Our ongoing argument over the filibuster represents the entire American political system in a nutshell. Just as the fear of our political opposites is generally greater than our confidence in our allies, both major parties are reluctant to get rid of the filibuster because their fear of what the other side could do with a majority vote is greater than their excitement about what their own side could do with it.¹
One way to think of this is that it's a straightforward consequence of what behavioral economics tells us about decisionmaking under uncertainty, namely that we hate losses about twice as much as we value comparable gains. If that's the case, then one side or the other will finally kill the filibuster not when the risk of backfiring goes away (it never will) but when the betting odds suggest that the relative gain to their own side seems to be roughly twice as big as the gain to the other side.
It will never be Republicans who come to this conclusion, since the filibuster is fundamentally a conservative rule that helps to preserve the status quo. It will happen only when enough Democrats finally decide that they don't have much to lose.
And when will that happen? On the one hand, Mitch McConnell is helping things along by making it explicit that Republicans will use the filibuster on everything, which makes it clearer every year just how much Democrats are losing because of it. On the other hand, the structural advantage that Republicans have in Congress makes a Democratic sweep (House, Senate, Presidency) unlikely, and that's the only time the filibuster matters.
That's the basic calculus. My own view is twofold. First, I've always objected to the filibuster on the simple grounds that legislatures should decide most things by majority vote. In fact, I'm not sure the filibuster is even constitutional. Second, I have zero doubt that liberals would gain far more than they'd lose from ditching it. This might or might not be true in the first few years after its demise, but it would certainly be true in the long run.
Why am I so confident? I suppose it's because I'm a true believer in social democracy. With the filibuster gone, Democrats would slowly but surely enact social democratic reforms and people would like it. This would make Democrats more popular and we'd then get more Democrats and more social democracy. Rinse and repeat.
Might I be wrong? Sure. But it's what I believe.
¹Got that? This is a surprisingly difficult concept to summarize plainly. But it's true of both liberals and conservatives, at this point in time at least.
The Manchin and Sinema guest columns in the 'Washington Post', defending their positions, have been remarkable for the way they fly in the face of all the historical evidence. Reading them, one would think Congress had an outstanding track record of bipartisan legislative achievements which for inexplicable reasons extremists on the left were trying to sabotage. They were also remarkable for their implicit rejection of the most fundamental elements of representative democracy, namely that representatives stand for election promising to do their best to implement certain measures, and they betray their trust if they fail to do so. Manchin and Sinema seem to think they've been elected as Wise Tribal Elders to rule the kingdom in cooperation with Republicans no matter what the unwashed masses want, which is highly offensive as well as profoundly undemocratic.
If they are committed to retaining a system which guarantees Congress will accomplish virtually nothing of consequence, that's their business. But they would have done better not to try to rationalize their choice. All they've succeeded in doing is insulting our intelligence and making liberals even angrier at their pig-headed recalcitrance.
"Mr. Smith goes to Washington" has destroyed our democracy.
The other part is Manchin and Sinema (and other more conservative Democrats) would rather use the filibuster as an excuse to not vote for things they don’t support.
I'm pretty sure Sinema doesn't care about what anyone else thinks; that's why she took to WaPo to espouse and defend bipartisanship in the face of Republican leaders publicly stating that they will block her.
Like a stubborn bull, she will plow headlong into a concrete wall, deeming her will to be stronger than the wall.
Sometimes you just have to let people fuck up before they'll learn some enduring lessons and hope that the collateral damage isn't too much.
Kyrsten Sinema as Giannis Antetokounmpo in the playoffs, a thread:
"... Democrats would slowly but surely enact social democratic reforms and people would like it. .."
I don't think open borders and abolishing the police will actually prove to be that popular.
you're probably right. but you have two problems. open borders and abolishing the police aren't social democratic policies, nor are they positions taken by the democratic party or any major figure within the party. nice try.
I don’t think banning contraception, pornography, homosexual acts, marijuana or any other sins will be all that popular either… yet Republicans swear they’re gonna do all that as part of getting us all right with God any day now. Prohibition of alcohol was a big flop, because Americans (even conservative Americans!) love themselves some vices and hate being too squeaky clean (except perhaps the Mormons).
Open borders meaning refusing to give visas and voting rights to workers here for decades? That’s a GOP policy.
Defunding the police meaning cutting the budget of the IRS relentlessly so that the wealthy can commit tax crimes without fear? That’s a GOP policy.
dear senators manchin and sinema,
you want bipartisianship. cool. in an ideal world, senators and representatives would get together in their respective chambers and hash things out, then go out together afterwards and have a beer or two and celebrate the fine work you did for the american people that day. we don't live in that world.
on the other hand, we have these things called elections every two years. elections are supposed to have consequences beyond one party getting to pick judicial nominees. we elect you to get things done. because of the filibuster, you're not doing a damned thing.
maybe you like it that way. it absolves you from any responsibility for the state things are in. can't pass any meaningful legislation? well it's gridlock, not me, you say. it's a coward's way out.
but you insist you only want bipartisanship. that's not your call; that's our call, we, the people, we, the voters. in essence, your filibuster prevents us from exercising our will. do your thing. pass legislation. both parties. and let us judge you by your actions. that's the way democracy is supposed to work.
pass good stuff and trust the voters will reward you with another term. if not, then go down knowing that you did your best for your constituents and your country. but ultimately, bipartisanship, ain't your call.
