Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCalling the Filibuster Bluff
Welcome to Washington, where 60 is the new 51.As important legislation from health care to climate change moves through Congress, the conventional wisdom is that "you need 60 votes'' to get anything through the 100-member Senate. In fact, most bills can still pass with 51 votes. But a supermajority of 60 votes is needed to avoid a filibuster, a last-ditch option supposedly reserved for matters of deepest principle.
Indelibly associated with Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' - or, less profoundly, with Louisiana's Huey Long reciting recipes for fried oysters and potlikker in 1935 - the filibuster was designed to be a marathon test of wills, with the truly committed undergoing punishing conditions to prevent odious schemes from becoming law.
Not anymore. Because of a 1975 rules change that allows 41 or more senators to hold up legislation merely by expressing their intention to filibuster, the tactic has become almost routine, cheapened beyond recognition by the Beltway's new math. A filibuster that doesn't actually disrupt the Senate's business doesn't cost anything, so it's easy to pull the trigger.
This so-called gentleman's filibuster - all of the obstruction with none of the inconvenience - gives inordinate power to a few fence-sitters. Right now, it's Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Both are considering joining Republicans in a filibuster if they don't get their way on health reform.
"I've got to use the right I have as a senator to stop something that I think is going to be terrible for our future, which is the public option,'' said Lieberman, representing his constituents in Hartford (that is, the insurance companies). Nelson's issue is abortion: the conservative Democrat doesn't want subsidized insurance plans offering the procedure, even if women pay for the coverage themselves.
Because Democrats have only the most tentative hold on 60 seats (including Lieberman, who ran as an independent but caucuses with the Democrats), party leaders and the Obama administration are scrambling to accommodate their apostates. But what Lieberman and Nelson are threatening is not a filibuster - it's a filibluster. Why not call their bluff? Force a real filibuster, make Lieberman bring the business of the Senate to a screeching halt in order to defend insurance industry interests, and see how the American people respond. Show Nelson holding up his party's most important legislation in a generation. And put the 40 Republicans on display as the party of No.
There's some precedent for this approach. In 1995, House Speaker Newt Gingrich's move to shut down the government in a high-stakes budget dispute with President Clinton backfired badly. When veterans couldn't get their benefits and American families on vacation found the national parks shuttered, Gingrich discovered people liked their government after all. He withdrew.
It wouldn't be easy. Under current rules the filibustering party can doubt the presence of a quorum (50 members) at any time, forcing a roll call vote. That means the filibustering party only needs to keep one person droning away in the chamber at any time, while the defending party needs to keep 50 members on the floor, or at least nearby. So the burden would be heavier on the supporters of health care reform than on the filibustering few.
But this is a momentous piece of legislation. Americans have waited 60 years since President Truman first tried to enact universal health care; surely their senators can withstand a few days or weeks of hearing the phone book read aloud. Meanwhile, calls to get on with the people's business would rise to a crescendo and opponents would concede, letting progressive, meaningful health care reform come to a vote.
Of course it's a risk. But the alternative is no bill at all, or one so watered down as to be a hollow victory.
The filibuster is an important democratic tool, a hedge against the tyranny of the majority. It shouldn't be dumped, just restored to its former glory. It would be a boon for democracy, with more of the people's business dragged out of clubby caucus rooms and onto C-Span. And more senators being called on to stand and deliver.
Renée Loth's column appears regularly in the Globe.
20 Comments so far
Show AllYes, let's have a real philabuster, not to pass this ugly bill that passes for health care reform but to demonstrate how corrupt, how undemocratic, how self interested and out of touch these pompous Senators sre. As it stands about 20% of the population who live in the conservative rural states control 45% of the vote. Just because of this it is possible for a conservative minority of 15% or less, enough to elect these rural state Senators, to control the national debate. By requiring a philibuster it gets even worse. What a boondogle, what an undemocratic institutional setup that mocks the very notion of a deliberative democratic debate.
Our Pennsylavania state legislature was once setup as a little mirror of Congress with a bicameral legislature and with each County having equal representation of two Senators. The Supreame Court of Pennsylvania struck it down as unconstitutional because it violated the principle of equal representation. The same thing should happen on a national basis-- if we want a Senate at all the Senatorial districts should represent roughly equal segments of population. North and South Dakota, Idaho and Montana get one Senator. California gets 10. In place of a philabuster put a rule such as in the house which allows each Senator a limited time for open floor debate.
Let them philabuster, let us watch Senator after Senator make a fool of himself in that Chamber. Let the nation see what a preposterous, antiquated institution the Senate is.
Excellent post.
i often run through a litany of electoral reforms that are fundamental to turning the USA into a democracy - a constitutional amendment to eliminate corporate personhood, a common-sense ruling that money does not "equal" speech in the First Amendment (with public financing as a stop-gap until we get these first two reforms), some form of Instant-Runoff Voting, proportional representation, direct Presidential election instead of the Electoral College, or institute a Parliamentary system as most of the world has, etc - but i have never included abolishing or reforming the Senate, and i have not usually included shrinking Congressional districts and increasing the number of Representatives (although this is somewhat implicit in any workable system of Proportional Representation).
Astonishing how little practical understanding most USans appear to have of the systematic dysfunctionality of our political structures. Everyone knows it's horribly corrupt, but most wouldn't know what to say if asked "How do we reform it?" Just rampant cynicism, or "Throw the bums out!" People get that big money rules, but most don't seem to see the structures that make that such an unchallengeable set-up.
