Apparently, as part of Harry Reid’s agreement not to push for filibuster reform, he extracted a promise that Mitch McConnell will not attempt to use the 51-vote “Constitutional Option” to change the rules when he is (presumably) the Majority Leader after the 2012 elections. When it comes to predicting that McConnell will be the Majority Leader, the odds favor it because of the vast disparity in vulnerable seats up for reelection next time around. But, as Tom Harkin (D-IA) notes, such agreements have little force.
This week’s Reid-McConnell agreement — that neither this Congress nor the next one will invoke the Constitutional option — is peculiar. Any individual Senator can decide to to touch off that process if he or she is so determined. What Reid and McConnell have agreed, in essence, is to twist arms and throw up hurdles to prevent their own members from going rogue.
“It has no force in effect,” Harkin said. “It has no force in effect on anyone around here, that’s just their agreement. It’s like any of those other kinds of gentleman’s agreements around here — some little thing can happen that will change how they view it, for example. So it’s nice to have that agreement but it doesn’t mean anything.”
At a Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday, though, Reid proved he has the power to make good on the agreement. A few hours after it ended, Udall, Merkley and their supporters dropped their effort.
The Democrats are looking at the matchups in 2012 and no doubt are convinced that they’ll want super-duper minority rights when the time comes for them to return to the minority. So, in the meantime, they’ve forfeited their ability to pass anything in the Senate that doesn’t come with the endorsement of at least seven Republican members. That isn’t that big of a sacrifice since they are already facing a situation where they can’t pass anything that isn’t supported by John Boehner’s House. Instead, they wrung more tangible and useful benefits out in the bargain.
In exchange, the Senate agreed to ban secret holds and to waive, under certain circumstances, the forced reading of amendments. They also agreed that several hundred mid-level executive-branch positions would no longer require Senate confirmation.
Those are changes that will yield real results. I see why they made the deal. But it leaves in place a stupid, anti-Democratic system. It will help us preserve reproductive rights and probably some labor rights when the Republicans again achieve the Holy Trinity of controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, but it will prevent us from doing anything transformative when we hold the Trinity again.
Our system sucks, and Harkin is frustrated enough that he is considering challenging the filibuster in court.
“It’s clear now that the Senate can not change its rules,” Harkin told me in an interview Thursday evening. “It can not.”
There’s a strong chance that the courts would refuse to hear a case like this. But Harkin believes the issue is justiciable.
“Most people would say, well the courts won’t handle it because it’s a political question. But I think in this instance it’s more than a political question — it’s a Constitutional question,” he said. “I’m looking at that. I’m working on some things right now. But I wanted to do this first obviously to see whether or not it was still possible. I don’t think it’s possible.”
I think that word should be “judicable.” In any case, I don’t see Harkin succeeding in getting his case heard, let alone him winning it. So, we’re stuck with this crappy system. And let me just get you to picture the situation. Imagine, if you will, that Obama wins reelection in a landslide and perhaps that we even win back the House. If we don’t have sixty votes in the Senate (and we’re more likely to have about forty-eight) then he’ll be completely handcuffed in his second term. And the reason is simple. This week the Democrats in the Senate looked out for their short-term interests, bet on defeat in 2012, and sold-out our future.
And people wonder why progressive politics are so frustrating. We can work as hard as we want, be successful beyond any realistic expectations, and the result will be no different than the last two years, and probably more like the two shitty years to come. How do you motivate yourself, let alone others, to work for change under such circumstances?
it’s extremely frustrating, but the key for progressives is to make filibuster reform a deal-breaker for supporting new candidates. If we make this “our” litmus test, in 12 years or so after our caucus is filled with a ton of new people, we’ll have another chance at this. In fact, I would put 2016 as a real chance to do this all again, considering if we can hold our own in 2012 and 2014, we can make up a lot of seats in 2016 when the GOP senators that won in November will have to defend their gains.
Not a Constitutional lawyer by any stretch, but I’d have to agree. The Constitution gives broad leeway to both houses of government to set their own rules. I don’t see the judiciary stepping into this anymore than I see the Senate and the House passing laws about how the internal aspects of the Supreme Court are organized.
And Harry Reid is a fool if he thinks people are going to buy the “McConnell promised me” story. He gets an agreement from McConnell that is worth the toilet paper it’s written on. What’s McConnell going to do if push comes to shove and his puppet-masters tell him “nuclear option the filibuster” to get something they want? He’s going to dance. He’ll take back that promise so fast it’ll make your head spin and he’ll find a way to make it look like it was the Democrats who weren’t negotiating in good faith.
Reid didn’t want to get rid of the filibuster – it provides a great cover for Democrats who want to try to keep their “liberal” colleagues in check. And Reid is one of those Democrats who wants to make sure that nothing “too liberal” escapes the Senate.
IANACL, but the Vice-President is the only person who might have some kind of standing wrt. the super-majority rules.
