Nearly one year ago, political scientist David RePass argued, in the New York Times, that the Democrats should call the Republican Senators' bluff and let them filibuster, live on C-SPAN, against health care reform and the other initiatives that the overwhelming majority of Americans support. RePass argued convincingly that allowing Republicans to merely threaten a filibuster creates what he called a "phantom filibuster," effectively requiring a supermajority for any legislation to be passed, subverting the democratic process.
In the intervening year, RePass's prophecy has come to pass in more extreme terms than even he would have predicted. As noted by Senator Tom Harkin in these pages, the Republican minority is now filibustering just about everything, including "legislation to provide low-income energy assistance, efforts to strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission... and efforts to ensure that women are guaranteed equal pay for equal work."
Harkin's proposed remedy is to effectively eliminate the filibuster entirely, requiring only 51 votes to cut it off. Yet even he agrees that this proposal has little chance of passing. Why not, then, revisit RePass's proposal to let the Republicans filibuster, for all Americans to see? Bring the bills to the floor, and let the Senatorial BS-ing begin.
The first and most obvious consequence of this tactic would be to expose the Republican minority for what they are: obstructionists. Of course, there are principled differences on issues such as health care reform. But it's obvious now that the Republicans are filibustering for the sake of filibustering. As their intellectual (sic) leader, Rush Limbaugh, has articulated, their interest is in seeing the President fail. Tying up Congress is a great way to do it.
So far, the tactic is working. Increasing majorities of Americans believe that government is broken, or Congress is ineffective. This view is missing some important verbs. Government is being broken by a minority of Senators, and Congress is being rendered ineffective by their tactics. Showcasing the filibuster for all to see would be a great way to make that plain.
Second, filibusters are not actually that easy to maintain. All the filibustering Senators must be present at all times. Speakers cannot stop speaking. Even bathroom breaks must be carefully coordinated. This is why most filibusters eventually get broken. If the Senate health care bill were brought to the floor right now, it would most likely pass, eventually. Yes, it would take a considerable amount of time and political courage, but it would probably happen. At the very least, it would create a sense of urgency behind the bipartisan healthcare "summit" scheduled for this week.
Third, allowing the Republicans to filibuster in this way is an excellent opportunity to recall previous filibusters, such as the three-week delay (by a coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans) of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Anyone who thinks that the filibuster is a proud defense against tyranny (like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) could be treated to a quick history lesson in how it was used to maintain segregation.
Of course, a fourth consequence of allowing the filibuster to proceed would be an near shutdown of the Senate, and loud bleatings of partisanship from the propangandists at Fox News. Democrats don't want to be seen as the party that refuses to negotiate and allows the Senate to grind to a halt.
But surely even the most basic spin control can respond to such a charge. Surely it's the minority that is refusing to negotiate and shutting down government - not the democratically elected majority. Americans believe in democracy. 58% is a healthy majority, and for the minority 42% to stand in their way is anti-democratic. At the very least, it begs an explanation.
The anti-democracy of the filibuster is even more acute when one remembers that, as described by Richard Rosenfeld back in 2004, "senators from the 26 smallest states, representing a mere 18 percent of the nation's population, hold a majority in the United States Senate." This anti-democracy is, of course, a principle of federalism, but it is a principle gone awry. When the Senate was created as part of the "Great Compromise," the largest state (Virginia) had 12 times the population of the smallest (Delaware). Today, the ratio (between California and Wyoming) is 70 to 1.
Now, as Mike Lux reminded us here in the HuffPo, "the ten largest states are home to over half the country's population but represent only 20% of the Senate; the 21 smallest states together have less total population than California does." These wild disproportions are not at all what the Founders intended, and a gross distortion of the federalism they created. Changing the Constitution may be close to impossible, but showing the effects of minority abuse of the rules is not.
Allowing the filibuster to proceed would bring these statistics out of the wonky closet and into the network-news light. Ordinary Americans would see that a handful of millionaires, representing a tiny minority of the US population, are holding up nearly every major initiative of the overwhelming majority. If government is broken, these are the people breaking it. Let the American people see them.