Thanks for your contribution.
This article is pure nonsense. The people want a "progressive" health care bill (how apt you mention Truman, because the left is pushing ideas that were old six decades ago)?
Amazing how those on the left are so willing to cite every single poll concerning the public option, but when it comes to discussing the polls for overall health care reform, it is so silent you could hear a pin drop. As EVERY SINGLE POLL ON THE TOPIC DEMONSTRATES, people do not want this health care reform:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
Heck, even most Americans now believe it is not the job of the government at all to provide "universal" health care:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124253/Say-Health-Coverage-Not-Gov-Responsibility.aspx
It is your right to push for the Obamacare bill, but please quit peddling the demonstrably false notion that a majority of Americans want it as well.
The Obama Record: Record unemployment, record deficits, no legislative accomplishments.
Loth makes good points to a bad end.
The false "health bill" that this prominently relates to deserves demise.
Thank you for a crispy and clear explanation of the filibuster mechanism, traditional and new. I am old enough to remember the former rules. How and why did the rules change, and who are the winners in this change? (We know now who the losers are: they are us.)
The Wiki article has a basic rundown of how the rules were changed. If you just Google "filibuster" the Wiki article is near the top.
If right-leaning "Democrats" are called "blue dogs", Lieberman is a snarling rabid purple hyena.
The MSM has a lucrative opportunity to televise a filibuster.
After reading this article, i'm not sure i understand the rules of the Senate.
My understanding is that the Senate rules state that when the crackpots yell "Boo!", the phonies have to run and hide.
According to this writer, when the crackpots yell "Boo!", the phonies can say "You don't scare us! We are taking our fight to the voters!"
But then they wouldn't be phonies...
Author: "Of course it's a risk. But the alternative is no bill at all, or one so watered down as to be a hollow victory."
The House bill is already so watered down that it is worse than a hollow victory. It enshrines into law the insurance companies' monopolistic practices and forces Americans without the ability to pay to pay these insurance companies who provide no real service at all but skim off profit and expenses before passing the remainder to be spent on health care.
Exactly.
It amazes me that anyone still thinks we will get any kind of decent legislation out of this Congress.
The author has a terrific idea, one that many of us on this forum have proposed repeatedly. Make the opponents of any Progressive proposal go on record with the specifics of their objections.
However, we all need to remember that the corporate media would give such matters little or no coverage. Lieberman's inane ramblings would be edited to make him look like Talleyrand at Vienna - except that none of the teabaggers know who that is - or where Vienna is (Is that where they make sausage?).
Still, it couldn't hurt and may possibly help to force Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus and others to defend their opposition to government-run healthcare financing. At least, we'd have quotes to stick in the face of the healthcare protesters - even though we'd had to read the quotes for them.
q
such courage by joe lie-berman . if reid had a set he would just throw him out take away his chairmanship and let people
back home see him scramble to explain himself to them!
i don:t think they would be waiting at the airport with
open arms and a hero*s welcome! maybe armed and dangerous
but not happy at all with traitor joes antics!
As a '60s eternal flamer (i.e., baby boomer, too old for that!), I never thought I'd say back to the 40s and 50s with their respective plurality and simple majority rule(s). But they were righ... er, correct.
I totally agree with this approach, force the opposition to filibuster and openly stonewall reform that the American public broadly supports.
Unfortunately, not doing this is a tool for some of the Dems, who publicly support reform while stalling it privately. They use the Whip to count votes, tell us they don't have them, while not having the official roll-call that would be politically damaging to the 1 or 2 opposing Dems.
The author is right. If the Dems really wanted to pass a public option (even a watered down one), they would force Lieberman to filibuster, which could possibly result in America breaking him into caving. By not doing this, they can exclude the public option altogether just by saying, "It doesn't have the votes". Show us.
I've felt all along that Reid should strip Lieberman of every position in the SEnate that Reid has the authority to assign. In fact, kick him out of his office and assign him one in the men's john. Leave Lieberman with only one tool to bargain with, his vote on the floor, with no presence on any committee. He would not be any longer able to assure lobbyists of any legislation.
I've been saying for quite a while now that the spineless "leader" of the senate, Harry Ried, should MAKE the republicans filibuster. MAKE them stand up there and spout bullshit to bring the country to a halt. If they believe so much in screwing the people of the country, then MAKE them stand up for it. This crap about "threatening" to filibuster is total HORSESHIT.
MAKE these scum bags stand up and defend screwing people for a couple of days at a time. THEN we will see just how great and strong these republicans (AND shithead Lieberman) really are. MAKE them do the REAL job of being a senator. This "threatening" crap is just a lazy man's way to screw the country.
Come on, Harry, MAKE these idiots stand up and show just how much they hate the people of this country. THEN we can see just how many of them get reelected.
great idea
So how come we never hear anymore about invoking the "nuclear option", voting to do away completely with the stupid fillibuster rule? Sure, the next time the Repubs get into power they could use it to their advantage, but at least The Dems could ram through a whole bunch of badly-needed stuff in the mean time. Maybe they could even put the filibuster rule back in place after all the voting is done.
"Maybe they could even put the filibuster rule back in place after all the voting is done."
You're beginning to understand the rules of the game.
q