filibusta-move
(I am way too proud of that subject, cause it's really not actually funny)In honor of the Dems great 25 hour filibuster in front of the Science Center (I'm sure it'll be in tomorrow's Crimson, you can check out updates on demapples), a few thoughts.
First, a video clip from 1994 from CBS news on the filibuster to give some context.
As Jamal and I have previously discussed and eventually agreed, neither side in this fight is really in the right. What the Dems did today and yesterday, while in support of what I think are overly obstructionist efforts, do show exactly what the filibuster SHOULD BE: an act of public defiance that subjects the individual to public scrutiny and pressure, allowing the fate of the issue to be decided in the realm of public opinion. I don't know enough about the Senate to know how to get it back to that, but as you learn in the CBS clip, it's really gotten out of hand.
posted by andrew golis @ 10:41 PM
1 Comments:
Hey C.G. and Kavulla, this is Greg Schmidt from the Dems. Couple points-
C.G. - There is, admittedly, a serious progressive argument for getting rid of the filibuster altogether, but the only way to have that discussion is to get out of our present situation, where it's a matter of one party trying to force through a change in a very particular way just to get their judges in. It's been suggested, for instance, that Senate Dems and Repubs should agree, today, to end the filibuster in January 2009 - both parties agree to it now, not knowing who will hold the White House and Senate in four years. Unsurprisingly, that idea has been a non-starter.
Kavulla - Ha, yeah, part of all this is the trouble of communicating about an unbelievably esoteric issue in four word slogans (and to think people usually say Democrats are *too* nuanced). But beyond that, what the filibuster does do is force Republicans to go to Democrats every once in a while (or, in the abstract, forces the majority to go to a substantial minority) and try to get them on board - and the effect of that is greater debate, discussion, and collaboration, and less steamrolling of one party by the other. The possibility of a filibuster, before it happens, forces discussion and debate, where it might not otherwise have occurred, because it forces the majority to deal with the minority rather than ignore them.
"Minority" rights, incidentally, are important in a non-directly representative body like the Senate, where the 44 Democrats actually have more popular support behind them than the 55 Republicans. 2 million more Americans voted for Democratic Senators over the last three cycles than have voted for Republican Senators; in 2004, 41.6 Americans voted to send a Democrat to the Senate, compared to 38.1 million Americans who voted for a Republican.
Also, the filibuster can be a tool for making a case, and a means of convincing people on a public stage. Senate Democrats would *love* to actually get the chance to make a 25 hour speech on the floor of the Senate about their concerns about Bush's judicial nominations. The Senate Republican leadership isn't letting them, though, calling the whole thing off rather than lettting them make the public case against these judges (this, btw, might actually be a good change; force people to always actually filibuster, and make a public case for their side, rather than just have it be a procedural motion).
So, in sum, talking about how the filibuster forces greater debate, discussion, and bipartisanship, and how it could (if Republicans would let it) lead to a greater discussion of the issues on a public stage isn't a farce, though admittedly, the issue is a hugely complex one, and can't easily be summed up in a four word slogan. We had a lot of great conversations with people who stopped by the filibuster Tuesday about the complexities of the issue, which is a big part of what made the day so rewarding. And the very fact that we're now talking about the issue as a result makes it rewarding, too.
-Greg
Post a Comment
<< Home