Why filibuster reform could backfire big-time on Democrats
Running in the background during the fiscal cliff negotiations — if that’s what you can call the series of unrealistic proposals each side is making in the press — is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s push to curtail the filibuster.
Democrats won’t control the U.S. House for at least two more years, so the filibuster isn’t getting in the way of Reid and President Obama pursuing their legislative goals. Eliminating or limiting the scope of the filibuster would, however, allow Obama to push through his appointees more easily, and it could set a precedent for other expedited changes to Senate rules.
While both Republicans and Democrats lament the filibuster when in the majority but guard it jealously when in the minority, conservatives have traditionally been more sympathetic to the rule than liberals. That’s because the filibuster is seen as another brake on legislation, and conservatives tend to be more skeptical of a proliferation of new laws.
But Ramesh Ponnuru makes the interesting case in a Bloomberg View column that the filibuster’s true role is preventing change, regardless of ideology — and that liberals have more interest in keeping things more or less the way they are in Washington than conservatives do. Here’s the gist of his argument:
When the federal government was small, the filibuster helped to keep it that way because it protects the status quo. If American politics ever changed so much that most legislation aimed to pare back government, however, the filibuster would protect the big-government status quo. That day may seem impossibly far off, given the liberal confidence and conservative pessimism of this post-election period.
With the passage of the health-care law, however, liberalism finally finished the project of building the American welfare state. Its main job now is to protect and refine what has already been won. Matthew Yglesias, another liberal writer, said so at the time: “The crux of the matter is that progressive efforts to expand the size of the welfare state are basically done.”
If that’s right, then liberals have less to gain, and conservatives less to fear, from making it easier to pass new laws than either side now thinks.
Think, for instance, about potentially large changes to Obamacare. Most people assumed Obamacare’s status was settled by last month’s re-election of its namesake. But the refusal of many states to go along with their roles in carrying out the law, along with the emergence of previously unmentioned problems with the law’s implementation, means there’s a very high likelihood the law will have to be opened up to a serious reworking in the next few years. The same Democrats who want to change the filibuster now could, in the not-too-distant future, find themselves out of the majority in the Senate. In just four years, if a Republican wins the White House, a filibuster change could mean they find themselves totally locked out of the debate even if the GOP can’t get to 60 Senate seats. To paraphrase an old saying about big government, Senate rules expedient enough to give you everything you want are also expedient enough to take it all away.
There would be problems with that kind of approach, of course. For one, Republicans would invite a great deal of public backlash by making changes with only a narrow governing majority. Witness the 2010 electoral backlash against Democrats for the way they enacted Obamacare. Despite their sizable majorities, Democrats had to resort to procedural manipulations to overcome the objections not only of Republicans but of the more moderate senators in their own party.
Dramatic policy changes work better when the political buy-in is broader, which is one reason Obamacare remains unpopular. The filibuster in the Senate structurally helps make that more likely. It would be better on the whole to keep it in place. But, as Ponnuru points out, those who disagree might do well to be careful what they wish for.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
210 comments Add your comment
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
2:58 pm
Mr. Holmes, as Kyle pointed out in an earlier column, just 400k total votes in only 4 states would have reversed the electoral win by Obama.
Except that’s not the metric you suggested. You said look at the popular vote, which I did. If you want to parse by state, then we’re back to the Electoral College and an even bigger tail-whuppin’. Perhaps next you’ll suggest we look only at the votes of white males over 50? (Because, let’s face it, those are probably the most “real” Americans in your book anyway.)
You should also put those vote totals in context. The GOP had reason to be confident given the history of presidents facing reelection with such dire economic numbers. By all historical experience, the president should have been toast. And yet the nation broke for Obama, and (no matter how you try to spin it) in a fairly significant way. There’s no way to interpret this other than a clear rejection of the GOP prescription. The only reason the House didn’t change hands is that we have effectively gerrymandered half the seats into non-competitiveness, on one side or the other.
