Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

I strongly recommend anyone who cares about the future of the U.S. to read this summation of the actions surrounding the Jan 6 attack on the capitol.

You might not understand this from following just traditional news outlets, but over the course of a year, the news-friendly January 6 Select Committee and even the public parts of the locked-down DOJ investigation have met at a common pivot point in their investigation of January 6: on Trump’s efforts to pressure Mike Pence to violate the Constitution. Trump did so, first, with personal pressure. Then he sent his mob.

my italics

[johnu]

A couple of thoughts.

Very possibly Rs will have a Senate majority next year. Assuming that they have more than 50 and less than 60 seats, this will bring an end to the filibuster.

 

As to the Nwanevu quote:

"The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered."

Dems might want to think a bit about whether they really want to run with the idea that the American Constitution is no longer suited for governance. This position would get very enthusiastic yeses from a very small number of people.

 

Solutions are tough.

You won't find the filibuster or individual senator holds on bills anywhere in the Constitution. Both are perversions that let a minority of the Senate sabotage the work of the majority of the Senate. Getting rid of the filibuster and individual holds would bring the Senate a lot closer to what the Constitution originally intended.

[kenberg]

You won't find the filibuster or individual senator holds on bills anywhere in the Constitution. Both are perversions that let a minority of the Senate sabotage the work of the majority of the Senate. Getting rid of the filibuster and individual holds would bring the Senate a lot closer to what the Constitution originally intended.

 

Yes, I know that the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. I guess it is also not forbidden by the Constitution. But neither of these was my point. Not what I said.

 

Suppose that after the 2022 elections the Senate consists of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. I am suggesting that we might then see the end of the filibuster, or at least the end of its effectiveness when Ds try to use it. . That was what I said.

 

Theoretically, there is something to be said for writing a bill in such a way that is supported by more than a razor-thin Senate majority. It would be nice, or I think it would be nice, if the Senate did not go through a huge reversal when it changed from 51-49 to 49-51, no matter which direction the change moves. Telling the 49 Senators, and the people that they represent, to drop dead since the 51 will be doing exactly what the 51 want, no input wanted or accepted from the 49, is not a great way to do things. But reality must be faced, and right now the reality is winner-take-absolutely-everything. Any sort of cooperation is scorned as weakness. So sure, dump the fil. For now, the Ds will do as they please, the hell with the Rs. When the Senate balance shifts, the Rs will do exactly as they please, the hell with the Ds. No reason for any D to cooperate with any R, no reason for any r to cooperate with any D. Hoping for anything better is naive.

I understand.

[Winstonm]

Yes, I know that the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. I guess it is also not forbidden by the Constitution. But neither of these was my point. Not what I said.

 

Suppose that after the 2022 elections the Senate consists of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. I am suggesting that we might then see the end of the filibuster, or at least the end of its effectiveness when Ds try to use it. . That was what I said.

 

Theoretically, there is something to be said for writing a bill in such a way that is supported by more than a razor-thin Senate majority. It would be nice, or I think it would be nice, if the Senate did not go through a huge reversal when it changed from 51-49 to 49-51, no matter which direction the change moves. Telling the 49 Senators, and the people that they represent, to drop dead since the 51 will be doing exactly what the 51 want, no input wanted or accepted from the 49, is not a great way to do things. But reality must be faced, and right now the reality is winner-take-absolutely-everything. Any sort of cooperation is scorned as weakness. So sure, dump the fil. For now, the Ds will do as they please, the hell with the Rs. When the Senate balance shifts, the Rs will do exactly as they please, the hell with the Ds. No reason for any D to cooperate with any R, no reason for any r to cooperate with any D. Hoping for anything better is naive.

I understand.

 

I believe the issues you are thinking of are tolerance and forbearance. Tolerance is antithetical to much of American Christianity - tolerance requires at its heart the realization and inner acknowledgment that what you believe may not be correct and others could be right. This is direct conflict with I am the way the truth and light - there’s no maybe in faith.

 

Forbearance has to do with restraint from using all your elected powers solely for one side’s benefit. If one side is painted as baby devouring satanists see tolerance above.

