The headline kind of threw me. I thought the Senate not caring for change was a reference to the difficulty in getting the Senate to pass any legislation. But, once I read the article, I realized that the change the Senate doesn’t like is change in personnel. They don’t like to see old senators go and new senators arrive. That must be because they are all such great friends and enjoy each other’s company so much. I swear these people just don’t get it. The Senate is an elitist institution by design. It was supposed to be even more elitist than it is now that the senators are directly elected. They’re supposed to be grown-ups. They’re supposed to leave the political bickering to the House. They’re supposed to be above talking-points and the news cycle. But they’re not living up to their mission.
Having our own House of Lords without the titles was always a dubious idea. Most people think we live in a democracy, and most of those who don’t, think we should. Some people see the virtue in having 100 elites who can thwart the will of the electorate in their greater wisdom, but I don’t know anyone who thinks our current Senate is any wiser than the House. It’s just less representative and operates under bizarre rules than allow the minority to have veto power over procedure. The institution stinks and it’s getting in the way of progress.
The fact that it can’t be fixed is one of the most frustrating things in our political culture. To see all these senators whining about their lack of job security is galling. Try making it a place worth serving. How would that be?
Does that article tell you who the two poorest members of the Senate are? I know who one is. I think I know the other. And why are they the two(along with Franken) that most people in the lefty blogosphere like?
Huh! Come out with it Calvin. Who are they?
My guess would have been Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold, but Feingold is triangulating at the moment.
Or do you mean poor in income?
You guessed it!! Last I knew, Feingold barely had $50,000 to his name. And that was before his most recent divorce. And how is Feingold triangulating? Just because he wouldn’t vote for the FinReg bill?
I have always liked Feingold and call his Washington office often with thanks, but he IS triangulating. He’s trying to play to the remnants of his loyal 2004 progressive/liberal base, the teabaggers, AND the firebaggers/whiners on the left. I’m not blaming him for it. Given the political climate – with (as my grandmother would have called them) yahoos on the extreme left and insanity, ignorance, and obstructionism running rampant on the right – I don’t think HE thinks he has much of a choice. It doesn’t appear that he is truly in danger of losing, but he probably feels that it is best to run as if he is.
He’s trying to build deficit/debt cred with tea baggers.
It’s still embued with a very Southern White Gentleman attitude. The overly formal way senators address each other on the floor, the rigid and harshly applied rules against directly addressing another senator in the negative, the way things move so slowly, the way that social progress is effectively thwarted by a minority.
At least some of the old seniority rules are no longer in effect. And the filibuster rule was loosened — but that was 33 years ago.
If we still have a majority come January, that would be the time to move to eliminate the filibuster, perhaps along the lines Sen Harkin has suggested. Last I checked, that change just requires a majority vote as the new Congress begins.
Obama and the Dems could score points before November if they would just make the Repub-blocked archaic senate a major campaign issue. So far, though, hardly a peep from major Dems about this.
The rigid formality really serves to keep them from killing (or at least caning) each other.
The process rules are a different matter. They are long overdue for overhauling. The fact that the Senate exists is enough representation for minority views.
The campaigns really haven’t begun yet. But this media war is going to look like a blitzkrieg from both sides. Sharp, intense, and frequent. Folks will be so glad when election day has passed.
But the dirty little secret is that this election will be won on the ground with patient canvassing and get-out-the-vote efforts. The trick is to find those people who know about the Republican stonewalling and hate it, and get them to the polls. And canvassing season has already started for OFA. Whether through a group like OFA, DfA, or your local Democratic Party, or for the candidate–it is time to start rounding up volunteers. This election, more than 2008 is the big one.
And if we don’t have a majority in January? Will the new majority eliminate the filibuster? Or just cow Democrats into never using it, like they did next time.
I read here? Reid can change the senate procedures to make the filibuster less effective. If that is true don’t McConell won’t hesitate if he gets that power.
I do not believe the Republicans will meet expectations in the fall. The campaign will let voters look into the abyss of Republican rule one more time and self- preservation will take over. The Repug plan is 30% unemployment and a natural recovery. Living standards will go down indefinitely and the bottom 97% will not see a recovery but that is their plan. Its called “Hooray for me and Fuck you.”
You have more faith in the American voter than I have.
More hope then faith.
Are you saying don’t change the present filibuster rule? If so, I don’t agree. Essentially, it’s like, let’s voluntarily play with one hand tied behind our back so that some day, when the other party is in the majority, they will have to play with one hand behind their back. I say let the majority do what they were elected to do.
Unless I am very much mistaken, the present filibuster rule is the greatest obstacle to Obama’s legislative program. Th legislation has not been as strong as a lot of folks wanted and expected. Well, isn’t that mainly because of the filibuster rule of 60? It’s not Obama’s fault.
The Senate is not a very representative body, but the filibuster rules now in force greatly magnify the disproportion and (I would argue) are even unconstitutional for that reason. It gives the Republicans, and the Blue Dogs, way more power than the electorate voted for.
I am saying the Republicans will not hesitate to change it. If Reid can he should. I was not sure if it was true that Reid could do it. Its gutless and insane not to change the rule. I see Booman is writing about it today.
OK, then we agree. Sure he can change it. And see today’s post, http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/7/25/15021/9975
A majority to eliminate or reform the filibuster rules (indeed any rules of the Senate) requires 51 votes.
If we don’t have 51 votes in January, which 8 Democratic seats do you see going down?
Here’s my list.
ND
AR
IN
There are more opportunities for Democratic pickups than Republican ones because this is the class of 2004 that is up this year. The years 2012 and 2014 will be different because of Democrats regaining the majority in 2006 and getting a 59-vote majority in 2008.
Although I enthusiastically support Alexi G, I think you can add IL to that list. The mass media is Republican and I think Kirk will ride Brady’s coattails. Kirk is as slippery as a rattlesnake and about as low, but the press keeps echoing his shouts of, “Banker! Mobsters!”, even as they acknowledge Kirk’s serial lies. Even though no one has caught Alexi in a lie and he has a good solid progressive agenda, the mud sticks according to the polls.
If we didn’t have the Senate, we wouldn’t be a country. It’s that simple.
That said, in Britain the House of Lords power was broken in a budget issue where the king had to–in writing–guarantee to appoint hundreds of new lords that would ram through the budget to make the House of Lords back down and vote to neuter themselves. In the end, their ego and sense of personal privilege trumped everything–though it was a near thing.
OK, then we agree. Sure he can change it. See today’s lead post.