But yes, we still have divided government. One large step in the right direction would be if one of our two parties decided to actually attempt to govern, rather than do everything it can to get the governmental boiler to explode.
yuzeyurbrane
December 4th, 2012
2:59 pm
Just to correct the record, Obamacare received 60+ votes in the Senate so the argument is specious. However, in general I agree that reforming use of the filibuster could come back at times to frustrate Democrats when they are in the minority, this is an issue which should be less partisan. We have all been taught that majority rule is the essence of democracy yet it has now been abused in the Senate to where even the most mundane matters often require a 60% vote. The math here must be steered dramatically back to our core principle of majority rule. I know that from time to time I will kick myself about it, but core principles of democracy should be the norm and let the chips fall where they may.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
3:01 pm
Well, maybe there is a God:
Elizabeth Warren will reportedly be tapped to serve on the Senate Banking Committee, the Boston Globe reports.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
3:02 pm
That’s “President” Elizabeth Warren come 2016.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:04 pm
I can see that suggesting caution and moderation to the left wing zealots on this blog is a waste of time.
As are most logical arguments.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
3:05 pm
Mr Holmes
If you notice they only want speak of the numbers that meet their narrative. Not the EC numbers which at the end of the day are the only ones that count in regards to the Presidential race or the icing on the cake numbers which is the popular vote which in total votes and margin out paced Bush’s victories.
I mean we can talk about Romney’s 8 pt GA win if they like, but at the end of the day it didn’t nor doesn’t change anything in regards to the election outcome.
Don't Tread
December 4th, 2012
3:05 pm
“WE DONT CARE ABOUT CHANGING YOUR MINDS, GET IT? WE HAVE A MAJORITY SO SIT BACK AND SHUT IT.”
Hitler and Stalin had majorities too. But they were still wrong.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
3:06 pm
Btw, Tiberius, perhaps you should go ahead & move forward on that long-overdue name change? Because from my perch it’s been quite a while since you “pulled the tail” of anyone right of Joe Lieberman.
It may help quiet the voices in your head to pretend you’re a centrist, but make no mistake: You are definitely a pretender.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:10 pm
“Because from my perch it’s been quite a while since you “pulled the tail” of anyone right of Joe Lieberman.”
That’s because you cannot read nor understand the English language, Mr. Holmes, or are too lazy to refer back to my many blog posts on social issues..
Reality, Try it sometime.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:12 pm
“That’s “President” Elizabeth Warren come 2016.”
Not a chance. The country can fall for a smooth, articulate con-man twice, but a shrill, inarticulate one-term Senator?
Nope.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
3:13 pm
Heh. Sir, were you to spend the next century immersed in the finest authors and writing workshops Iowa has to offer, your talent with the language would still not approach mine. #notevenclose
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
3:13 pm
All the genius and excellence embodied in your messiah, Obozo, and still he can’t do anything to fix the deficit or unemployment. But hey, he’s popular, just like the most recent American Idol winner!
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
3:14 pm
Just remember Cons, nothing is permanent. If the filibuster goes and we put in some hair-brained law, it will be pulled out eventually.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
December 4th, 2012
3:16 pm
And with Tiberius’ history of predictions, we can go ahead and plan on a “President Warren” in 2016.
hehehehe
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:18 pm
Trying to figure out the Iowa reference, Mr. Holmes.
Perhaps you might come in from left field to explain that?
Of course, since you believe your reading and writing skills to be so superior to mine, then it must just be the other explanation I offered; that being you’re too damned lazy to research accusations before throwing them.
jconservative
December 4th, 2012
3:23 pm
Wonder why no senator did a filibuster on the The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010? Because they did not, the Senate, and then the House, voted to increase taxes on 100% of taxpayers effective 1/1/2013. And it is that mandated tax increase that we are discussing and spinning today. It is that tax increase vote everyone is trying to weasel out of today. Where was Grover’s Pledge when that vote was taken?
———————-
I agree with Kyle on the filibuster. I thought we had put that idea away in 2005 when Majority Leader Bill Frist talked about the “nuclear option” and eventually gave up. Leave it alone. If a bill cannot get 60 votes it’s probably a bad idea. And if some Senators want the President to manage the Executive Branch without a cabinet, so be it. And if some Senators want the Judicial Branch to function without judges, so be it.
Progressive Humanist
December 4th, 2012
3:25 pm
Kyle @ 2:03:
That history of the white electorate is irrelevant now. While the preference of the white electorate has changed over time, vacillating between the two parties, the demographic groups that are expanding the most now are the ones who are least likely to shift party affiliations. The suggestions that you and most pundits on the right have offered for bringing those voters into your tent fall far short of anything that would actually move them in your direction, and you don’t even realize that. It’s unlikely that your party will be able to sway those voters because the core of your philosophy is in diametric opposition to the core of those voters.