[pilowsky]

tolerance requires at its heart the realization and inner acknowledgment that what you believe may not be correct and others could be right.

Well now we know why Bridge is popular in America.

Bridge players are always right.

[cherdano]

Theoretically, there is something to be said for writing a bill in such a way that is supported by more than a razor-thin Senate majority. It would be nice, or I think it would be nice, if the Senate did not go through a huge reversal when it changed from 51-49 to 49-51, no matter which direction the change moves. Telling the 49 Senators, and the people that they represent, to drop dead since the 51 will be doing exactly what the 51 want, no input wanted or accepted from the 49, is not a great way to do things. But reality must be faced, and right now the reality is winner-take-absolutely-everything. Any sort of cooperation is scorned as weakness. So sure, dump the fil. For now, the Ds will do as they please, the hell with the Rs. When the Senate balance shifts, the Rs will do exactly as they please, the hell with the Ds. No reason for any D to cooperate with any R, no reason for any r to cooperate with any D. Hoping for anything better is naive.

I understand.

The thing is, we would say more incentives for bipartisan cooperation without the filibuster.

 

Imagine in the year 2040, Democrats have retaken the senate after 18 years of being in the minority, and there are now 53 Democrats in the senate, as well as a Democratic president. The asymptotic-removal-of-filibuster-process has reduced the threshold of passing legislation to 55 votes.

What incentive is there for two Republicans to cooperate? If they do, they help deliver President LeBron James a win, making his reelection more likely. Moreover, many in their base will be furious at them for giving in, and the primary challengers would start announcing their candidacies the same evening.

 

What if the filibuster had been abolished instead? There would still be incentives for the Democrats to find those two Republican senators, to burnish the bipartisan credentials of the bill and thus President JAmes. And now there would be incentives for the two Republican senators to negotiate. They can tell their base "The bill would have passed anyway, but I prevented them from hiking your your CEO's tax bill". After some good old-fashioned horse trading, they can tell their constituents they got funding for a bridge to their state's main airport.

 

Of course, this is all fictitious. Democrats will be out of power in the senate for much longer than 18 years.

[johnu]

Yes, I know that the filibuster is not part of the Constitution. I guess it is also not forbidden by the Constitution. But neither of these was my point. Not what I said.

 

Suppose that after the 2022 elections the Senate consists of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. I am suggesting that we might then see the end of the filibuster, or at least the end of its effectiveness when Ds try to use it. . That was what I said.

 

Theoretically, there is something to be said for writing a bill in such a way that is supported by more than a razor-thin Senate majority. It would be nice, or I think it would be nice, if the Senate did not go through a huge reversal when it changed from 51-49 to 49-51, no matter which direction the change moves. Telling the 49 Senators, and the people that they represent, to drop dead since the 51 will be doing exactly what the 51 want, no input wanted or accepted from the 49, is not a great way to do things. But reality must be faced, and right now the reality is winner-take-absolutely-everything. Any sort of cooperation is scorned as weakness. So sure, dump the fil. For now, the Ds will do as they please, the hell with the Rs. When the Senate balance shifts, the Rs will do exactly as they please, the hell with the Ds. No reason for any D to cooperate with any R, no reason for any r to cooperate with any D. Hoping for anything better is naive.

I understand.

There is no question that if the Democrats weaken or eliminate the filibuster that the QOP will not restore the filibuster if they take back the Senate. The primary difference is that Democrats actually want to pass legislation to help the country, while the QOP is perfectly happy to do absolutely nothing to help the country in general, but to only pass special interest legislation that helps the QOP. Take for instance raising the deficit which should be basically a 100% pro forma vote to pass, or better yet, to just get rid of the requirement to raise the deficit. And yet, the QOP has shut down the Federal government for entirely bogus reasons by filibustering when the Democrats hold power. As it is, it has been decades since anything substantial has been passed on a real bipartisan vote, so the delusion that cooperation between the parties is necessary is laid bare.

[kenberg]

The thing is, we would say more incentives for bipartisan cooperation without the filibuster.

