No matter what happens tonight or on election day in November, the comity of the Senate is going to be decreased next year. Ezra Klein doesn’t come right out and say that, but it’s implicit in his overall point.
Part of the narrative that’s emerged is that these primaries show an anti-incumbent, anti-Washington, year. That’s right, but it’s mixed, incoherently, with pro-party — which is to say, pro-Washington establishment — results. The different bases are eliminating politicians who’ve been insufficiently dedicated to holding their party’s line. The result will be much more significant than merely the election of three new senators. Rather, surviving senators will upgrade the threat an unhappy base poses to their reelection and trim their independence accordingly. The moderates and compromisers who are left will stop acting like moderates and compromisers. This election looks, if nothing else, like it’s going to be a big step forward in bringing strong party discipline to the Senate.
Part of that excerpt I disagree with. Bob Bennett, for example, got bounced out of his senate seat primarily because he voted for TARP and he introduced a health care bill a few years ago that had the incredibly unconstitutional Marxist personal mandate that everyone purchase insurance. Those were Washington GOP establishment positions (at one time, anyway) that are very unpopular with rank and file Republicans. Bennett wasn’t fired for bucking his party leadership, but for bucking convention-going Utah Republicans’ wishes. If Bennett was guilty of ‘insufficiently holding his party’s line’ it was only in the sense that he didn’t engage in enough rank hypocrisy and fear-mongering once Obama became president.
But Ezra’s larger point mostly stands. Whether Blanche Lincoln loses or not, the message has been from voters in Arkansas, Utah, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania that they expect their politicians to support the party line. And, while that is distinct from the watered down version of that line that is practiced by the insiders in Washington DC, the result will be more party discipline. But more party discipline means less interparty cooperation. And with 60 votes as a requirement for getting anything done, we’re headed for more gridlock than we’ve ever seen.
There are only two ways out of this. Either the Dems actually pick up Senate seats so that they can pass any procedural vote they want to, or they revise the filibuster rule in some way to allow the Senate to do its business. We can’t have another Congress like the current one, let alone one that is even more deadlocked.
The party discipline that’s being enforced on the Dem side is actually pretty mild- a return to normalcy actually. Lincoln threatened to filibuster her party and her president’s main domestic campaign issue. Nobody really cared about her substantive votes (in a big tent party she can vote however she wants) – her procedural posturing (to filibuster or not to filibuster) were what people made an issue of and what caused her to draw a well funded primary opponent. Lincoln really bucked her party and traditional caucus dynamics in a misconstrued gambit to appeal to AK independents in November. Members of a caucus don’t typically threaten to obstruct their own caucus’s agenda- that’s a basic concept not just in American politics but throughout modern political institutions in other countries as well. If there’s anything “weird” going on with regards to Lincoln and the new intra caucus dynamics, its her threat to filibuster last fall that is the nail that stands out and as the saying goes, the nail that stands out, gets hammered down. The AK primary is an example of Dem intra caucus dynamics returning to normal, not some drastic change.
On the other side of the aisle, what’s happening in the GOP electorally actually is pretty bizarre, as you point out. The tea party is picking off not just establishment politicians, but politicians who are perceived to be working with the dems. Given that the founding fathers set up our political institutions to require consensus and compromise, targeting GOP politicians who are simply doing their job is actually pretty radical stuff- and puts out clearly on the path to a government shut down, since even with supermajorities (which we won’t ever get again), a dedicated minority of GOP senators can always shut things down, assuming they have a mandate to play legislative terrorist.
What’s so frustrating is watching the media report these primary developments as just anti-incumbent, increased radicalization of each caucus. Its a nice, easy to tell story, but its just not reality.
I’m not going to try and look it up, but did you not call this one of the most productive Congresses in a long time? How does that square with saying we can’t have another one like this one? Not that I disagree, just curious how you put those statements together.
Getting more Dems would be nice, but seems to me the myth of 60 votes has been pretty much debunked. Any extra Dems we got would almost certainly be at least as big a PITA as Lincoln, Nelson, Lieberman et al.
The rational way around deadlock is to nuke the filibuster with any of the several plans proposed in various quarters. Assuming the Dems keep their majority, this has to be the number 1 priority. The filibuster is a grotesque tumor, not a Constitutional or legal mandate of any kind. The challenge will be for the Dems to make that clear. The problem will be the beltway delusion that Americans give a shit about their petty little parliamentary trivia.
Here are what’s been accomplished (signed into law) so far:
Let’s compare that to Bush’s first Congress and Clinton’s first Congress.
Set aside the quantity of what Congress has done, compare the quality of what they have done. Without question, this is the most productive Congress in my lifetime and also the best from an ideological point of view. But look at how much needs to be done and is not being done. Look at how many outstanding appointments there are. And consider the warped way that the will of the voters is thwarted to meet this 60 vote threshold which forces us time and time again to water down our ambitions. So, yeah, both things are true.
