The New Republic

This is all well and nice but what happens when the fickle, chronically uninformed, American public elects 55 Republican Senators? I dont think Mr. Yeselson, for good reason, would be singing the same tune.

- jnordlander

October 29, 2009 at 7:46pm

Reductio ad absordum: Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it: Image if George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney as his VP, had exactly what advocate...

- dcshungu

October 29, 2009 at 7:57pm

I think it's fairly likely that the prospect of a "simple majority legislature" (or whatever you want to call it) would cause Americans to think a bit more clearly about potential extremists in power. It's not the case that the GOP would never get a majority, of course they would, but they might be a different kind of party, especially if they needed a regional and social spread to be able to offer themselves as a party to the electorate as serious government material.

- ironyroad

October 29, 2009 at 8:59pm

I'm willing to risk it. Especially since the 60 vote filibuster rule no longer requires actually endless debating. It's well documented that the filibuster is used vastly more often than any previous point in history, and it was barely used at the founding. It's not in the Constitution. It's too bad Frist didn't just use the nuclear option back when Bush was president. Perhaps I'm just not aware, but what Bush policy did the Democrats use the filibuster to actually prevent?

- acria multa

October 29, 2009 at 9:04pm

Sorry I shouldn't have said founding, I meant it only began to be used on rare occasions in 1837.

- acria multa

October 29, 2009 at 9:12pm

jnordlander, I disagree. I had no problem with Bush pushing through his agenda in 2003, and because of 9/11 he pretty much did (tell me one policy failure he had then) and because of that he (and the Republicans) was held accountable by the Americans in 2006 and 08. It became overwhelmingly evident that tax cuts for the rich do not lead to balanced budgets (even when the budget was balanced when he came in) no can you re-invent warfare as Rummy thought he could, and so on. As to his social security scheme, that didn't even enjoy support with Republicans, let alone Democrats. Having a supermajority was no enough to save that turkey. Acria, Bush got his 2000 tax cuts pushed through by reconciliation. (which, again, I disagreed with but had no problem with) Funny how that was OK then, but for Dems to do so with the budgetary aspects of health care, the horrors. Freaking Republic party aholes.

- blackton

October 29, 2009 at 9:27pm

Over and again, this is how mainstream media pundits discuss things like the economy: "That would be deeply problematic, as it would likely make the economic situation even worse..." george: What makes this problematic is not whether or not the economic situation is better or worse, but who it is better or worse for. Where have these folks been over the past 6 months? Has the economy gotten better or worse for Wall Street or Main Steeet? Why? Why one and not the other? In other words, it reduces the economy down to a puzzle, a problem to be solved. To wit: What is the best combination of moves needed to figure out The Solution? Well, that depends on who defines "solution", right? And that, of course, is deeply embedded in the nature of political economy in America today. But to understand that you have to focus not on the so-called optimal solution [as though this were a math problem] but on how those with political and economic power manipulate all the pawns [and the other pieces] on the board in order to achieve a particular checkmate. Can you fucking believe the sheer audacity of word warrior intellectuals like Galston and Brooks suggesting that Obama has gone "too far left" in his approach to "solving" our economic problems!!! And of course even Yeselson plows into all this as though crony capitalism [the very heart and soul of America's politcal economy] played virtually no role in this at all. On and on he goes about anacrhronistic Congressional procedures---as though if only THAT were changed The Solution would simply manifest itself. Indeed, Yeselson's analysis above is supposed to encompass the "progressive liberal" vantage point in the debate, isn't it? george walton j

- iambiguous

October 29, 2009 at 9:32pm

Another tedious post by the bore-master George Walton. His every thought is boring. How does this man from suffocating himself with his own boring thoughts given that there isn't an ounce of oxygen in any thing he says.

- jacksondyer

October 29, 2009 at 9:54pm

Disagree, JD. It's very likely, given george's own principle that language is merely the reflection of subjective ideological preferences, that his statement Well, that depends on who defines "solution", right? means "even though the bag doesn't inflate, oxygen is flowing."

- ironyroad

October 29, 2009 at 10:45pm

Ire, It's not in my new contract with The Troupe to read JD, so I'll trust that you disagreed about the part where he compared me to an inverted Pakistani dung beetle's, uh, urine. Oh, and it's, "....oxygen is STILL flowing". That's from the original Egyptian hieroglyphics, by the way. And the bags don't technically "inflate". They pass gas. gw

- iambiguous

October 30, 2009 at 3:20am

jackson, you're worse than gw, because you know better, and yet you respond to him anyway. And not just here, but lately all the time. Stop. Feeding. The. Troll. When you respond to him, you implicitly ask us to read him in order to understand your response. What did the rest of us ever do to you that you would inflict such a demand on us? Cut it out. As to the concern expressed by, "Image if George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney as his VP, had exactly what advocate..." Well, we don't have to imagine it. That is precisely what happened. The only significant items on Bush's legislative agenda that did not pass failed not due to Democratic filibuster but because Bush failed to rally majority support within his own party. The filibuster is an inherently reactionary tool. It cannot be used to enact legislation; only to block legislation. It is a tool whose only possible function is the defense of the status quo. It has, as a result, necessarily been used almost exclusively to achieve evil or dishonorable ends at the expense of the good of the Republic by small, usually Southern, conservative minorities. No serious right-wing legislative program has ever been blocked from passage by filibuster, whereas dozens of important progressive legislative efforts have been stymied by filibuster. To the extent that one supports the continued existence of the filibuster in any form, to precisely that extent one is neither a liberal nor a progressive.

- rhubarbs

October 30, 2009 at 10:38am

Blackie, we know how budgets are balanced - dot com bubbles and the tax revenue they generate. At least, that's how we balanced the budget under Clinton. Oh, a little slowing of the growth in overall spending, but not much. As for the filibuster, the Senate can change their rules at any time, so far as I know. Which party is in charge again?

- butchie b

October 30, 2009 at 11:28am

Dems believe that government can be a tool to improve people's lives. That's why God's favorite liberal helped W pass NCLB. That's why he tried to help W pass immigration reform, even though it might have made Hispanics look more favorably on the GOP. Conservatives believe that government should be run by tools who tool around the poor and middle-class. Butchie - your post got cut off and your accounting of all the successes Republicans have had balancing the budget is somewhere drifting in cyberspace. Please, let us know how they did it - inquiring minds want to know.

- Geoff G

October 30, 2009 at 12:46pm

Rhubs-- I don't know if your last statement is narrow enough. In the context of a progressive administration, or a progressive majoritarian opinion, then yes, backers of the right to filibuster can be perceived as non-liberal and/or non-progressive. But if we're talking about an administration that comes to power and reacts to progressive reforms made by the previou administration, then those who employ the filibuster can indeed be seen as liberals or progressives.

- dylanposer

October 30, 2009 at 2:32pm

Between Yeselson and Irony, I'm cautiously sold on this argument. It would encourage Americans to grow up and become responsibile - or at least more responsible - citizens. Preening prostitutes like Lieberman chose other work and I think it could even have a fine effect on the grotesquery of campaign finance. I like it.

- WandreyCer

October 30, 2009 at 3:43pm

dylan, I take your point, but I stand by what I said. Yes, the filibuster might in theory be used to defend progressive gains against majoritarian conservative attacks. But we've had 160 years of experience with the filibuster, and the theoretical situation you describe has basically never occurred. It's a bit like legalizing poll taxes because one can imagine a hypothetical future situation in which one might wish to prevent poor people from voting. The thing is, even if such a situation came to pass, the net effect will still be negative because of the much more frequent use of the tool for evil in the meantime. Thus with the filibuster. To preserve the filibuster on the off chance of some theoretical future use by progressives is simply to enable its actual use by conservatives in the here and now.

- rhubarbs

October 30, 2009 at 3:53pm

Geoff, this conservative agrees - government CAN be a tool to help people. But more often, it screws things up by the numbers. Competence is not what immediately leaps to mind when one thinks of the federal bureaucracy. That may be unfair, but there it is. The GOP Congress helped Clinton balance the budget, Geoff. Or do you cling to the child-like belief that Presidents balance budgets? And run the economy? And can "fix" it?

- butchie b

October 30, 2009 at 4:07pm

Butchie - please! Clinton received not one Republican vote for the budget that set us on the path of surpluses and paid down debt. Gingrich shut down the government, wasting bajillions (and my job at the time). I just cannot find a good argument that supports the idea that Republicans are fiscally responsible, at least in my lifetime. Well, OK one: Reagan had a point, 90 percent income tax was a bit much. But after that? Reagan exploded government, debt etc. Let's not even talk about the rest of them. Republicans and money have been a bachnavallian mindless mess ever since I have been sentient. At least we bleeding hearts want to fund forest rangers and stuff ;)

- WandreyCer

October 30, 2009 at 4:40pm

I want to know where were the Republicans who complain about the current national debt for the past 30 years? Before Reagan, there were legitimate arguments about deficits and the tax rates, then Reagan ran on a fallacy that we could lower tax rates to generate more revenue while, at the same time, increasing spending. The debt soared. When Clinton raised the tax rates, the budget got balanced. When Bush II lowered taxes and increased spending, it began with Cheney's comment to Paul O'Neil that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" and Greenspan reversed himself on approving a tax cut in Congressional hearings without a corresonding cut in spending (according to Paul O'Neil). After that, the debt soared again. The plan must have been to increase the national debt and then use it to selectively justify government inaction.

- Nusholtz

October 30, 2009 at 6:10pm

rhubs-- You are correct: empirically, the filibuster has in fact been used for to mire government in regressive (and repressive) policies. My worry is that if the filibuster is outlawed now, the Right will use HCR as a grievance in a future Congress in which they can seriously overreach, gutting social programs and slashing taxes for the rich, and what could stop them? Maybe the part of 'supermajority' that needs to be changed is the number of votes required to obtain such a description: we know now that the 39 or 40 frothy GOP Senators represent less than the percentage of people who elected them, as the Senate has become increasingly lopsided in who it represents. Maybe 55-58 should constitute a new 'supermajority'.

- dylanposer

October 30, 2009 at 6:38pm

Unfortunately, with Harry Reid as majority leader, I doubt the Democrats would even talk about getting rid of the filibuster. Since the discussion has moved to my favorite topic of national debt; I'll just repeat what I've said before: The federal government is the currency issuer, it has to run a deficit, if you want to have cash in your bank account. In the presence of unemployment, deficits can pretty much only be a good thing. It's just about the only thing Cheney was right about.

- acria multa

October 30, 2009 at 7:15pm

Nulholtz: You are onto GOP strategy. I can remember a WSJ editorial in 2001 or 2002 figuratively rubbing its hands with glee at 400 billion dollar deficits since spending would have to be cut. Now that the GOP has exploded the national deficit, they block all tax increases and demand spending cuts for those programs of which they do not approve: social security, medicare, medicaid, and the elimination of all regulatory agencies. There is also a simple solution to unemployment: Military service so that we can eliminate all of the rogue regimes. The spending and tax cuts will pay for the expanded military to keep us safe!

- tpinter

October 30, 2009 at 9:30pm