With all the discussion of the filibuster, including some evidence of hypocrisy on the part of a certain allegedly anti-pork Senator from Arizona, it occurs to me that the Democrats in Congress might consider something to put the Republicans to the test: Propose an amendment making the filibuster a constitutional rule. If the R’s won’t go for it, reserving the right to eliminate it when control of the Senate changes, then the D’s should get rid of it now. If the states roundly reject such an amendment, then there will be a political justification for abandoning it now. And if the R’s sign up, then D’s will be protected in the future. Of course, I’m one of the political geniuses who contributed to John Edwards.
Posted by Marc Miller on February 7, 2010 at 03:19 PM
Comments
This is interesting, but it assumes Democratic senators really want filibusters to go away. I don’t buy it. Without a filibuster, senators from states in the middle would be in a tougher spot. Bills that are popular with the left but not the middle might get passed, and then these senators might get voted out because of dissatisfaction with the party. A filibuster alleviates some of that in at least two ways.
First, it means that laws unpopular with the middle do not get passed, and unpassed laws are less likely to cost a senator his or her job (plus senators on the left can blame the right when bills popular with the left–but not the middle–are not enacted; it really is a win-win, as senators in the middle don’t have to suffer as many consequences, and senators in the left can blame the right at the same time).
Second, and perhaps more importantly, it means a lot of bills are not even proposed because they are nonstarters; thus, senators in the middle do not need to feel the heat for them. If there was no filibuster, just think about the votes that middle-state senators would have to be on the record for and worry about come reelection.
The filibuster guarantees fewer bills will be passed, and the bills that are not passed are almost by definition those that are most divisive, and thus most dangerous for senators in the middle. The filibuster takes some of the edge off of that political reality.
(all of this is, of course, equally true when the Republicans control the senate, with the right and left swapped)
Posted by: Aaron | Feb 8, 2010 5:44:34 PM