 

Imagine in the year 2040, Democrats have retaken the senate after 18 years of being in the minority, and there are now 53 Democrats in the senate, as well as a Democratic president. The asymptotic-removal-of-filibuster-process has reduced the threshold of passing legislation to 55 votes.

What incentive is there for two Republicans to cooperate? If they do, they help deliver President LeBron James a win, making his reelection more likely. Moreover, many in their base will be furious at them for giving in, and the primary challengers would start announcing their candidacies the same evening.

 

What if the filibuster had been abolished instead? There would still be incentives for the Democrats to find those two Republican senators, to burnish the bipartisan credentials of the bill and thus President JAmes. And now there would be incentives for the two Republican senators to negotiate. They can tell their base "The bill would have passed anyway, but I prevented them from hiking your your CEO's tax bill". After some good old-fashioned horse trading, they can tell their constituents they got funding for a bridge to their state's main airport.

 

Of course, this is all fictitious. Democrats will be out of power in the senate for much longer than 18 years.

 

Right now I am seeing the situation as dire, so I am in search of a solution. I am no great fan of the filibuster. But try this.

 

Suppose the Dems wants to give ten million dollars to the bluish state of Minnesota, in honor of ken berg being born there. Forty-one Rs could use the filibuster to stop that. In another year, maybe the Rs want to give ten million to the reddish state of Wisconsin in honor of Ken Berg not being born there. Forty-one Ds could use the filibuster to stop that. So Rs and Ds would have to cooperate to give twenty million, split between the states. Obviously a victory for cooperation.

Maybe a slightly more realistic example: Student debt is massive, Ds speak of spending a trillion or so to ease the burden. However, the system is still in place, lending large amounts of money with little regard for what the student is studying, whether the program is any good, and, in short, setting things up so that more and more nineteen-wear-olds will be putting themselves in debt that they will be unable to pay. So we have a problem, and maybe a lot of money has to be spent to solve it, but there could be a push to stop making the problem worse. Acknowledging that there is a problem is good, acknowledging that the program was set up idiotically would also be good. It's really hard to contend that a program in need of a trillion-dollar fix was well designed, but senators seem to have difficulty in seeing this.

I am in favor of almost anything that would get people working together. I am not claiming that the world was beautiful when I was growing up in the 1940s-50s but Rs and Ds could sit at the same dinner table without throwing food at each other. We need to work on this.

[Winstonm]

Right now I am seeing the situation as dire, so I am in search of a solution. I am no great fan of the filibuster. But try this.

 

Suppose the Dems wants to give ten million dollars to the bluish state of Minnesota, in honor of ken berg being born there. Forty-one Rs could use the filibuster to stop that. In another year, maybe the Rs want to give ten million to the reddish state of Wisconsin in honor of Ken Berg not being born there. Forty-one Ds could use the filibuster to stop that. So Rs and Ds would have to cooperate to give twenty million, split between the states. Obviously a victory for cooperation.

Maybe a slightly more realistic example: Student debt is massive, Ds speak of spending a trillion or so to ease the burden. However, the system is still in place, lending large amounts of money with little regard for what the student is studying, whether the program is any good, and, in short, setting things up so that more and more nineteen-wear-olds will be putting themselves in debt that they will be unable to pay. So we have a problem, and maybe a lot of money has to be spent to solve it, but there could be a push to stop making the problem worse. Acknowledging that there is a problem is good, acknowledging that the program was set up idiotically would also be good. It's really hard to contend that a program in need of a trillion-dollar fix was well designed, but senators seem to have difficulty in seeing this.

I am in favor of almost anything that would get people working together. I am not claiming that the world was beautiful when I was growing up in the 1940s-50s but Rs and Ds could sit at the same dinner table without throwing food at each other. We need to work on this.

 

I can’t speak for other states but here in Oklahoma there used to be the thinking that the senators tried to use their power to steer money or jobs to their states; now, the senators work only for special interests (here that means oil) or “the party”.

 

A large part of the solution is better candidates.*Better meaning having personal integrity strong enough to resist pressure from both sticks and sugar.

