strom Thurmond (D/R-SC) filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. In 1964 the 88th Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after two months of filibustering. In practice it is simply a delaying tactic by a recalcitrant and reactionary minority.
And it makes reforming things or repealing them more difficult, making the distinction between politicians more vague, and making our investment in the system more abstract.
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree that it is time to end the filibuster. If Congress hastily passes bad legislation with a slim majority of Congress, the approriate consitutional “check” is a Presidential veto. This is all the protection we need (along with articles from True/Slant contributing writers of course). If a majority of both Houses of Congress and the President mess up, so be it. It will then be up to the public to get it in gear and do something about it at the next election. This is better than letting a handful of Senators thwart the will of the majority of Congress and the President (the public’s duty elected,and fully vested with decision-making authority, representatives).
Exactly right.
In response to another comment. See in context »Another great post E.D.
It’s old and tirade and has no part in today’s world, especially since the opposition to most bills these days are financed by special interests, therefore not representing votes opinions.
It’s a sad state of affairs our country is in, and politics is leading the charge.
Very much agreed dtafs. Thanks.
In response to another comment. See in context »Filibusters aren’t the problem. The problem (other than the obviously greedy and corrupt politicians) is that they never call these senators’ bluffs when they threaten a filibuster.
I say, CALL LIEBERMAN’S BLUFF.
See if he can hold out in a filibuster, or if he actually has the stones to start one.
I CALL BULL$#!& on the filibuster!
[...] is a point I’ve made before. I’ve also said the filibuster directly contributes to voter apathy because it’s so [...]
[...] touched on this same theme back in [...]
Uhh…the first amendment has nothing to do with “Going against God.”
It guarantees your right to practice your religion.
Last I checked, an abortion was a choice, and a large choice that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a woman’s body.
Maybe you should read the first amendment before you spout mindless drivel like this.