Remember When Republicans Complained That the Filibuster Was a Violation of the People's Democratic Powers?

That was, of course, when Democrats were using it. Now, Republicans are using the threat of filibuster to block just about every consequential piece of legislation Democrats write. Here's a chart from McClatchy showing that Republicans are using the threat of unlimited debate way more than the Democrats did, back when Republicans were bitching and whining about the filibuster as an enemy of democracy.

The imaginary liberal media are nowhere to be seen. The AP account of the blockage of the Webb Amendment to limit troop deployments casts the Republican filibuster as evidence of the weakness of Democrats:

Failure of the bill was a sound defeat for Democrats, who have been unable to pass significant anti-war legislation by a veto-proof majority since taking control of Congress in January. Webb’s measure was seen as having the best chance at attracting the 60 votes needed to pass because of its pro-military premise.

And here's the liberal New Republic failing even to mention the word "filibuster" in its reporting:

"I regret the defection of Senator Warner," Webb said a few minutes ago, with a curt laugh. His amendment went down to defeat 56-44 -- garnering no more votes than it did in July.

The amendment "went down to defeat," except that it didn't. The amendment never got one of those up-or-down votes Republicans used to be so big on. A vote of 56-44 on the amendment would be passage, except that the vote wasn't on the amendment itself; it was on whether to cut off debate -- to end the Republican filibuster. The media coverage of the Democrats' "inability to pass" various legislation treats the 60% cloture requirement as if a 60% majority were the necessary and natural hurdle. Remember back when you were a kid, how you and your friends needed a 60% majority to decide what movie to see or whether you wanted to play baseball or go to the pond and swim?

The failure to note that what's happening here is a filibuster lets Republicans off the hook for being obstructionists preserving unpopular policies. This differs sharply from the media coverage of the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees, which was treated as political trickery, dirty pool played by a minority party out of touch with the will of The People.

I don't understand the Senate's rules, but it seems to me the time has come to take filibusters out of the realm of gentlemanly procedure and make them the spectacle they've been through most of American history. If someone wants to block something that has the votes to pass -- to thwart the will of the people in a Republic -- make them stand up in front of God and everyone and block it. Inconvenience them, requiring them to re-arrange their lives so they've got someone up in front of the cameras at four in the morning reading recipes to kill time. Bring the government to a screeching halt and if there's a political price to pay make them pay it.

And for goodness sake the media needs to stop reporting Republican intransigence as Democrat ineptitude.

UPDATE:The inability of otherwise smart people to understand what happens in the Senate startles. The Politco's Ben Smith spins:

(Hillary) was referring specifically to the White House's successful effort to stem Republican support for Senator Jim Webb's legislation to limit troop deployments, which failed today in the Senate by a vote of 56-44, short of the 60 it needed to pass.

The amendment never came up for a vote. Sixty votes are needed for cloture.

Is this complicated?

 

Comments

[Scott]

This is a friendly reminder that your Beloved Party runs the Senate, and can force the much-threatened Republican filibuster to happen anytime they want to.

That is their ineptitude -- they don't believe in their legislation enough to bring out the cots and the pisspots and get it on.

I don't know or care if the Republicans would follow through on their threats, but issue #1 would seem to be forcing the issue. I predict they won't because they don't actually believe very strongly, if at all, in what they're proposing.

[Tom]

Scott, allow me to indulge in the rare opportunity to agree with you 100%. When people look at Congress's 19% approval rating (or whatever it is today), what they're seeing is not just a reflection of the more-or-less 100% Republican disapproval, but also a disapproval by 75% of Democrats who don't understand why Reid and Pelosi don't make a fight of it. If the leadership believes what it says, it needs to stand up and make the other side stand up as well. Otherwise, STFU.

[Squidley]

Many fine points, as usual.

Please remember that most of those people in the news media are not only liberal, but also lazy and ignorant. They don't understand the difference between cloture and voting on a bill, and are disinclined to find out.

More importantly, is it a good or bad thing that Congress is passing fewer bills? I'd say it's a good thing. The less they "accomplish," the less harm they do. Lest you think I'm being partisan, I wish fewer of the awful bills the Republicans passed when they were in control got through (though some of them, like tax cuts, were OK).

[Pursuit]

"Please remember that most of those people in the news media are not only liberal, but also lazy and ignorant"

Squid,

It's a minor quibble, but you've put effect before cause. In the future, I think it would be more readable to organize your statements in sequence.

Thanks!

[Squidley]

Har!

I only wish that were true, Pursuit. The sad fact of the matter is that most "conservatives" are liberal, too. Liberalism is the reigning ideology of the day, and even supposed "conservatives" like W, Rush, and Rudy are as liberal as the day is long.

[Tom]

Squid, you're deeply confused. The fact that someone isn't a conservative doesn't make them a liberal. The world is not a simple continuum from conservative to liberal, and liberalism is more than a lack of conservatism.

[Squidley]

No , Tom, I'm not deeply confused. I have a different set of definitions than you.

Liberalism is the dominant ideology--so much so that even most "conservatives" are, in fact, liberals. Liberalism has become the only acceptable grounds for public discussion, and anyone espousing a non-liberal idea is met with either incomprehension or rejection.

Here's how I see it (courtesy of Lawrence Auster at View From the Right, www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007621.html):

"Right-liberalism is the belief in a single universal truth, the truth that all men have equal rights, and in America as the providential embodiment of this truth. While there are different cultures, all cultures are conformable with the single universal truth, even Islam, and thus all people, including Muslims, can be assimilated into America. For right-liberals, the supreme sin is to deny the single universal truth and its corollary that all men are capable of following that truth.

"Left-liberalism is the belief in the substantive and moral equality of the human race. It rejects the notion of a single universal truth, because such a truth would be superior to other truths, and because the men who believed in that ostensibly universal truth would feel superior to and would attempt to dominate other men. All truths, all men, all cultures, must be treated equally, just as they are. For left-liberals, the worst sin is to imagine that you are in possession of the truth and that you have the right to expect other people to conform to it.

"Thus right-liberals think that left-liberals are committing the worst sin, and left-liberals think that right-liberals are committing the worst sin. Divided by such hatreds, the two respective sides cannot conceive that both sides are in fact liberal. What makes them liberal? The belief in equality (however defined) as the ruling principle."

By this definition, Bush et al. are right-liberals--but liberals nonetheless. Bush is further to the right than Rudy, who is an even bigger RINO than McCain.

BTW, while I believe in equal treatment--in most cases--in the eyes of the law, I don't believe in substansive equality, or equality of results. I also believe in discrimination (by which I mean discriminating in favor of that which is good or beneficial and against that which is not). This means that there are limits even in legal equality. These beliefs put me outside the pale of "decent" society (which I why I troll your blog ;-)