[Winstonm]

Imagine if you will someone's crazy uncle, sitting in his recliner in his robe and house shoes , stubble of 3-day- old beard and hair disheveled, one long strand hanging at a right angle to his head. He's engaged in a conversation with his tv, nodding sometimes then shouting expletives at something said with which he disagrees. The floor is covered with the paper wrappers of Big Macs and cardboard containers used to ship French fries to his expanding gut. Sixteen empty Diet Coke cans are scattered on chairs, desk and furniture. He glances at his phone while typing a response to something Hannity just said on tv, hits send, then wipes secret sauce from his own and his phone's memories.

 

Now imagine this crazy uncle had inherited $400 million from his father.

 

Now imagine he is sitting in the White House as president.

 

And now imagine he is black.

[y66]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/opinion/trump-bannon-trumpism-democracy.html

 

I’ll say this for the right: They pay attention to where the power lies in the American system, in ways the left sometimes doesn’t. Bannon calls this “the precinct strategy,” and it’s working. “Suddenly, people who had never before showed interest in party politics started calling the local G.O.P. headquarters or crowding into county conventions, eager to enlist as precinct officers,” ProPublica reports. “They showed up in states Trump won and in states he lost, in deep-red rural areas, in swing-voting suburbs and in populous cities.”

 

The difference between those organizing at the local level to shape democracy and those raging ineffectually about democratic backsliding — myself included — remind me of the old line about war: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. Right now, Trumpists are talking logistics.

 

“We do not have one federal election,” said Amanda Litman, a co-founder of Run for Something, which helps first-time candidates learn about the offices they can contest and helps them mount their campaigns. “We have 50 state elections and then thousands of county elections. And each of those ladder up to give us results. While Congress can write, in some ways, rules or boundaries for how elections are administered, state legislatures are making decisions about who can and can’t vote. Counties and towns are making decisions about how much money they’re spending, what technology they’re using, the rules around which candidates can participate.”

 

“If you want to fight for the future of American democracy, you shouldn’t spend all day talking about the future of American democracy,” Wikler said. “These local races that determine the mechanics of American democracy are the ventilation shaft in the Republican death star. These races get zero national attention. They hardly get local attention. Turnout is often lower than 20 percent. That means people who actually engage have a superpower. You, as a single dedicated volunteer, might be able to call and knock on the doors of enough voters to win a local election.”

Or you can simply win one yourself. That’s what Gabriella Cázares-Kelly did. Cázares-Kelly, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation, agreed to staff a voter registration booth at the community college where she worked, in Pima County, Ariz. She was stunned to hear the stories of her students. “We keep blaming students for not participating, but it’s really complicated to get registered to vote if you don’t have a license, the nearest D.M.V. is an hour and a half away and you don’t own a car,” she told me.

 

Cázares-Kelly learned that much of the authority over voter registration fell to an office neither she nor anyone around her knew much about: the County Recorder’s Office, which has authority over records ranging from deeds to voter registrations. It had powers she’d never considered. It could work with the postmaster’s office to put registration forms in tribal postal offices — or not. When it called a voter to verify a ballot and heard an answering machine message in Spanish, it could follow up in Spanish — or not.

 

“I started contacting the records office and making suggestions and asking questions,” Cázares-Kelly said. “I did that for a long time, and the previous recorder was not very happy about it. I called so often, the staff began to know me. I didn’t have an interest in running till I heard the previous recorder was going to retire, and then my immediate thought was, ‘What if a white supremacist runs?’”

 

So in 2020, Cázares-Kelly ran, and she won. Now she’s the county recorder for a jurisdiction with nearly a million people, and more than 600,000 registered voters, in a swing state. “One thing I was really struck by when I first started getting involved in politics is how much power there is in just showing up to things,” she said. “If you love libraries, libraries have board meetings. Go to the public meeting. See where they’re spending their money. We’re supposed to be participating. If you want to get involved, there’s always a way.”

