A Reminder About Filibuster Math

So Gibbs was right on.

Most recent poll from Mr. Lieberman's home state of Connecticut has support for the public option at 68% for to 21%. Lieber, we get it, your pissed Mccain lost the election. Lieber, we get it, your in the pocket of the drug of Connecticut. Must you make it so obvious?

This makes me think of the decade before the Civil War, when from 1848 to 1858, pro-slavery Southerners fought and won a series of titanic legislative battles in Congress, but each "victory" achieved only theoretical gains for abstract principles rather than any concrete extension of their interests, and at the cost of destroying both major political parties and with them Southerners' ability to influence national leadership.

Which gets me back to the judicial filibuster crisis of 2005-2006. The Gang of 14 prevented the Republican leadership from using the "nuclear option" to end the filibusters by majority vote, and thereby preserved the minority's "right" to filibuster. Except that in order to preserve the "right," Democrats had to allow the very judges they'd been filibustering to come to a vote and win confirmation. So they preserved an abstract, theoretical "right" at the sacrifice of the concrete interests they were seeking to defend. And the "right" they preserved would soon pass to the other party's hands, as Democrats were on the verge of regaining the majority.

Would have been far better to have forced the issue, allow Republicans in 2005 or 2006 to use the nuclear option, break the filibuster, and lose the battle in order to be better able to win more important wars when returned to power. The filibuster was first used in the 1840s, and has been used almost exclusively for evil or dishonorable purposes. It is a reactionary tool, and as such any member of a progressive party should be more than happy to see the filibuster weakened, even at the expense of some short-term procedural advantage. Something Democrats need to remember the next time they're in the minority and Republicans threaten to weaken the filibuster.

So what's the point in calling small-state senators out on their parochialism? Isn't that what the composition of the Senate and the filibuster rule are all about? If I were Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson, I would take it as a point of pride that I decided to block legislation that might be popular in large states and big cities but that is not so popular with my own consituents. I would guess that such a strategy would have no electoral downside. Joe Lieberman, of course, is another matter entirely.

Rhubarbs, agree with you completely on the filibuster. It is really time for it to go. Unfortunately, the Democrats won't threaten to abolish it just as the health care bills come to a vote but it would be nice to ditch it some time afterward.

Rhubarbs said: "It is a reactionary tool, and as such any member of a progressive party should be more than happy to see the filibuster weakened, even at the expense of some short-term procedural advantage."

I agree completely. The filibuster makes the US Senate an even more conservative (as in 'change-averse') body than it would otherwise be, which is saying a lot. This is occasionally handy for progressives, but over the long run is more harmful than helpful. Next time conservatives want to get rid of the thing, for gosh sakes let them.

Hmm -- guess I said pretty much the same thing as wildboy. Well, it can't be said too often.