Forget Filibuster Reform
A few weeks ago, the media reported Harry Reid was "open to filibuster reform." Maybe he really said it out loud. I was pretty sure at the time it was bluster and, sadly, I was right about Harry:
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced a series of rules changes for the Senate on which he struck an agreement with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), among them an agreement to not seek changes to the filibuster or other rules. [...]I guess it's better than nothing, but this is what I mean when I say the problem is old guard Dems as much as the current incarnation of the GOP. It's not about policy as much as process. Both are equally averse to any big changes in their elite little club. Their cozy set of rules work to facilitate outcomes that keep the corporate campaign money pouring in.
The reforms include an end to secret holds, a reduction in the number of presidential nominations subject to the lengthy Senate confirmation process, an end to mandatory readings for amendments if they've been publicly available for at least three days, an agreement by Republicans to limit their filibusters of motions to begin debate, and an agreement by Democrats to limit instances in which they "fill the tree" — or limit the number of amendments Republicans can put to a given piece of legislation.
Labels: Death of Democracy, Senate
posted by Libby Spencer at 6:59 AM
6 Comments:
"Both are equally averse to any big changes"
Which by definition is Conservative.
It feels quaint to use that word in its true sense - now that someone is 'far left' for not being able to overcome the inertia of the past fast enough for the people responsible for it.
Truly the definition of far left has been corrupted beyond recognition.
Ms Spencer "but this is what I mean when I say the problem is old guard Dems as much as the current incarnation of the GOP. It's not about policy as much as process. Both are equally averse to any big changes in their elite little club. Their cozy set of rules work to facilitate outcomes that keep the corporate campaign money pouring in."
The Filibuster is the one of the few significant differences (procedure wise) between the House and the Senate. It forces the majority to at at least acknowledge the minority. In the House the minority party is pretty much relegated to the "back bench" as far as crafting legislation (imo)
The Senate leadership on your side can see the 2012 election map, and its isn't looking good for the 'dems (they have approx 23 seats to defend vs 12 for the GOP)
Now that the GOP has the majority in the House, there is no real political benefit for your side to abolish the filibuster. They may very well need it in 2 years.
As far as "corporate campaign money".. Are you including Unions, Special interests (ie trial lawyers) As a concern as well?
Libby:
That's why I try not to fall into the trap of defining everything in terms of right and left. It's about as productive as talking about up and down in interstellar space and it allows valid arguments to be dismissed by assigning them to a position on a single line without further explanation. "your side" "my side" Facts don't have magnetic poles and nobody is all on one side or the other of the ever shifting and undefinable center.
How can something proposed by Republicans one year be communism a few years later? refer to fallacy above.
It would be interesting to see a rough breakdown of sources and amounts of political contributions, direct or indirect. I think I know what it would tell us
That's a good point Fogg. I probably use the right/left shorthand way too much myself. In the end it is all of us against the mega-corporations.
It's about the power gradient: the weak against the strong. Even Jesus got crucified in that struggle, but the larger that gradient, the larger the disparity, the more the tension, the more everyone's rights have to be redefined to maintain it and the sooner the snap.
Those fractures, those revolutions rarely make things better, but we rarely try to correct the problem until it happens. It's natural that wealth and power like that gradient to be steep and it's natural that without an opposing factor to keep it within tolerable range, that more and more wealth and power will transfer to fewer and fewer - until something breaks.
Perhaps the biggest difference as compared to most of history, is that our kings and nobles are corporate and therefore immortal. Nero didn't make it past his 20's and could only pretend to being immortal. Corporations have fewer limitations at the moment. Corporations have too much to say about how much power they are allowed and their power is ever rowing.
Corporations didn't have to become the enemy, but we and they let it happen. Unions didn't have to become the enemy - their own enemy either. But we always have fiercely defended reasons for doing nothing. We always have names to call people looking for a stable, middle ground. There may be an infinite number of directions, but we allow only two to maximize the distortion, to minimize the possibility of anyone noticing a common interest.
We always look for a doctrine instead of a solution and face it, "I've got mine and screw you" is bred in the bone no matter how many of us crowd into churches or read Ayn Rand or listen to Rush.
I've got mine and it's all my doing and I deserve all of it and I owe nothing even if the country goes to hell. Me and mine. All the rest is a whitewashed wall.
Post a Comment
<< Home