Thoughts on the Filibuster

For some odd reason, C-SPAN 2 is showing Lamar Alexander's speech and subsequent presentation to the Heritage foundation about how horrible the filibuster reforms are planned. Several thoughts:

1) These people are idiots. They keep talking about how the proposed reforms will cut off any opportunity for open debate. Uh, no. The proposal is to make the people who refuse to vote to close debate to, you know, actually talk, i.e. debate. The point is to bring back the talking filibuster, to restore the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-esque nature of the thing.

2) The presentation was full of Democrats talking about how good the filibuster was back in the old days, as if to prove that their current position is a pure power grab. A few points: Tom Harkin at least wanted to reform the filibuster in 1995. Many of the current freshmen Senators taking the lead never made such speeches in favor of filibusters. And as for the rest of them, well, it was a different world back in 2006. The practice of filibusters of things that pass 96-0 had not begun. Really, the practice of every single person who will vote against a bill also vote against cloture had not begun. Things passed 53-47 in that last Republican-held Congress. That never ever happens in this Congress. And just as Chris Dodd pointed out that many freshmen Democrats have never served in the minority, well, in 2006 most Democratic Senators had never served in the majority. They had never experienced the frustration of having a 59-seat majority and being unable to get one's own agenda through. When the facts changed, they changed their opinions: what do you do, Republicans?

3) During the 2005-06 Senate, there were 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats, and the 45 Democrats represented more people than the 55 Republicans. Given that the Senate is undemocratic itself, I can see an argument that when the "minority" represents 51% of the people and the "majority" represents 49% the principles of democracy would make it a nice thing if the "minority" could manage to do some amount of obstruction. In the 111th Congress, the 59 Democrats represented something akin to 65% of the people, who were being obstructed by about half as much of the populace's representatives. That changes the dynamic in the short-term, though it doesn't change whether filibusters themselves are a good thing or not.

4) It is entirely possible that those 2006 Democrats were wrong. After all, everyone like Senator Alexander made identical speeches denouncing the filibuster and calling for up-and-down votes in 2006. (And what the Republicans proposed in 2005 was to simply blow up filibusters of judicial nominees in mid-session, something which is more radical than the Democratic proposal of 2011.) Sen. Alexander is now claiming that he, or at least many of his colleagues from back then, were wrong, and that the Democrats were right! Maybe the Democrats were wrong then, and have subsequently realized the error of their ways. Or maybe they were just pandering to the temporary partisan institutional incentives of the moment, as Republicans were doing the last two years. Are Democrats doing the same now? Well, given that they can't pass any legislation without Mr. Boehner's consent for two years, those incentives are pretty weak right now, extending only, really, to nominations. But maybe they are, maybe they think they'll keep the Senate in 2012 and be able to pass more legislation then. Regardless, they are currently, for whatever reasons no matter how craven, on the right side of the issue: a supermajority requirement for ordinary legislation is undemocratic. The Democrats propose to weaken that supermajority requirement. They are in the right here, no matter how wrong they were in the past.