A
MORE DEMOCRATIC SENATE:
ENDING
THE FILIBUSTER
We have long
been told that the genius of our system of government lies in the checks and
balances not only between branches of government but within the legislative
branch of government. The House of
Representatives possesses the power of the purse. The President holds the power of executive action, including
the veto. The Senate has the power
to withhold consent for executive appointments and to stifle all congressional
action by requiring a 60% vote to bring any legislation to the floor.
The “genius”
of our system has become a chokehold on the government. The current constellation of a
Democratic House, a Republican Senate and a Republican White House means that
no significant legislation can even be considered. We could replace the president tomorrow with the candidate
of our choice and still the government would remain paralyzed and unable to
act. The system has granted the
Senate Majority Leader the power to veto all legislative action by refusing to
take a measure to the floor.
This must end
with the next congress. It does
not serve the nation and it is not what the founders intended. The senate has the power to change its
rules with a simple majority vote at the beginning of a session and it must do
so. It can only happen if the
Republicans yield control of the senate by losing at least three seats. Even then, it would require a majority
that is willing to do what no majority has been willing to do before: Sacrifice power by ending the
filibuster.
Clearly, at a
time when the nation and the world are facing crises critical to the future of
the species, it no longer matters what the founders intended. The system is inadequate to the needs
of the people. It is as if the
patient is on life support with a failing lungs and the doctor is awaiting the
approval of an insurance company executive to proceed with a critical operation. While the scenario is not as farfetched
as it should be, we are the patient and Mitch McConnell is the insurance
executive. Moscow Mitch has no
intention of saving the patient.
Those who
consider this gridlock the product of genius clearly do not value the
principles of democracy for the senate rivals the judiciary as the least
democratic institution in all branches of government. The senate did not have a black member until Hiram Revels of
Mississippi in 1870 and has had only ten black senators in its entire
history. It welcomed its first
Hispanic member, Octaviano Larrazolo of New Mexico, in 1928
and its first woman, Hattie Caraway of Arkansas, in 1932.
Even today,
the senate disproportionately represents white males. Of one hundred senators, 75 are men and 91 are white. While 12% of the population is black
and another 12% is Hispanic, only three senators are black with one (Kamala
Harris) being considered multi-racial and only four senators are Hispanic.
These numbers
represent a gross imbalance of power and it is not coincidental. The founders meant for the Senate to
represent the elite and to place a check on the common rabble of the lower
chamber. In other words the
founders, who were composed entirely of white male landowners, wanted the
Senate to impede the progress of the people. In that it has succeeded beyond all expectations.
Congress is
not without its flaws but even when we factor in designer districting and
disenfranchisement by various means it is infinitely more democratic that the
Senate. Each congressional district
represents approximately 747,000 constituents. This number holds fairly steady whether a district is in
Florida or Missouri, Mississippi or California. By contrast, a senator from the state of California
represents approximately 40 million people while a senator from Wyoming
represents approximately 580,000 people.
If a handful
of progressive billionaires wanted to change the landscape of American politics
they could sponsor the relocation of half a million high tech employees from
the progressive havens of San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland and Seattle to
beautiful Laramie, Wyoming. The
Democrats could then pick up two seats in the United States Senate and one in
the lower house. The city of
Laramie would prosper in the balance.
Because of the
Senate, the citizens of California, New York, Florida and Texas are the least
represented in America while the voters of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska and North
Dakota are the most over-represented.
Restated, in terms of senatorial representation, every voting citizen of
Wyoming is worth roughly 69 Californians.
Because the
Electoral College allots electors using members of congress plus two for its
senators, the imbalance of the senate is also reflected in our presidential
elections. Without that imbalance
neither George W. Bush nor Donald Trump would have advanced to the White
House. We would likely not have
entered the Iraq War and we would be leading the world in the effort to combat
the ongoing catastrophe of global warming.
Would we be
better off? You can be certain a
majority of Americans believe so.
As if the
inherent inequity of the senate were not enough, the senate filibuster rule
requires all legislative action to gain a three-fifths or 60-vote majority for
consideration. Unlike the Electoral
College, that requirement is not grounded in the constitution. It is not based on legislation. It is an invention of the institution
that can be undone at the beginning of a session. In other words, it is a power grab by the most aristocratic
institution in government.