[y66]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-10/protecting-u-s-democracy-from-trump-and-his-allies-will-take-more-than-laws

 

As the Senate prepares to consider voting rights legislation and a special House committee opens its hearings on the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, friends of U.S. democracy should be thinking hard about what they will do to fight for it.

 

The Constitution and its republican form of government — democracy, that is — really are under threat. And the threat comes from former President Donald Trump and his allies. Not from all Republicans, but from Republicans.

 

Election-law expert Rick Hasen suggested three defense-of-democracy principles in a weekend essay in the New York Times. They are that Democrats can’t preserve free and fair elections without an alliance with principled Republicans; that all of civil society — business groups, civic and professional organizations, labor unions and religious organizations — should be mobilized to protect the rule of law; and that mass, peaceful organizing and protests may be necessary in 2024 and 2025.

 

It’s an excellent piece, a must-read for those who care about preserving the republic. I’d make five points to supplement, or perhaps recast, his suggestions.

 

1) Laws alone will not save democracy. Trump wasn’t deterred after the 2020 election by the plain meaning of the law and the Constitution. Had enough Republicans in key positions gone along with him, it’s quite possible he would have successfully remained in office despite losing the election, and that would be even more true in a future scenario in which Trump allies held congressional majorities. Moreover, there’s always a danger of fighting the last war. In 2020, the threat seemed to be in what happened after the votes were counted. Next time, the threat could be in the counting of the ballots, or what happens before the ballots are counted. What this means is that those who support the republic will need to fight for it, and not just through legislative fixes.

 

2) Nevertheless, the more legal protections, the better. Congress should act to update the Electoral Count Act, the poorly drafted 19th century law governing the counting of electoral votes, and it’s good to see a bipartisan Senate group starting to work on doing so. But that’s not enough. Congress should also do what it can to make sure that state and local elections are conducted on the up-and-up, and should do what it can to ensure that voting is easy for all. Friends of democracy who dislike some of the elements of the Democrats’ voting-rights legislation have a responsibility to support what they can, and work for compromise on the rest — just as friends of Democrats who like all of the Democrats’ proposals have a responsibility to find common ground with folks who try to engage with them in good faith.

 

3) Protections such as those in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which has been battered by the Supreme Court, are not irrelevant to the dangers facing U.S. democracy. They are crucial to preserving it, just as the original passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was essential to the creation of a legitimate democracy in the first place. The same goes for other dangers to the republic that we’ve seen in recent years. The idea that everything was fine up until Election Day 2020 is wrong. That doesn’t mean that every provision in any Democratic voting bill is equally important, or even necessarily a good solution to current problems, but the idea that the dangers are simple and one-dimensional ignores a lot of democratic erosion that’s been obvious for well over a decade.

 

4) Supporters of democracy and the Constitution should always be ready to accept whatever allies they can find, for as much as those allies are willing to give. House Democrats have done so in accepting Republican Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming and even her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, as part of the pro-democracy team — despite the strong feelings many Democrats have about what they see (correctly, in my view) as the damage that Dick Cheney did to U.S. democracy, especially by his support for torture. The nature of coalition politics is that it sometimes requires painful compromises its participants could never have imagined.

 

5) While everyone should plan for the worst, it’s important not to assume the worst. A lot of the people who stood up against Trump after the 2020 election seemed to be standard-issue, Trump-supporting, voting-rights-impeding Republicans right up to the point where they wouldn’t go along. It’s also true that fatalism helps no one. It’s bad enough that we need to entertain the serious possibility that some Republican-majority legislatures might attempt to overturn their own states’ elections and send rogue slates of electoral votes to Congress, and that a Republican-majority Congress might attempt to accept those votes. We have to take that threat seriously because large numbers of Republicans have suggested they would do so, and more might join them the next time the situation arises. But let’s not pretend that it’s a sure thing, or ignore the crucial fact that Republican legislatures did no such thing in 2020.

[kenberg]

Both Klein andBernstein are saying the Dems need to think through things a little better. I'll throw in something from before.