Impose caucus discipline. For whatever reason, Rahm and Reid never really “sanctioned” Lincoln and Nelson for their disloyalty and maybe that was the right call. These guys have way more information and experience than I do so I’m hesitant to really second guess those decisions. But if Reid and Rahm can control the procedural (not substantive) votes of our entire caucus (as McConnel and Gregg presumably do for theirs), including holy joe, then I don’t think all hope is lost, even assuming no change to the filibuster and less dem seats (im assuming we’ll still have at least 55). I’m optimistic that Lincoln’s loss might just give Reid and Rahm the leverage they need to finally control the procedural votes of our caucus. If our caucus is united on the procedural votes, then it really puts the screws on Collins, Snowe and Brown, and if they fall, then it provides cover for a couple more Rep Senators who at that point are probably willing to cut deals (ie a prominent supporter gets to be an ambassador, a regulatory board controlled by the pres issues a ruling in their favor, etc) can that enhance their power/benefit their constituents. Our weak caucus and the discipline of the GOP caucus has really skewed our politics to the right far more than just the institutional conservativeness of the Senate (although im as big a hater as any). Also something to keep in mind: Brown and prob either Collins and Snowe are up for reelection in 2012 with OBama on the ticket. Don’t think any of them are going to want to face the voters as McConnel’s lackey and/or loyal foot soldier of the tea party.
we had 60 votes. nothing got done, other than watered down legislation. i saw a lot of democrats negotiating against themselves. I also saw quite a few democrats breaking with their party and supporting the republicans on a few issues. here’s ben nelson, telling us that reform needs 65 votes to be legit, for example.
No, I’m not looking forward to more gridlock, but when we had the 60 votes we didn’t use it. So if the elections are going to spur more party discipline, and will make senators that much more likely to vote the party line because they’re afraid of the voters, i don’t necessarily see that as a bad thing.
Agreed- discipline is way more important than total amount. Reid and Rahm had 60 senators but never the promise of 60 procedural votes. McConnel had 40 senators and 40 procedural votes. Probably one of the more prescient and insightful words uttered in American politics in the last few years was crazy Jim Demint saying “I would rather have 30 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters.” Guy is an evil genius.
it’s just not a solution. I don’t think having jackass Democrats in the Senate is a good thing. I think having Republicans and Democrats who are willing to work across the aisle is a worthy goal because that is the only way the Senate can function. But the GOP doesn’t want the Senate to function. Increased party discipline just makes that problem worse.
GOP getting more disciplined is horrible for all the reasons you point out. Still don’t see how the Dems getting more disciplined is a problem. For one, the pres is a dem so its essentially his agenda that is going to be enacted or not until 2012. Its the GOP that needs to play ball according to the rules written by the founding fathers, not the other way around. And if you’re worried about our caucus getting too disciplined to play along with a potential GOP president down the road, I doubt you’d find that to be a problem given the current state of the GOP.
Both parties are getting more disciplined, but its really only the GOP getting disciplined that’s a problem. Sounds like a wacky, one sided position, but tell me where I’m wrong?
The reason why you’re not wrong (and you’re not) is because the GOP is already a highly disciplined machine when it comes to their Senate caucus. They’re already almost in lock-step when it comes to ideological votes. So becoming more disciplined for the GOP means that they’re becoming even less able to work outside their box. And it’s a tiny box that their base is intent on making smaller every year.
OTOH – the Dems are (and have been as long as I’ve watched politics) an undisciplined mess of a factional party. It works for them sometimes, other times it really hurts them. We’re in one of those times where it hurts. So improving discipline from “nearly none” to “some” is not a worry for me at all. The Dems’ discipline problems are 180 degrees different from the GOP’s and so require a different solution.
True, I am not lamenting more Democratic behavior from our centrists. But it won’t improve matters because the problem lies with the Republicans. And, what Brendan misses above is that the Democrats only had 60 seats from mid-September to mid-January. They used it to pass health care in Christmas Eve. The rest of this Congress, we have not had 60 votes at any point, and it’s unlikely we will have them in the next Congress.
you mean “health insurance reform”. they did not, in fact, pass “health CARE reform”.
I think you’re pining for things to be as they were 20 years ago, and not as they are. The GOP is behaving like a parliamentary party, and with so many corporatist Dems willing to take their side on so many issues, progressives will always lose until the GOP decides to play nice or the Dems beat the GOP at their own game.
neither is likely, but the former is more likely at this point. the gop could not become any worse than they are now, and extending the hand of cooperation ain’t gonna cut it. not as a political strategy and not as a way to energize the base.
bipartisanship is over-rated anyway, and always has been. like carlin said, it’s a sign a larger-than-usual deception is going on.
Maybe you are misinterpreting my point. I don’t know.
I’m predicting the future more than I’m complaining about it.
In any case, you’re wrong that the GOP cannot get better or worse.
Losing Jeffords, Chafee, and Specter made the GOP worse. Adding Castle and Kirk would improve things (within their caucus, not overall). But throwing out moderate Republicans and seeing them go down to defeat against Dems are what caused this problem. The more diversity in the caucus, the less discipline they will have and the better the Senate will function. But the center is always empowered in the Senate. That’s just how things work in our system.