In May 2010, I was already anticipating a major drubbing for the Democrats in the upcoming midterms. But even without knowing the results of the elections to come, I knew that due to retirements there would be at least a 15 percent change in the makeup of the U.S. Senate. This infusion of Tea Party energy made me dubious that Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who in one of his last acts in the Senate was successfully pushing through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform bill, was justified in his optimism about the body’s bipartisan functionality. In particular, I was dreading the expected arrival of Rand Paul in 2011.
We can be quite scornful of the constant call for bipartisanship from the Washington press and centrist politicians, but there is a certain logic to it considering the restrictive rules of the Senate. [Yet] I can’t see how it’s going to be easier to pass legislation through the Senate with Rand Paul objecting to every effort to spend a dime of money or some Jim DeMint acolyte from Utah trying to out-teabag the teabaggers. I think the next Congress will be completely dysfunctional, particularly in the Senate. It’s a real problem.
The DeMint acolyte I was referencing was Mike Lee, who has turned out to be a far worse as a senator than I imagined. But Rand Paul’s record has been a little different. I expected him to emulate his libertarian-minded father, then a representative from Texas and perennial presidential candidate with a cult-following. Father Ron was known for voting against virtually all government programs and appropriations, but to little effect. However, the same behavior from his son in the Senate, where unanimous consent is needed to proceed, could grind things to a halt. I expected Rand to be at least as disruptive as then-Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma whose reflexive obstruction had earned him the nickname “Dr. No.”
Sen. Paul probably votes against more legislation (from either party) than any other senator, although Lee is similarly obstreperous. But he turned out to be far more tamable than his old man. And there was another thing that made Paul stand out less than I had anticipated. His fellow Kentucky senator, Mitch McConnell, as leader of the Senate Republicans, had adopted the practice of routinely denying unanimous consent for anything the Democrats wanted to do. This dilatory tactic forced the Democrats to constantly have cloture votes to overcome “quiet” filibusters. Eventually, it compelled them to eliminate the filibuster for executive appointments and lower-level federal judges. Because the GOP filibustered everything, it prevented Paul from getting attention for filibustering on his own initiative.
Paul has now been in the Senate long enough, and gained enough seniority, that he is set to chair the Homeland Security Committee in the next Congress. This puts him in a prime position to have some say over Donald Trump’s plans for mass deportations. And, in keeping with his father’s libertarian proclivities, Paul is having some serious reservations.
GOP Sen. Rand Paul denounced President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to deploy the military to carry out mass deportations of undocumented immigrants upon his return to office, saying it would be a “huge mistake” and a misuse of military personnel.
“I’m not in favor of sending the Army in uniforms into our cities to collect people,” Paul (R-Ky.) told Newsmax host Rob Schmitt on Tuesday. “I think it’s a terrible image and that’s not what we use our military for, we never have and it’s actually been illegal for over 100 years to bring the Army into our cities.”
…“I will not support an emergency [declaration] to put the Army into our cities — I think that’s a huge mistake,” he said, later adding, “I really think us as conservatives who are supportive of Trump need to caution him about sending the Army into our cities.”
…The senator also expressed concern for how it would look like for “the housekeeper who’s been here 30 years” to get arrested by a uniformed service member.
“I don’t see the military putting her in handcuffs and marching her down the street to an encampment. I don’t really want to see that,” Paul said, proposing “an in-between solution” that would expand work permits for those who have been in the U.S. for a long time.
If Paul were saying this as just one of a hundred senators, I wouldn’t put much stock in it, but as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, he has some actual power to shape things. Many of the keys players who will be needed to carry out mass deportations will have to first pass though Paul’s committee for confirmation to their positions. After that, he’ll have an oversight role.
So, if you’re looking for any prospect for bipartisan cooperation in the next Congress, and I anticipate almost none, this is one area where there might be some hope.
Paul is a bit lock a stopped clock that is right twice a day. In this case, he’s right about objecting to the use of the military to carry out domestic policing. He could be an important if unexpected ally in putting the brakes on one of the most dangerous impulses of the incoming fascist regime.
.
Comments are closed.