I don’t see Biden jumping into the rules reform debate, however.
It might be possible to attack the entirely made up concept of continuity, which enables the 67 requirement for rules changes, through the presentment clause. But that strikes me as pretty weak.
Reid continues to be pathetic. period.
This is a gutless compromise. Of course they should have dealt with this in 2008 when the writing was on the wall, instead of when a republican majority is looming.
I’m fine with republicans having the benefits of representative democracy when they’re in power if democrats get it when they are in power. You know, what’s outlined in the constitution and not some chickenshit rules of procedure the old boys club decided on 150 years ago? What a concept. It’s clear the senators from both parties have no interest in that and would rather be president for a news-cycle as in the current political system.
Fuck them.
If Obama wins re-election and the Dems win back the House, I think it’s a better than even bet that the Dems will also hold the Senate, despite what the math says. A political landscape where the Dems win the House in 2012 is closer to 2006 than 2010, and these are all Senate seats that were up for election in 2006. Also note that because the Dems lost so many state legislatures in 2010, the Dems are likely to be screwed in redistricting, so winning the House would mean an even stronger Dem turnout.
As an earlier commenter stated, why wouldn’t McConnell go back on his word? What sort of penalty would he incur?
Or, what if Mitch doesn’t get re-elected as Senate party leader and say DeMint overthrows him? All bets would be off then.
If McConnell goes back on his word, does it matter?
Let’s assume the Dems had changed the rules. The House is now in nutty GOP hands, so I see no progressive legislation coming forward during the next two years that would pass if only we had less stringent filibuster rules. Now fastforward two years. McConnell (or whoever) is in charge with the new rules.
Ok, now let’s assume that the current situation where the Dems decided not to change the rules. I see some points already in the next two years where we might be happy that the current rules are in place because it makes it much more difficult for the GOP to pick off a small number of Dems to get House initiatives through. The agreement Reid got seems to go a good length toward addressing appointment problems and secret holds. Now fastforward two years. McConnell (or whoever) is in charge and he goes back on his word and changes the rules. But here’s the thing: the situation is no different from the scenario above, and McConnell (or whoever) is the one who has to take the heat for changing the rules rather than the Dems.
What heat? There’s no vast popular opposition to ending the filibuster. Quite the contrary. Dems could have been heroes for a change. Instead they chose as usual to remain Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim’rous beasties.
The Village hates filibuster reform. If you don’t think the Dems would have paid a political price for reforming, you haven’t been paying attention.
If Obama didn’t screw over Dean, I suspect that he would have been capable of getting an additional three senators elected for a simple majority.
Hard to understand his treatment. I really wonder if Obama would be president without his help.
“And people wonder why progressive politics are so frustrating. We can work as hard as we want, be successful beyond any realistic expectations, and the result will be no different than the last two years, and probably more like the two shitty years to come. How do you motivate yourself, let alone others, to work for change under such circumstances? “
You can’t. As you correctly note, the Democrats themselves bet against their own future.
Remember when you gave me that big lecture about having faith in my government, and if I lose that faith all that’s left is revolution?
You are essentially conceding here that I was right: you can’t expect people to have faith in their government when the result is always “We can work as hard as we want, be successful beyond any realistic expectations, and the result will be no different than the last two years, and probably more like the two shitty years to come.”
You can’t, and so people don’t. See “2010, democratic turnout”.
I need to add this as well. Ezra Klein says that:
THAT to me is as sad and hilarious as it gets. Am I the only one who remembers what the Democrats did when they were in the majority? Did i miss all the filibusters last time?
No. What happened was the democratic leadership lined up and promised that if the GOP preserved the filibuster, the Democrats wouldn’t use it. THAT is what happened. THAT was “democratic leadership”. And in factm the only filibusters that the democrats have mounted have been quashed by their own leadership.
It’s a fucking joke. The democrats actively conspire with the republicans to let the GOP win, and when people like me pipe up that maybe it’s time to quit supporting democrats, it’s all “but then the democrats will lose and they’re all we’ve got”. But what we’ve got is nothing. There is literally nothing to lose by dumping the democrats, they sign on to the same violations of our civil liberties, they can’t/won’t pass anything that doesn’t pass corporate muster, and when they have majorities they squander it.
Ah, yes, but there is EVERYTHING to lose. EVERYTHING.
Don’t kid yourself.
that’s fear talking.
Except they’re not the same. What do we have to lose by dumping the Dems? The certainty of the end of public-sector Social Security, repeal of even the watery healthcare reform we got, even more regressive taxes paid for with even harsher cuts in social spending, the triumph of creationists, climate change deniers and other extreme fools in education and government, etc., etc., etc. Or to put it more simply, what we had with Bushes and Reagan.
I have no disagreement with your take on where the country is. But when you claim no difference between Bush and the GOP and Obama and the Dems the argument fails. Or maybe you can explain how making the country the exclusive fiefdom of the GOP fixes its insane march to self-destruction.