Mudwall, I'd like to see your op-ed in my morning Post instead of that bilge from Sinema today. Put it off until last, not wanting it to ruin everything else.
And I wish that Manchin would stand up and holler back at McConnell again as he did last year over not having adequate PPE supplies for medical workers. That would do my heart good, & Manchin's too, I suspect. He can fight their odious words & practices, & needs to do it consistently.
A succinct and most excellent reply what 'Sinema' wrote.
This comment is how you get Chris Matthews to appear, rhapsodizing about Ronald Reagan & Tip O'Neill getting trashed.
Pretty sure Tip could drink Ronnie under the table (had Nancy allowed it).
It will never be Republicans who come to this conclusion, since the filibuster is fundamentally a conservative rule that helps to preserve the status quo.
the problem with that is the republican party ceased being a conservative party years ago. you only need to look around at the various state legislatures and the radical legislation republicans are proposing and in too many cases, passing.
I completely agree with Kevin's logic. And I'll add something: to me it's as plain as day that one reason Republicans are even more devoted to the filibuster than Democrats is they know full well it often protects them from their own extremists, and the highly popular bills that might get signed into law were it not for the 60 vote requirement. We saw this most recently with the utterly insincere "attempt" to repeal Obamacare.
erm, highly unpopular bills that might get signed into law.
I believe the Republicans were planning to use budget reconciliation to repeal the ACA and that isn't subject to the filibuster. The ACA survived by one vote. 49-51. That's why John McCain became Public Enemy Number One.
I hope Cindy Mc Cain writes Meghan out of the estate.
Yes. That's right. I had forgotten the details. It was the so-called "skinny repeal" that failed because of McCain's treachery. Wasn't quite a full repeal, but it might as well have been, so damaging would the consequences have been.
Democrats are just going to have to stop campaigning on doing anything useful. They will pass a budget. They will keep the useless parts of bureaucracy going. They will fund endless war, death, and destruction by the US military. Otherwise you are on your own.
Wait... they did pass that payment for having children. That could be popular for a bit! Perhaps, you know, they should start talking about that.
"Democrats would slowly but surely enact social democratic reforms and people would like it. This would make Democrats more popular..."
Well this might just be the test. I don't have young children so I won't get this payment. Will republican parents and their grumpy republican elders think this is a good idea? Will it motivate them to change their votes? Or will this good deed be punished?
Sometimes it seems like when democrats manage to do something interesting, they still get punished for it by half the country. What's up with that?
Generally, I like the expanded child tax credit. But, they're not explaining enough that it only increased y $1,000. There was an existing $2k child tax credit. By having the payments go out during the year a lot of people are going to be on the hook for a lot of money come tax time. (I'm going to adjust my W4 to limit the jolt when I file my taxes.)
The only bipartisanship I see is the effort to preserve the filibuster
But I think the reasons for it are different
Efforts to KEEP republicans in their party are failing. The ONLY effort that pays off for them is to keep their dwindling base motivated enough to vote. They do this with great effectiveness. The DEMs have more members but even THEY are facing a decline in registered voters
BOTH major parties FEAR the ending of the filibuster because the insane legislation each party's radical wing pushes through will cause a greater exodus from their respective parties.
And THAT is when a viable 3rd party comes along - which will totally upend politics here in the U.S.. This is when TRUE negotiations will start in earnest because it won't be an "us" against a singular "them" - that will morph into how many of the opposing party's votes can I get with my Independent legislation?
This will END the two party system, rendering both D and R parties as weaker parties, with lowered number of voters and most importantly lowered financial power.
BOTH parties fear this
Hmm. From over here in Brexitland (aka the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), you can see what happens when there is a viable third party in a binary electoral system.
And the result is that the party that has one goal - to retain power at all costs - wins consistent majorities on the back of only around 40% actual support - and sometimes even less than that. And it's getting worse as we have regional parties that are skewing the results as well now.
A multiparty - or even just a three party - system requires a modern (hey, I'd settle for a 20th century!) electoral system as well. Otherwise it distorts the results even more. Oh, and it only takes a tiny slip for that third party to kill itself (as can also be seen here in the UK.)
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Scurry-
I will be long gone before it happens here - although I would love to see it.
You see, the filibuster is not as old as American democracy. it's only as old as American partisanship and there is a big difference.