 

Y posted a Kwanevu column, I quoted from it skeptically:

 

Jan. 6 demonstrated that the choice the country now faces isn't one between disruptive changes to our political system and a peaceable status quo. To believe otherwise is to indulge the other big lie that drew violence to the Capitol in the first place. The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous and dangerous as anything Mr. Trump has ever uttered. It was the supposedly stabilizing features of our vaunted system that made him president to begin with and incubated the extremism that turned his departure into a crisis.

 

So: The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous?

 

Bernstein: "The Constitution and its republican form of government — democracy, that is — really are under threat."

 

So: Bernstein says the Constitution is under threat, Kwanevu says the idea that the Constitution is suited for our current government is preposterous.

 

Are the Dems saying "Save the Constitution" or are they saying "Good riddance to bad rubbish"?

 

I am not saying Bernstein's views and Kwanevu's views cannot be reconciled. but I am saying that the message is garbled. This happens often and in many areas. Saying that the Constitution is under threat and so needs our protection, and saying that it is preposterous to think of the Constitution is suited to governance in the 21st century, and then telling the voters that of course they should be able to figure out how to reconcile these two arguments is not the way to win votes or win support or win much of anything.

[awm]

I am not saying Bernstein's views and Kwanevu's views cannot be reconciled. but I am saying that the message is garbled. This happens often and in many areas. Saying that the Constitution is under threat and so needs our protection, and saying that it is preposterous to think of the Constitution is suited to governance in the 21st century, and then telling the voters that of course they should be able to figure out how to reconcile these two arguments is not the way to win votes or win support or win much of anything. [/size][/color]

 

The Constitution has already been amended 27 times. I don't think amendments are a threat to the Constitution. The threat is a more existential one, that the idea of a government elected by the people through free and fair elections might cease to be the case. The insurrection on January 6th threatened this pretty directly, and the movement by Republican state legislators to establish rules by which they could simply override the will of the people in their state is another such threat.

 

The founders weren't prophets -- they didn't know about gerrymandering and the modern data collection techniques that allow our politicians to select the voters. They didn't imagine a day when each member of the house of representatives would represent almost a million citizens (it was around 50,000 at the founding of the US). They certainly never imagined social media and misinformation via facebook. And of course they did things like allowing slavery and not letting women vote. Certainly we have made changes in the past and can (and should) make more changes in the future.

[kenberg]

The Constitution has already been amended 27 times. I don't think amendments are a threat to the Constitution. The threat is a more existential one, that the idea of a government elected by the people through free and fair elections might cease to be the case. The insurrection on January 6th threatened this pretty directly, and the movement by Republican state legislators to establish rules by which they could simply override the will of the people in their state is another such threat.

 

The founders weren't prophets -- they didn't know about gerrymandering and the modern data collection techniques that allow our politicians to select the voters. They didn't imagine a day when each member of the house of representatives would represent almost a million citizens (it was around 50,000 at the founding of the US). They certainly never imagined social media and misinformation via facebook. And of course they did things like allowing slavery and not letting women vote. Certainly we have made changes in the past and can (and should) make more changes in the future.

 

I agree with all of that, sure I do. I am suggesting that Dems need to think a little about how it sounds to say "The notion that the 18th-century American constitutional order is suited to governance in the 21st is as preposterous ". That comes across differently than what you said. There is always the danger, applying to all of us and as all of us know, of visualizing the people who largely agree with us when we speak and then forgetting how easily what we say can come across very differently to others. And by "others" I don't mean people on the other extreme, I mean people who might well listen but get put off when they hear someone talking about how preposterous it is to look to the Constitution when we consider modern political problems. Just a bit more thought about phrasing things is what I hope for.

Or perhaps Kwanevu phrased the matter exactly as he thinks of it.

[y66]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/joe-manchin-falsely-says-filibuster-has-existed-232-years.html?utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=nym

 

Of the handful of defenses of the filibuster in common circulation, the most popular is that it deserves deference as the product of design by the Founders. This argument was repeated Monday night by Sen. Joe Manchin:

 

Manchin on the filibuster. Says it's been "The tradition of the Senate here in 232 years now..we need to be very cautious what we do..That's what we've always had for 232 years. That's what makes us different than any place else in the world.

