On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Doug Henwood wrote:
> So why didn't they scrap the filibuster? Why don't they fight with the
> same ardor as Republicans? Why, in short, do they appear to be such
> pussies
Two separate questions. Let me deal with the filibuster first, and general pusillanimousness separately (if I can think of anything new to add).
On why they haven't proposed to change the filibuster:
1) 99.9% of people -- included many very inside the beltway, including many senators -- don't realize you can change a Senate rule with less than 67 votes. And if you believe you need 67 votes, then it's logical that you think it's pointless. In fact it's logical not to think about it all. Which they don't.
This is part of why I think the Gold and Gupta paper needs huge publicity. Only when its conceivable can anyone consider doing it.
Tom Harkin says he is introducing a bill next month for mild filibuster reform next month. He'll be discussing it on Rachel Maddow tonight. Perhaps he has figured out and will make more known that you don't need 67 votes.
2) Senators are deeply invested in their identity as Senators, the central tenet of which is that they belong to an "august" body (meaning greater than any other one earth since Rome); that this augustness is a function of its "deliberateness;" that this deliberateness is a function of "unlimited debate;" and that unlimited debate is founded on the filibuster. So there is a mountain of identity sitting on this procedure, and 100 powerful egomaniacs attached to that identity, all convinced that if you got rid of this, you'd deflate their entire balloon, and they'd be just like House, only smaller and more absurd.
3) There is a second weird concept attached to the filibuster: the idea that it is incarnation of the defense of minority rights. Besides being an outrageous inversion of reality -- the filibuster has been a central tool in depriving minorities of their rights -- its makes a complete hash of the idea. "The protection of minority rights" properly refers to the rights of individuals to the protection of the laws -- not the political rights of the side who loses an election to continue stopping anything they don't like from happening. But it's a sacrosanct phrase that combines two American pieties, minority rights and free speech. It is thus self justifying. And thus it justifies (and sanctifies) their Augustness: it's needed so they be champions of minority rights.
In short, changing the filibuster is now inconceivable because nobody knows it can be done; and would be such an ego-blow to Senators that they sputter at the thought (literally -- just ask one, and you can see the spray).
But if it became widely known that it was possible, and widely derided as ridiculous rather than august, perhaps that would change the balance.
Michael