Happy Birthday, Gang of 14! A Review of the Infamous Filibuster Compromise

A year ago today, a bipartisan group of 14 Senators brokered a compromise to preserve the filibuster, an important parliamentary tradition that enables a minority of Senators to delay and block nominations or legislation. Dubbed "The Gang of 14," they were celebrated by pundits as a rare alliance helping "moderate" wisdom prevail over the extremism and partisanship that rules Congress.

The problem with that storyline, however, is that the extremism and partisanship was only coming from one side. Republicans were trying to destroy a sacrosanct rule in American government. Democrats were trying to protect the status quo. The Gang of 14 popped up in between those positions, not in the middle of a political spectrum, but in between the status quo and a Right Wing power grab. You don't need to be a political expert to know that's somewhere right of center. Yet the media was busy honoring the supposed centrism - that empty idol revered by so many pundits - and few people focused on the actual results. In celebration of The Gang's first birthday, it is worth reviewing their record. And while nobody likes bad news on a birthday, it's not pretty.

The Gang's immediate impact was to confirm several of President Bush's most controversial nominees and preserve a modified form of the filibuster. The agreement secured votes for three nominees (Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen), and rejected Sen. Bill Frist's nuclear plan to change the rules. Instead, it presented a standard for its signatories that "Nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist." (The memorandum of understanding also states an understating of the Constitutional roles of the Senate and the President in the confirmation process, an important issue for another day.)

Over the following year, members of The Gang said they would work together as a "moderating" influence in Washington. If you think that meant using their power to moderate the extremism of the party in power, think again. The Gang did not demonstrate any significant effect on President Bush's selection of judicial nominees. Lindsey Graham touted the alliance as "the model for the future," even telling Chris Mathews to "watch" for a Gang-sponsored deal on Social Security, but the results revealed there was no moderate muscle to back up the talk. The Gang also sided with the Right Wing by squashing an attempted filibuster of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. That contradicting precedent, since Abe Fortas' Supreme Court nomination was filibustered in 1968. The Alito circumstances were also extraordinary, since the President had hastily withdrawn his prior nominee, Harriet Miers, without any "up or down vote," and Alito's record was concerning to many Americans.

With two Supreme Court nominees confirmed and President Bush's nominees receiving Senate confirmation at a rate equal or higher than the past three presidents, this may all seem like irrelevant history. Maybe The Gang got too much attention, but there's nothing to do now besides enjoy the birthday cake, right?

Wrong. No moderate deed goes unpunished when Republicans control Washington.

Majority Leader Bill Frist is again threatening to go nuclear on the U.S. Senate. As The New York Times recently reported, Republicans are itching for a "reprise of last year's Senate showdown over judges," and they "have spent months prodding" Frist to act. Now he is trying to buck The Gang and exploit two pending, controversial nominations to force another nuclear showdown (Brett M. Kavanaugh and Terrence W. Boyle).

Where are the famous moderates? The Gang had a meeting Frist's latest antics and asked for an extra hearing for one of the nominees. That won't cut it. It is up to the seven Republicans in The Gang to finally stand up to their Majority Leader and fight him. Remember, we're talking about people like John McCain, John Warner and Mike DeWine - Senators who could easily knock Frist off balance with a speech on the Senate floor or a cameo on FOX News. If they don't speak up now, they will reveal how little they actually care about their pact and protecting Senate rules.

And what about the Democratic members of The Gang? They should finally use those "centrist" credentials to blast the Republican backsliding on the compromise. Some Democratic Senators may find that principled disagreement with Republicans elicits less media attention than mimicking their talking points, but it's the right thing to do.

More importantly, birthdays are also a natural time for reminiscence and, sometimes, regret. For The Gang's first birthday, its Democratic members should rethink the logic that motivated the original compromise. At the time, many reasonable people believed the deal might be the only way to save the filibuster. That is one reason why The Gang's Democrats are not just conservatives like Ben Nelson; there are also leading progressive Democrats who revere Senate traditions, such as Robert Byrd and Daniel Inouye, (two anti-war Democrats who are known for strong leadership, not capitulation). But some Republicans have since said all the nuclear talk was a bluff. One GOP aide recently told TIME's Joe Klein that The Gang actually "saved" Frist, because he "never had the votes he needed for the nuclear option." Yet even if he did have the votes then, a year is a long time. Two Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed. Americans aren't happy with President Bush, and they overwhelmingly disapprove of the Republican Congress - often at record highs. The SEC has been investigating Bill Frist's stock sales, and polls show his presidential prospects dimming. It's hard to imagine Frist winning the battle today, (especially since it would require him to whip votes from potential presidential campaign opponents, like George Allen and Gang of 14 member John McCain).

Yet some Democrats argue that calling Frist's bluff is still a big risk because of the long-term consequences. Thankfully, that logic is also finally crumbling in the Beltway. Last week, The Hill reported that conservatives are nervous that the nuclear quest could backfire. Given the "flagging poll numbers for congressional Republicans and President Bush," the article reports that the Right Wing is increasingly worried that by going nuclear, "Republicans would be handing [Democrats] a powerful weapon" right before they take control of the Senate after the mid-terms. The politics are getting worse for Frist too. After years of Republican corruption, Americans are likely to oppose any attempt to change American traditions so the GOP can consolidate more power.

In the end, though, The Gang owes America a plan that goes beyond such short-term calculations.

The filibuster is a canonical part of the modern Senate. It has not been around forever, and like any rule, it was not always used in the public interest; but it is celebrated in American tradition, enshrined in the official rules, and critical to protecting minority views, which distinguish the Senate from the majoritarian House of Representatives. Destroying the filibuster through undemocratic means would once have been considered unthinkable. Yet if Bill Frist gets his way, that is where the Senate is headed, with or without the moderates. In a larger sense, that is how today's Republican leaders have succeeded: By deliberately pushing politics to the unthinkable, then cutting temporary "deals" with the self-declared "moderates" who keep moving farther to the Right. How else to explain a civic discourse that actually debates the merits of extremist, immoral policies that should be dismissed out of hand, such as torture, nuclear attacks and wars of aggression? If compromise with extremists took U.S. politics where things stand today, we need a lot less of it. It is past time for the principled people in both parties to stand up for what's right, and often that means fighting, not negotiating.

When you think about it, protecting the status quo for Congressional rules - and the rule of law in general - is not even a "moderate" position, it is conservative. Apparently, it takes a lot of courage just to be conservative in Washington today. So if the Gang of 14 wants to make its second year more effective than its first, it should completely reject Frist's nuclear ambitions. That's the only way to teach him not to mess with the "moderates."

* * *
UPDATE: MyDD has more in Republicans Change Their Tune on Judges