The problem with this argument is that it is not true.

 

The filibuster was not created in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founders considered, and rejected, a routine supermajority requirement. James Madison wrote:

 

“In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.”

 

Alexander Hamilton likewise argued:

 

“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. … If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, … Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.”

 

Reflecting their disdain for a supermajority requirement, the Constitution called for its use only in limited circumstances: approving foreign treaties, Constitutional amendments, and removal of an impeached official from office. In 1805, however, as Brookings scholar Sarah Binder has explained, the Senate rules neglected to write a provision to end debate. It was not until 1837 — nearly half a century after the Constitution was enacted, and its drafters had passed from the scene — that the rules glitch was first exploited in the form of a filibuster.

 

Indeed, the filibuster has changed repeatedly over the years. When it first appeared, unanimous consent was required to end debate, then two-thirds, then 60 percent. For the vast majority of its time, it was reserved by custom for rare instances of especially heated dissent (frequently, by Southerners to block civil rights bills.) The filibuster only came into its modern incarnation as a routine supermajority requirement during the Clinton era. Before then, legislation often passed through a majority vote.

 

Manchin is correct to observe that the filibuster “makes us different than any place else in the world.” Indeed, he understates the case. The filibuster not only distinguishes the Senate from other democratic bodies around the globe, but also from all 50 state governments, none of which have copied it in their own senates.

 

Manchin might wonder what that difference tells us. Does the U.S. government function better than other democracies, and better than every state government? That’s not the impression Manchin seems to give — when he is not praising the filibuster as essential to the proper functioning of the Senate, he is usually bemoaning the institution’s dysfunction.

 

Of course, the common fallacy that the Senate has always had a filibuster resembling the current version — or even a filibuster at all — is not the only argument for keeping it. But the fact it’s repeated so often reveals the low quality of justification its advocates are able to muster.

 

If they had good reasons to maintain the supermajority, they wouldn’t lean so heavily on false ones.

[kenberg]

I guess it is obvious that the filibuster is not in the Constitution. We could read it. But also if it were in the Constitution then it could not be altered by a vote of the Senate. Manchin is quoted as saying it has been around for 232 years, not as saying it is n the Consitution. My school years were long ago but I vaguely recall learning about Calhoun in the pre-Civil War years using it. So it has been around for a long time. Not 232 years, but a long time.

 

If dreams really do come true, here is what I would like: In some quiet time, when the filibuster has not been used or threatened to be used for say six months, I would like the Ds and the Rs to sit down and see whether they think it's a good idea. Contrast that with "We have to get rid of the filibuster do that we can pass bill X". That is, I would like to know if both Ds and rs think that it would be a good thing for a simple majority to pass sweeping legislation and whether they think this is a good idea when there are 51 Ds in the Senate and a good idea when there are 51 Rs in the Senate. Perhaps it is a good idea. I just want the thinking to be long-term rather than how to push through one specific bill.

[Winstonm]

I guess it is obvious that the filibuster is not in the Constitution. We could read it. But also if it were in the Constitution then it could not be altered by a vote of the Senate. Manchin is quoted as saying it has been around for 232 years, not as saying it is n the Consitution. My school years were long ago but I vaguely recall learning about Calhoun in the pre-Civil War years using it. So it has been around for a long time. Not 232 years, but a long time.

 

If dreams really do come true, here is what I would like: In some quiet time, when the filibuster has not been used or threatened to be used for say six months, I would like the Ds and the Rs to sit down and see whether they think it's a good idea. Contrast that with "We have to get rid of the filibuster do that we can pass bill X". That is, I would like to know if both Ds and rs think that it would be a good thing for a simple majority to pass sweeping legislation and whether they think this is a good idea when there are 51 Ds in the Senate and a good idea when there are 51 Rs in the Senate. Perhaps it is a good idea. I just want the thinking to be long-term rather than how to push through one specific bill.