The filibuster
has its roots in the early nineteenth century when a senator was allowed to
block any vote by taking the floor and holding it for as long as he could speak
without leaving the podium. The
filibuster was employed by Southern Democrats to defeat every significant civil
rights law from 1917 to 1964. [1]
In 1917 an
incensed Woodrow Wilson pushed through a two-thirds vote requirement to close
debate. That worked for Wilson but
it hardly works for us today. In
1975 the filibuster was redefined for polite society. A senator no longer has to hold the floor. He or she can simply invoke the cloture
rule and the required votes to end debate have been reduced from 67 to 60. Now any senator can invoke cloture,
killing any bill or measure until 60 senators vote to end the
“filibuster.” What was once a
quaint senatorial courtesy has become a potent veto that strengthens the
partisan divide and grinds all action to a halt.
There may have
been a time when the filibuster made sense to some but that time has long since
expired. Neither the founders nor
the people envisioned granting that much power to the upper branch of
congress.
For decades
the filibuster was the weapon of choice to Southern racists and white
nationalists. The infamous Senator
Strom Thurmond of South Carolina conducted the longest continuous filibuster in
senate history when he stopped a vote on the 1957 civil rights act for over 24
hours. Under today’s rules that
piece of legislation would have died in committee.
The result is
that nothing of substance can be accomplished without a consensus of two
adversarial parties that have refused to find common ground since the global
financial collapse of 2008. Maybe
that would be acceptable if the nation had no pressing needs but the nation has
reached a crucible of pressing needs.
The cloture
requirement or virtual filibuster is why President Barrack Obama dared not
propose a public option in the Affordable Care Act. The filibuster is why neither comprehensive immigration
reform nor the Dream Act could be enacted in law. The filibuster is why our infrastructure has been allowed to
crumble. Who needs passable roads,
safe bridges and working highways?
The filibuster is why we have not moved toward renewable energy in a
manner that reflects the critical nature of the crisis. The filibuster is why there has not
been any serious effort at gun control legislation since the assault weapons
ban of 1994 – allowed to expire in 2004.
It is time for
the United States Senate to join the 21st century. It is time for the senate to become a
working part of a democratic system of government. It is time for the senate to sacrifice the tools of
aristocracy. It is time for the
senate to stop obstructing progress and start enabling it.
Electing a
Democratic majority in the senate is a necessary but insufficient first
step. If we are to advance the
cause of democracy and empower the government to accomplish what must be
accomplished, the next step is for the senate to repeal the filibuster entirely
and become a more democratic institution.
Neither the
nation nor the world can afford to put up with another term of majority leader
Mitch McConnell and the obstructionist senate.
Jazz.
A
SHORT HISTORY OF THE FILIBUSTER
1806: Senate eliminates rule for ending
debate.
1811: House of Representatives enacts rules
to limit debate, ending the filibuster in the lower chamber.
1841: Democrats hold the floor to prevent
Whigs from firing Senate printer.
William King challenges Henry Clay to a duel. Clay threatens new rule to cut off debate.
1846: Southerners successfully filibuster in
favor of slavery in expansion bill.
1903: Ben Tillman of South Carolina
successfully filibusters to collect a debt of $47,000.
1917: Senate changes its rules to require 67
votes to end debate.
1935: Senator Huey Long of Louisiana holds
the floor from noon to 3:50 am.
1938: Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi
filibusters an anti-lynching bill.
Southern Democrats defeat other anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, 1938,
1948 and 1949.
1949: Lyndon Johnson filibusters a 1949 civil
rights bill saying: “The
filibuster is the last defense of reason, the sole defense of minorities.”
1950’s: Less than one filibuster per
session.
1957: Strom Thurmond opposes a toothless 1957
civil rights act.
1964: Robert Byrd of West Virginia concludes
a 57-day chain filibuster to hold back civil rights. The filibuster ends with 67 votes for cloture.
1968: GOP defeats the nomination of Abe
Fortas as Chief Justice to the Supreme Court.
1975: Senate change cloture requirement to 60
votes.
1987: Republicans defeat campaign finance
reform.
2007-2008: 139 filibusters affect 70% of
legislation.
2013: Democrats limit debate to approve
judicial nominees.
2019: GOP limits debate to approve Trump
nominees. [2, 3]
1. “A Short
History of the Filibuster.” By
Peter Carlson. History Net. Circa
2019.
2. “Senate
Republicans have officially gone ‘Nuclear’ to confirm more Trump judges.” By Li Zhou. Vox April 3, 2019.
3. “How a
Filibuster Works.” By John
Kelly. How Stuff Works, August 26,
2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment