It's the filibuster, stupid

[mattycub]

There's much wailing and gnashing of teeth going on at the moment over the reported death of the public option in the senate. I'm not as convinced that the death of the PO means the death of a death of a good HCR bill - it all depends on what we get in return for trading it away. In fact, it could even mean we end up getting a better overall bill (

Comments

[paladincub21]

The only issue I see with what you say is that the filibuster protects almost as often as it frustrates. In conservative majorities, we progressives are happy with the filibuster. It is a weapon to stop or at least delay bad legislation.

Bad legislation. Both sides use that term, and it means the same things. Legislation I don't want. But often times, it is bad legislation.

I was reading tim1965 the other day, and he makes the valid point that the two houses of Congress are very different; they work differently because they are differently. In the tyranny of the majority House, we have the rabids and whatnot - Tim points out that HUAC was a House committee. That would never have happened in the Senate - one senator out of 100 is all that is needed to bury a committee like that.

My main point is that we can't get rid of the filibuster now, because we will beg for it later. The filibuster, as well as the institutional differences between the House and Senate, as well as the institutional roadblocks built into the Senate all lead to the same thing - gradual, steady change, never too fast to pull it back.

Personally, I am hoping that Reid, by picking the reconciliation committee, stacks it so that the combined HCR bill has what we need to see health care reform. I don't expect the Senate bill to have that.

[mattycub]

I understand yout point about the filibuster being used to protect as well as frustrate - but it doesn't really change my thinking on this.

The founders obviously saw a need to have our two houses of congress function in different ways. Members of the House can afford to be much more ideological because they serve a narrow constituancy, whereas Senators have to answer to a whole state and must represent a much broader populace. But that's the extent of the Senate cooling process the founders intended. There's nothing in our constitution about the filibuster - indeed, it exists only due to a mistake in an early congress (see here, which also shows how the use of the filibuster has exploded over time). And when you think about it, its actually very undemocratic.

Every other governing body we have in this country - from the House all the way down to your local city council - operates on a majority rule. If the American public voted an overwhelming majority of our Senate to be Democrats, a simple majority of their votes should represent the will of the people - which is definitely not how it is working now. I would feel the exact same way if the majority was Republican. If the country elects a Republican majority, why shouldn't they get their way in congress if they can muster the votes? The fact that I personally don't agree with their policies is beside the point of the democratic process.

[paladincub21]

I guess my point about this is that I also think that the minority needs to be protected somewhat from the majority. If the majority of the senators, duly voted by their folks, believe in something (possibly abhorrent, possibly tame) then there should be some power in the one to slow the process down.

I'm leery of entirely democratic majority rule politics, and Founder-created or not, think that the Senate, with its filibuster balances a usually highly focused highly partisan House. I'm equally leery of any political party, having one great electoral year, changing large fundamental parts of our laws.

I'm also partly playing Devil's Advocate