 

But doesn't this long-term thinking emerge from a single endeavor? It seems the information in the Chait article indicates that this has already been considered, and by people who were much more serious about governing than the current bunch. If the information is accurate, the long-term fear was that the minority would be able to prevent the majority from governance - Oh, wait, isn't that where we are now?

 

Personally, I think it fantasy to believe reasonable people will sit together when those we live next door to, talk to daily, like, and have no problems with, suddenly, when the topic becomes politics, paint their faces, put on pointed hats, pick up spears, and attack the U.S. Capitol building trying to overturn the results of an election of which they didn't like the outcome.

 

Perhaps if they had no say, the minority would be more willing to compromise than if they had all the power - and used it as a weapon.

[shyams]

FYI, the filibuster is part of the UK Parliament procedures. It is recognised as a proper process provided suitable protocols are followed by the Member attempting a successful filibuster. Filibusters are not something that occurred centuries ago; there are examples on YouTube from the 2000s or 2010s. Having said that, filibusters are rare over here.

 

That the US Senate adopted it as part of their procedures is not unusual. What may be unusual about the US is the ease with which a filibuster can be implemented and the difficulty/impossibility of getting a procedural override within the Senate to overcome it.

[kenberg]

FYI, the filibuster is part of the UK Parliament procedures. It is recognised as a proper process provided suitable protocols are followed by the Member attempting a successful filibuster. Filibusters are not something that occurred centuries ago; there are examples on YouTube from the 2000s or 2010s. Having said that, filibusters are rare over here.

 

That the US Senate adopted it as part of their procedures is not unusual. What may be unusual about the US is the ease with which a filibuster can be implemented and the difficulty/impossibility of getting a procedural override within the Senate to overcome it.

 

Thank you for the info about the UK, I didn't know that.

Also I think you are onto something regarding the ease of doing it. I have sort of followed politics since an early age, but the emphasis goes on "sort of". The current usage, essentially paralyzing government, seems to me to have developed over the last twenty or thirty years. Yes, there were major and famous filibusters of the past but at least as I recall it we would go through one and then get back to legislation as usual. Now it seems we get through one we move on to the next filibuster. It's gone from being a last resort to being the weapon of choice. It's nuts.

[cherdano]

FYI, the filibuster is part of the UK Parliament procedures. It is recognised as a proper process provided suitable protocols are followed by the Member attempting a successful filibuster. Filibusters are not something that occurred centuries ago; there are examples on YouTube from the 2000s or 2010s. Having said that, filibusters are rare over here.

 

That the US Senate adopted it as part of their procedures is not unusual. What may be unusual about the US is the ease with which a filibuster can be implemented and the difficulty/impossibility of getting a procedural override within the Senate to overcome it.

To put this in perspective, in the house of commons it requires 100 MPs to vote for ending the filibuster. That's 16%.

 

So I guess it only works for low profile bills where attendance during the debate is low. Not sure I am a fan...

[y66]

After decades of decline, Buffalo boasts a ‘Refugee Renaissance.’ Can it last?

 

Now we'll probably have to build a wall to keep the Canadians out.

[barmar]

Are the Dems saying "Save the Constitution" or are they saying "Good riddance to bad rubbish"?

I think they're saying that the Constitution alone isn't enough. But it's still the right starting point.

 

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It depends on honorable people to implement the ideals expressed in it. But we have corrupt politicians who have used these processes to maintain their power.

 

As I understand it, Hitler rose to power in Germany through democratic processes in accordance with their Constitution.

[pilowsky]

The rule of law and the constitution are legal fictions that only apply to wealthy people.

There are about 11 billion people in the world today.

Total "wealth" in the world is about 500 trillion.

200 people own about 1% of it. $4,626,900,000,000.00 at last count.

They make this money from the labour of a lot of people who get nothing.

[kenberg]

I think they're saying that the Constitution alone isn't enough. But it's still the right starting point.

 

The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It depends on honorable people to implement the ideals expressed in it. But we have corrupt politicians who have used these processes to maintain their power.

 

As I understand it, Hitler rose to power in Germany through democratic processes in accordance with their Constitution.

 

Whatever it is that they are saying I think they need to work on their nessaging.