You’re right: we’ve got nothing. That’s what we’ve got because we insist on clinging to a system that no longer works, or can work. We have two crappy parties because we have a Constitution that prevents anything else. We have a population bought off with iPads and subsidized junk food and fuel. We live under an oligarchy as poisonous as anything that oppressed royalist Europe, except there’s still so much money in the kitty ant we don’t yet feel its full sting.
You apparently expect the corrupt system we’ve become to produce a political party that will destroy that system. I don’t see any map from you on how to move past the systemic rot that binds us. Do you really thing that if we “quit supporting Democrats” things are going to get better? How, exactly? What’s your scenario? Name somebody that would make the changes we agree need to be made if s/he were president, majority leader, or whatever. Until you have an answer, all the carping about the lesser-evil party is a distraction and a waste of time, near as I can tell.
my scenario is that the country is in the middle of collapsing, and that it’s time to give up on the two political parties to accomplish anything.
But back up a second. Our constitution, however, does not only allow for two parties. let’s not forget the Socialists, the Wobblies, and other third parties that enjoyed a measure of success in the earlier 20th century. And let’s not forget that before there were republicans, there were Whigs. Parties come and go. Supporting either party, IMO, is the definition of insanity: you vote for the same people and expect different results.
Frankly, a smarter investment is to stock up on things like water filters (especially necessary in Fracksylvania), guns and ammo (for hunting as much as anything else) and begin brushing up on your first aid skills. because Booman’s right in one way: we DO stand to lose EVERYTHING.
But we’re gonna lose everything anyway. i know I’m gloom and doom a lot of the time, but i honestly don’t see any other result. the democrats are ineffective, despite the snazzy names they give their legislation (“affordable care act? then why did my co-pay just rise by 75%?”), while the republicans are effective an evil.
Brendan, the answer is to do what we did to Blanche Lincoln. It’s our only alternative.
yes. that’s literally all we have. But I think we also need to start supporting third parties too. And fourth parties. and fifth parties.
Duverger’s Law
interesting.
i support proportional representation too.
So the answer is to be crushed by your own party?
Seems like you buried your lead: “we’re stuck with this crappy system” is the elephant in the room. The incredible sellout by the Dems is only one pustule on the dying patient. As we saw last term, having 60 votes doesn’t buy much, either. The only useful reform is to abolish the filibuster as it now stands, whether that’s an outright end, or the Harkin plan, or requiring 40 votes to sustain a filibuster instead of 60 votes to stop it.
The Dem excuse for this unnecessary “compromise” is an insult to everyone who voted for them, and moreso to everyone who worked for any of them. They know that McConnell’s “promise” means less than nothing and that this is just the most blatant sellout in 2 years of cowardice and self-dealing. When government fails the game goes to the neo-fascists who run the Republican Party. The Dems know this and apparently couldn’t care less.
To answer your question, if there is any motivation at all, it will be, as usual, supplied by GOP sociopathy instead of anything positive on the Dem side. We’ll fantasize as usual about how demographic trends, economic recoveries, and other figments of our imagination will pull us out of the tailspin without Dems having to fight for anything much. I don’t think it’s going to work this time. The teabaggers are right on one point: the system doesn’t work and it won’t change itself. The least self-destructive remedy is a Constitutional Convention with everything on the table. The remedies beyond that are playing out in Egypt even as we speak.
Maybe I have an idealistic view but the republicans win the presidency, house and Senate, pass stuff with 51 votes so be it. Of course, we would not like some of the results but I thought that was democracy was about and having 41 aholes subvert democracy by having the veto power over House and Executive branch is absurd way to run a democracy.
It is a tough fight out there when one side refuses to accept results of losing an election and cries tyranny when the winners try to pass bills that ran on. Then, when in power, do whatever it takes to use it. It is one of few things that I am jealous about the GOP. They get it and Dems dont play the same games. They use filibuster as an excuse and when they have chance to make it better and GOP stops knee capping them, they punt and hide. Self Centered and history will make them out to be fools once the GOP breaks these gentleman (HA!) agreements.
I do not think you can call people gentlemen when they do not care about unemployed people and string them out like scum bags.
These changes are gutless and another disappointing day in the history of the US Senate. The institution needs abolished.
A prime reason for the manner of electing Senators was the preservation of slavery. California 37,253,956; two senators; Wyoming 563,626. Two Senators. Source Wikipedia. The manner of electing to the Senate is the problem and disqualifies the U.S. from being a democracy.
The answer to that is simple. Work to change the political environment; Congress is now a lost cause until progressives either reform the Democratic Party or develop a persistent movement that scares sitting Democrats into distancing themselves from corporate money.
More and more, I think the national issue to mobilize protests is shutting down K Street. I can see a progressive-libertarian-independent alliance that might be able to do that. The strategic danger is being co-opted in the middle of the campaign. That should be the issue of 2012–shutting down K Street.