Republican Senator Richard Shelby has put a “hold” on 70 of President Obama’s nominees, meaning none of them can proceed without securing 60 votes to break a filibuster. I believe this is a seminal moment in the history of Congress.
Many of the changes in American politics over the past three decades have involved the two parties slowly doing away with social norms that preventing them from using every tool at their disposal. The Senate minority could filibuster every single bill the majority proposed, but you just didn’t do that, until you did. You could use a House-Senate conference to introduce completely new provisions into a bill, but you just didn’t do that, until you did. (The topic became common in the Bush administration.) The possibility was always there to use endless amendments to filibuster a reconciliation bill. But nobody thought to do that until Republicans floated the tactic this week.
The “hold” is a now similar tool to what the filibuster was forty years ago. It’s a sparingly-used weapon meant to signal an unusually intense preference. A Congressional scholar reports that putting a blanket hold on all the president’s nominees has never been done before. But there’s no rule that says you can’t. It’s just not done, until it is.
Shelby is using his blanket hold to demand pork for his state. It’s a telling sign of the decay of the process, another indication of the power parochial interests have to block rational policymaking. But what’s to keep the minority party form simply blocking all the president’s nominees, from day one? Sure, they might catch some heat. But the president would eventually catch even more heat as his undermanned administration slid into dysfunction. And politics is a zero-sum game.
That may sound like a crazy scenario. But history shows that you can’t count on social norms to prevent competing parties from trying to maximize their advantage. The only way to change this kind of behavior is to change the rules.
Print
Please stop using the phrase "politics is a zero-sum game," which applies only in very special settings. About the only example is a current election between known candidates. It doesn't apply to partisan politics in the legislature, because a fight between known politicians can harm them all, allowing as-yet-unknown parties to benefit (for example, helping them mount a primary challenge). By the same token, cooperation between a fixed number of sitting politicians can help all who are party to agreements. Not to mention, of course, that one outcome of politics is policy, which is definitely not a zero sum game.
Please stop using the phrase "politics is a zero-sum game," which applies only in very special settings. About the only example is a current election between known candidates. It doesn't apply to partisan politics in the legislature, because a fight between known politicians can harm them all, allowing as-yet-unknown parties to benefit (for example, helping them mount a primary challenge). By the same token, cooperation between a fixed number of sitting politicians can help all who are party to agreements. Not to mention, of course, that one outcome of politics is policy, which is definitely not a zero sum game.
This would be an opportunity for the Democrats to show that they understand how to operate within today's media environment.
Pork for positions would appear, on the face of it, to be a very easy narrative to have developed and splashed across a lot of pages and screens.
This would be an opportunity for the Democrats to show that they understand how to operate within today's media environment.
Pork for positions would appear, on the face of it, to be a very easy narrative to have developed and splashed across a lot of pages and screens.
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
You use IE4? Get with the century Chait, use Chrome or Firefox.
I guess one of the most logical solutions is to expand what is classified as a GS employee and limit the number of offices that are filled by political appointees. Would it really be so bad if the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture were a career employee? This also has the greater benefit of hurting the Republicans since so many of their appointees are outright hacks who are chosen for ideology only (not that the Democrats don't have their share). And when the amount of appointees are few, the filibuster will be far more noticeable.
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
You use IE4? Get with the century Chait, use Chrome or Firefox.
I guess one of the most logical solutions is to expand what is classified as a GS employee and limit the number of offices that are filled by political appointees. Would it really be so bad if the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture were a career employee? This also has the greater benefit of hurting the Republicans since so many of their appointees are outright hacks who are chosen for ideology only (not that the Democrats don't have their share). And when the amount of appointees are few, the filibuster will be far more noticeable.
Another bonus to blackton's approach: Fewer appointed positions will reduce the incentives (for both parties) to create and sustain government agencies. The executive agencies are chockablock with small programs headed by political appointees that do some level of good, but a level far below the threshold that ought to determine whether the national government ought to do it. It's hard enough to shut down virtuous-but-unnecessary federal programs; tying each to a political spoils job makes shuttering them impossible.
Another bonus to blackton's approach: Fewer appointed positions will reduce the incentives (for both parties) to create and sustain government agencies. The executive agencies are chockablock with small programs headed by political appointees that do some level of good, but a level far below the threshold that ought to determine whether the national government ought to do it. It's hard enough to shut down virtuous-but-unnecessary federal programs; tying each to a political spoils job makes shuttering them impossible.
I would like to apologize for my senator doing this to the nation. An example of Alabama politics at its finest.
Between him and Jeff Sessions, we're responsible for two of the biggest tools in the US Senate.
I would like to apologize for my senator doing this to the nation. An example of Alabama politics at its finest.
Between him and Jeff Sessions, we're responsible for two of the biggest tools in the US Senate.
Commenting is a zero-sum game. :P
He should be forced to filibuster. Since he is doing this by himself, I bet his fellow repub monkeys wouldn't support him at all. Too much like work.
My wife and I were discussing the problem with our congress. She was of the opinion that we should fold the Senate into the house. Guarantee each state gets 3 representatives and one more for each 300K people.
I was thinking we should only allow the house to introduce bills. The Senate can add/remove amendments to a bill and vote on it once it has passed the house. If they change a bill it goes back to the House for yea/nay vote. If it doesn't pass the Senate has to work on it.
I am also of the opinion that we hav ... view full comment
Commenting is a zero-sum game. :P
He should be forced to filibuster. Since he is doing this by himself, I bet his fellow repub monkeys wouldn't support him at all. Too much like work.
My wife and I were discussing the problem with our congress. She was of the opinion that we should fold the Senate into the house. Guarantee each state gets 3 representatives and one more for each 300K people.
I was thinking we should only allow the house to introduce bills. The Senate can add/remove amendments to a bill and vote on it once it has passed the house. If they change a bill it goes back to the House for yea/nay vote. If it doesn't pass the Senate has to work on it.
I am also of the opinion that we have been way too generous with statehood and it needs to be corrected. If a current state can't get and keep a population of 1.5 million it doesn't need to be a state. It should be returned to territory status and given the option of joining a neighboring state or being divided up amongst neighboring states. It's just stupid for state that has less population that an average city to get just power in the Senate.
Dirk
What should happen is that the nominations are brought forward and the "hold" is ignored as though it did not exist. If the Republicans then want to refuse to allow debate to close, then we are at least in filibuster territory. The practice of allowing the filibuster without the actual talking is the next problem. I find it unfathomable, even with the cloture rule as it is, that the majority does not compel the minority actually to mount a filibuster in front of the TV cameras in every instance and let the American people see the obstruction.
Enough of the political appeasement. It is past time for the Democrats to recognize that they are in a total political war with the Repugnants and s ... view full comment
What should happen is that the nominations are brought forward and the "hold" is ignored as though it did not exist. If the Republicans then want to refuse to allow debate to close, then we are at least in filibuster territory. The practice of allowing the filibuster without the actual talking is the next problem. I find it unfathomable, even with the cloture rule as it is, that the majority does not compel the minority actually to mount a filibuster in front of the TV cameras in every instance and let the American people see the obstruction.
Enough of the political appeasement. It is past time for the Democrats to recognize that they are in a total political war with the Repugnants and start fighting it to win. The future of the nation depends on it.