Follow Jay Michaelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaymichaelson
Obama renews health-care push, eyes way to sidestep filibuster
So You Wanna Reform The Filibuster? Here's How
Public Says Tax the Rich, Regulate the Banks, and End the Filibuster
time to make the bastards work for a change if you ask me!
bring the the first bill to the floor (I don't care what bill it is, healthcare, whatever) and if there is no vote for closure then let the fun begin!
and make not just the fillibustering senators have to stay in the sneate, but make ALL senators stay in the senate (including the idiot from VW who is drolling on himslef in the nursing home)
these guys supposedly WORK for us...lets make them do some owrk for a change instead of spening all day glad handing, patting backs , setting up lobbiest jobs forthemselves or family members and raising money!
now THAT is CHANGE I CAN BELEIVE IN right there BROTHER!!
As Wikipedia explains:
"In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum. In the past, when one senator became exhausted, another would need to take over to continue the filibuster. Ultimately, the filibuster could be exhausted by a majority who would even sleep in cots outside the Senate Chamber to exhaust the filibusterers. Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until either cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate."
Don't weakly fold and crumple simply because they threaten to filibuster. Make them actually do it.
Please read Ryan Grim's article The Myth of the Filibister. It is very informative.
I am sooooo flippin' frustrated, though. People's lives are at stake and the Republicans still can't see past their own interests to do the right thing. If the Dem's called their bluff, they'd just stand up and tell a bunch of NEW lies that put death panels to shame. I can't even imagine.
Yes, I want them to actually filibuster, but do I want them in front of cameras for that long? NO! The crazy stuff some people already believe . . . . . . . . i.e., the polls that ask constituents if they want Obama's health care reform, and they say NO WAY, but then you break it down into the pieces it actually contains, and OF COURSE they want all those things!! It is just crazy.
I mean the silly taxpayers only pay me around $170,000/year plus my cushy Pension that I get (yeah I know we told you silly taxpayers a long time ago that pensions were thing of the past and 401K 's would make you a MILLIONAIRE....LOL you are silly after all).
and I only get Taxpayer PAID for health insurance and I have to pay $100/year for the doctors office at the capital I go to for free....and when I decode to retire and take my pention thats about TWICE what the average america makes after only 5 years ...I HAVE to go to work for some lobbying firm that'll only pay me about $1 MILLION a year to have cocktaisl with my former Senate mates!!
you silly common people have NO IDEA how hard my job in the Senate really is!!!
and NOW you want me to have to actually BE in the sebate chamber until we can vote on a bill....MY GOD ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!
The fix I like is the "Reverse-Filibuster". Instead of coming up with 60 votes to break a filibuster, why not require the minority party to present 40 votes to continue one? If the minority party is serious about believing that the vote would hurt America, prove it by getting all your people to the Capitol at once to vote against it.
Second, the President needs to learn how to play some serious hardball. Bring in the Republican leadership and say, "I really want the filibuster obstructionism of everything to stop. Are you with me on it?" "No." "Okay. By the way, the Pentagon is announcing tomorrow a year-long review of all Defense contracts in your districts. That new aircraft carrier we're building in your state? It's on hold pending an audit. The day after tomorrow, the GSA is canceling the new Federal Building going up in Coburn's district. Day after that? The IRS is going to do a study on canceling the call centers in Alabama.. Who's the Senator there again? Oh, right, a Republican..."
They will be the face on the screen causing other business to be delayed or lost in the shuffle.
Remember when Bush number one would sign, I think it was an emergency budget bill, becasue he didn't like some part of it, and caused the Fed empolyees to be out of work for a couple of weeks?
Bush number one though the Democrats would be blamed. He was 100% wrong that public knew he was the man responsible. He weenied out and signed, and he never really recovered from his public tantrum.
The spineless dims need to call the bully's bluff and let them strut their stuff for all to see.
Hell we've lost a year on helath care, what's and Obama and Reid have put it on the back burner, so let the RepoTliban dance till their feet fall off.
Republicans are not just "obstructionists". They do not vote no on the health care bill just because they are playing politics. For some reason it seems to escape many that perhaps, Republicans and conservatives may actually have real intellectual reasons for being against this reform.
I think that the health insurance system needs major fixing. But getting the government involved so deeply and spending another $950 billion of money that doesn't exist just isn't the way to go. I'd rather keep the current system.
The more we allow the government to take over, the more freedom we lose. I for one have lost enough freedom and have no desire to depend on the federal or state government for that matter to administer my health care.