Americans LOVE to see our politicians fight each other. At the end of the day though, when legislation needs to be passed they want it to be in THEIR best interest, not the politicians.
The fact that NEITHER party sees this is troublesome for many of us (I) voters.
You guys had a head start on us in many of the policies we WANT to see here - National Health care being the primary one.
Perhaps we will eventually come up with a catchy slogan to pull out of NAFTA with like Antinafta. Not as catchy as Brexit.........
Remember there were multiple parties here until the mid 1860s when in fact the end of slavery and beginning of Jim Crow era solidified our country into a 2 party system. Since the 1990s though, these two parties have done less and less "talking to one another.
Do I think we can get back to pre-filibuster talking? We might have to.
But I think a viable 3rd party would FORCE this to take place
Yes, Kevin, well said. And there's more:
The new extremism of the GOP, coupled with rank corruption allowing a Senator to literally NEVER serve his constituency in any real way, allows the modern (not to be confused with the classic one where work was involved) filibuster to be used for the greatest obstruction seen in the US in modern times. There is no more compromise, no more qui pro
Which, in tu
[oops]
... no more deals that allow bills to go through for concessions elsewhere- the GOP doesn't care about getting things done.
Couple that will the greatest extremism seen on the state level since Jim Crow met Civil Rights, and GOP obstruction on the federal level will mean the loss of voting rights, abortion rights, equality, clean energy, etc. on the state level across half the nation (thanks to gerrymandering).
Mitch McConnell has done far more damage to America than Trump did, over many more years, and he was only put into office by 3% of the population.
Witness the Decline and Fall of American liberal democracy.
"The Filibuster Represents All of Conservative Politics in a Nutshell"
- not supported by the Constitution
- anti-democratic
- a fantastic tool for obstruction of the Majority party and will of The People
The risk v reward analysis may have value in general, but does not really describe the current situation. The great majority of Democrats apparently would end the filibuster at least partially, but Joe Manchin opposes it not because of the risk but because he can't offend the Republicans in WVA if he wants to get re-elected. Sinema may be similar to some extent. At the moment Democrats just don't have clear majorities in the swing states, which have disproportionate influence because of Senate demography. Democrats may eliminate the filibuster if and when they get a decisive majority in the Senate (less than 60 votes). This will depend on converting some purple states to blue - blue dogs would have to be replaced with those who don't have to rely on Republican votes. This will not get easier, because WVA may be lost even if Manchin waffles. This has little to do with risk/reward thinking on the part of Senators and Senate candidates with respect to what would happen if the filibuster is eliminated. Kevin may be right about Democrat's best overall strategy for the future, but the blue dogs don't go by that, they go by what is likely to get them re-elected.
A lot of pundits and bloggers make the mistake of assuming that Democrats think in some united way. They are a bunch of individuals whose first objective is to get re-elected, not to advance party priorities.
I have to disagree that the Republicans won't get rid of the filibuster. I believe that if their voter suppression effort ever reaches critical mass in enough states to guarantee them the tiniest of senate majorities (ie when the process in those states is controlled by their party rather than both parties), they will end the fillibuster immediately.
Republican Senators will only eliminate the filibuster if they need to eliminate it in order to accomplish something that's important to them. Republicans don't need to eliminate the filibuster to pass tax cuts for the wealthy because they can pass those using the reconciliation process. McConnell has already eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. So I'm not sure what issue would inspire Republican Senators to eliminate the filibuster.
Yes, I agree.
If a legislature wants to add a supermajority requirement for something, that can be OK but only IF they have a very good reason for it and strictly limit it. The filibuster fails on both counts.
Additionally: bipartisanship sometimes can be fine. It's can be nice to show you have a broad base of support for some measures. But:
1) In modern politics, opposing parties usually withhold votes strictly to deny the appearance of bipartisanship, which is about partisanship and not the legislation itself, so screw that. When bills don't get Republican votes not because they are too ideologically extreme but because Republicans want to deny Democrats a victory, bipartisanship is already gone.
2) I haven't seen any evidence that the filibuster makes bipartisanship more likely and it seems like it makes it less likely.
3) Bipartisanship is at best a "nice to have". It's never worth giving up anything major to get, and it's never a good reason not to make progress on an issue. If you can shape bills with a reasonable compromise, great, but if you already have a majority, you shouldn't make major concessions to get a few more votes from the other party.
4) Bipartisanship should be ignored completely unless pressure for it is applied to both parties, and currently, Republican legislation is never expected or encouraged by the press to be bipartisan. That makes it a particularly meaningless and harmful concept.
McConnell & Co. won't even vote to debate the voting rights bill, much less vote for it.
Preach it, brother.
Mitch McConnell body pillow,
https://i.redd.it/uz6se8v5up571.jpg
because
the worldyou demanded it.The tone and style of her piece doesn't seem to match the tone and style from what I've seen of her public speaking. I can't say for sure, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that she didn't write it.