Your supposition about what would have happened “if” Romney had won Hispanics at the same rate as Bush is just wishful thinking that is in conflict with reality. And it shows your level of denial. The fact is that the groups that are growing the fastest are the groups that tend to be the most staunch Democrats while the group that is most likely to vote Republican is shrinking every day. Without a massive overhaul of both the Republican philosophy and the way your party does its business in Washington (constant obstruction and a penchant for helping the wealthy while hammering the poor), the shift we’re seeing now in national politics is likely to be an extended one.
MANGLER
December 4th, 2012
3:26 pm
The full threatened sequestration doesn’t even cover the current budget gaps. Let it happen. The serious bloat will get chopped first, along with some important things as well. We’ll get to see what Congress can live without; It’s hand, foot, eye, nose, etc. The tail is safe, currently tucked between the legs.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
3:30 pm
Tiberius, if you do not understand a reference to Iowa and writing workshops, you are less of a writer than I though.
Further, if you seriously believe anyone (not just me) is going to go back a do research (!?!) on you before returning your near-constant barrage of insults and taunts, you’ve probably got a narcissistic personality disorder for which you should seek treatment. If you don’t get help at Charter, get help somewhere.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:32 pm
“The fact is that the groups that are growing the fastest are the groups that tend to be the most staunch Democrats while the group that is most likely to vote Republican is shrinking every day.”
Correct, Progressive Humanist.
The takers are now outnumbering the producers. The problem is that the takers don’t realize that the money will eventually run out, while the producers do.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:35 pm
“Tiberius, if you do not understand a reference to Iowa and writing workshops, you are less of a writer than I though. ”
I stopped worry about Iowa reading and writing workshops once I got out of grade school, Mr. Holmes.
But then, I’ve progressed from my high school years. Apparently, you have not.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:36 pm
“the real producers (ie, not the fictitious ones in your head) have no problems with increased revenues via higher tax rates.”
As if John Q has actually met a real, live producer in his lifetime.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:37 pm
John Q, you don’t even know what a sock puppet is. Why should anyone believe anything you write?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:39 pm
“Further, if you seriously believe anyone (not just me) is going to go back a do research”
Your ignorance is noted and logged, Mr. Holmes. Of course, throwing out unsubstantiated claims is par for the course for you liberals, isn’t it?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:40 pm
Achieving progress does not mean one is a “progressive”, John Q.
But you’d have to understand the English language to know that little fact.
Glenn Beck
December 4th, 2012
3:42 pm
Are there many elections where anyone couldn’t go cherry pick the states and demographic stats they want and say if this and if that, the R or D would have won?
There are a few, but not many.
It means nothing more than an esteem boost to the one cherry picking the data as well as providing comfort and solace from a defeat.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:49 pm
Glenn Beck, the election is over. Obama won. The House hasn’t changed hands. The Senate hasn’t changed hands.
NOTHING has changed in the big scheme of things.
The sooner you libs get a dose of reality after your post-election euphoria is when this government can move forward and make moderate deals on the issues facing this nation.
And as usual, Obama is failing in his leadership role to do anything remotely resembling that.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
3:50 pm
Obozo’s increased spending by $500 billion per year. The sequester is only $100 billion a year. We’ll be fine reducing his gross overspending by this meager amount.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
3:52 pm
You would think a Nobel Prize winner could do better than this clown.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
3:58 pm
“Obozo’s increased spending by $500 billion per year. ”
I don’t believe that is correct, LBB. It appears to be a one-time increase / reapportionment of existing dollars based on what I’ve read.
Hillbilly D
December 4th, 2012
4:02 pm
This is my 2¢ on what’s going to happen with the “fiscal cliff”. Between Christmas and New Year’s, there’ll be some kind of grand compromise, based largely on unrealistically rosy predictions and budget numbers pulled from thin air, with a healthy side order of can kicking tucked away in the fine print. We’ll hear all manner of pontificating about what a great day it is for America and how we been saved from ruin. By March/April, we’ll be right back where we are now. As Judy Collins would say…….there ought to be clowns……..don’t bother, they’re here.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:04 pm
No, it’s pretty much a step change of $500 billion above Bush’s last year.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:05 pm
OK, I understand your reference point now, LBB. I thought you were talking about his current proposal.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:08 pm
Federal spending, per Wikipedia:
2008 $2.9T
2009 $3.1T
2010 $3.6T
2011 $3.8T
2012 $3.7T
2013 $3.8T
Obozo: A fiscal disaster.
killerj
December 4th, 2012
4:15 pm
But we all know who pays for the squabbling in the end,expect higher taxes folks and eat your crow ,your gonna pay for big government to tell you what you can and cannot do.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:16 pm
John Q earns yet another face palm for his stupidity. How cute.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:19 pm
@LBB…”No, it’s pretty much a step change of $500 billion above Bush’s last year.”
As usual you don’t even know what Bush’s last fiscal year was…psssssttttt it was FY2009…the one that jumped $500 billion…dufus.
Hillbilly D
December 4th, 2012
4:20 pm
But we all know who pays for the squabbling in the end,
Agreed on that. There’ll be higher taxes, one way or another, and little or nothing in the way of spending cuts. How many times have we seen tax increases combined with spending cuts and then the cuts never materialize.
If I were running things, I’d start with an across the board spending cut of whatever percentage was workable, (granted it probably wouldn’t be very big but anything would be better than nothing). After we got that going, then we’d consider more revenue. I like the idea of trimming deductions, etc, rather than raising rates. At least see how it goes; you can always adjust as things pop up.
rtkMD
December 4th, 2012
4:22 pm
It appears that Mr. Windfield endorses Mr. Ponnuru’s suggestion that filibuster reform should ultimately help Republicans. So those on either side who are convinced that the Senate filibuster is counter-productive, please email your Senators, Republican and/or Democrat, particularly if any are the suspected fence-sitters: Feinstein (CA), Kerry (MA), Levin (MI), Pryor (AR), Baucus (MT), Reed (RI), Rockefeller (WV), and Donnelly (IN). It’s easy:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Sample message: Please support Senators Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall in their effort to make the 113th Senate accountable for all its rules via a vote on opening day, January 3, 2013. The Constitution authorizes you to make your own rules, and does not bind you to rules made by a previous Senate.
Please prepare to debate proposed rules, including Senator Harken’s thoughtful reforms regarding filibuster (he has proposed this while in the minority and majority), and then adopt by a simple majority vote Senate rules which allow the majority to act, while protecting the minority’s right to be heard.
Since you have the responsibility to make your rules, we will not accept your future plea that a minority has blocked legislation using rules you had the responsibility to draft. Nor will we accept your complaints that key executive positions are unfilled or judicial appointments are blocked by rules on which you failed to vote.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
December 4th, 2012
4:22 pm
No, John Q. You’re simply that transparent and stupid, sonny.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:24 pm
JDW: “dufus”
———
You would appear to be in violation of Rule #2.
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:24 pm
@LBB….”Federal spending, per Wikipedia”
As usual you are a lying sack of….well you know. The actual numbers are in millions:
2008….$2,982,544
2009….$3,517,677
2010….$3,456,213
2011….$3,603,061
2012 estimate….$3,795,547
2013 estimate…$3,803,364
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
JDW
December 4th, 2012
4:30 pm
@LBB…from rule number 2 “I will also have high tolerance for labels”…consider yourself labeled.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:33 pm
Hmm, so Obozo’s spending $700 billion more than Our President Bush did in the year prior to the recession?
Obozo’s an even bigger failure than I thought!
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:35 pm
You could at least spell it correctly. Doofus.
Mr. Holmes
December 4th, 2012
4:37 pm
Btw, I don’t see how anyone, right or left, could be opposed to at least returning to the days when a filibuster meant an actual filibuster–you gotta get up on that dais and talk, Senator. You stop talking, we start voting.
For the entertainment value alone, that change is worth making. And I’d be saying that regardless of which party is in control.
Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!
December 4th, 2012
4:37 pm
And “doofus” probably doesn’t fall into the category of labels. Your recent posts make it look more like a personal attack.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
4:39 pm
Well, actually -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Total_Deficits_vs._National_Debt_Increases_2001-2010.png
Bush was responsible for 2007, his last budget proposal with a Congress his party controlled. In 2007, the libs took over the House and immediately began porking and larding up Bush’s proposed spending. So much, in fact, that he vetoed their bills numerous times and was over ridden.
But, to the fairy tale democrats, history is whatever spews from their filthy mouths, regardless of whether it’s true or not.
Progressive Humanist
December 4th, 2012
4:40 pm
Sorry, Tib. It’s the Democrats who are the producers and the Republicans who are the takers: http://taxfoundation.org/article/states-vary-widely-number-tax-filers-no-income-tax-liability
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
December 4th, 2012
4:40 pm
Does John Q serve a purpose here?