Just Say No! To Obstruction

by hilzoy

This (via TPM) is just too funny:

"In what could be a new incarnation of the successful bipartisan "Gang of 14," Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) hosted a meeting this week with a handful of the Senate's most notable compromisers to figure out how to unclog the gridlock that has slowed the chamber's progress this year.

About half a dozen moderate and independent-minded Republicans and at least one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- participated in the Members-only huddle, which was held quietly in Lott's Capitol office Tuesday morning. Afterward, few Senators offered much detail, but several said there's a feeling among them that the narrowly divided chamber no longer can operate at an impasse and they want to find ways to avoid the growing number of filibusters sidelining Senate legislation this year."

Gosh: how could Republicans possibly manage to end the gridlock in the Senate? Well, maybe they could stop mounting so many filibusters:

"Nearly 1 in 6 roll-call votes in the Senate this year have been cloture votes. If this pace of blocking legislation continues, this 110th Congress will be on track to roughly triple the previous record number of cloture votes — 58 each in the two Congresses from 1999-2002, according to the Senate Historical Office."

Likewise, they could stop refusing to appoint conferees to bills, and in general just pledge not to use the various obstructionist tactics at their disposal. Seems pretty straightforward to me. My only question is: why, exactly, do they need to have a meeting to try to find ways to do this? Think about it: not mounting filibusters isn't complicated, like unifying field theory or writing a sonata. It's easy. Those of us who aren't Senators have managed to live our entire lives without mounting even a single filibuster. So why the difficulty?

I can think of only one answer: addiction.

Think about it. The Senate Republicans must have some sort of problem with normal voluntary action. Normal people can simply decide to stop mounting filibusters, but apparently Republicans have lost the capacity to do this by normal means, and must therefore try to figure out ways to force themselves to do what other people could do straightforwardly. When this happens in any other area of life, we're dealing with an addiction. Most people can simply decide to stop drinking, for instance; it's alcoholics who need to beg their friends to physically prevent them from buying drinks, or check themselves into rehab, or hire a jailer, or move to a fundamentalist Islamic state. That's because they don't have the capacity to simply decide to stop drinking. And Republican Senators seem to have a similar problem with obstruction.

If so, I suggest a few possibilities for the Senators who met with Lott:

* First, it's hard to see how these Senators will be able to give up their obstructionist ways without support. They should immediately form a twelve-step group, and schedule meetings during important votes, so that they can help one another not to give in.

* Senators who feel a particular urge to filibuster bills on specific topics should plan to be out of Washington DC when those bills come up for a vote. If a Senator must, for whatever reason, be in Washington DC when a vote on such a bill is scheduled, s/he should try to be trapped in traffic on the other side of town. In the worst case, a Senator can avoid voting on a bill that will tempt him or her to filibuster by telephoning his or her sponsor and talking until the time of danger is passed, or by attending support group meetings with other addicts.

* Senators might consult with their colleagues about hanging inspirational posters in the Senate chamber. "Denial Of Cloture Is Not A River In Egypt" is always a good one, as is: "One Vote At A Time." "Let Go And Let God" might raise First Amendment concerns, however.

* Amend the Senate rules to allow each Senator to be accompanied onto the Senate floor by a large, burly ex-Marine whose job it is to prevent the Senator from mounting a filibuster, by force if necessary. Write his contract so that if the Senator succeeds in mounting a filibuster, he loses several months of pay. And make it a crime, punishable by imprisonment, for either this person or a Senator to enter into any contract involving his being paid off to allow a filibuster to proceed.

* Senators should write iron-clad contracts pledging that if they mount a filibuster, their entire war chest, and any PACs under their control, will immediately be donated to a cause they find odious. Ted Stevens, for instance, could pledge to donate his to CREW. Sam Brownback could pledge his to NARAL. Larry Craig could donate his to the support and maintenance of Mike Rogers' website. The possibilities are endless.

These might seem like tough measures. But addiction is a tough disease. Senators Lott et al should be commended for admitting they have a problem, that they are powerless over their addictions, and that their lives have become unmanageable. I wish them every success in their efforts to beat it.

Besides, I'm really looking forward to their searching and fearless moral inventories.

Comments

[Anarch]

Oh man, Charles Bird would sh** a brick if he ever acknowledged this sort of thing...

[Incertus (Brian)]

If there's a single reason why the Democrats need to pick up four or five more seats int he Senate in 2008, it's to make people like the Nelsons (Ben and Bill) or Lieberman or any of those others as irrelevant as possible.

[Harald Korneliussen]

"Normal people can simply decide to stop mounting filibusters, but apparently Republicans have lost the capacity to do this by normal means..."

I would suppose that there are political costs involved. Just like the democrats in congress rallied to support the Iraq war, not because they thought it was a good idea, but because it would pass anyway and they thought it might be embarrassing to have voted against in the future... maybe it's costly for a republican to break ranks and not partake in filibusters? Especially if it's you, and just you, who blocks the whole thing?

So, they would want to coordinate. The more people the blame can be spread around on, when a filibuster fails, the more bearable it becomes politically. It makes sense, is a good thing, and I see no point in bashing them for it.

[Tsam]

Can someone refresh my memory on why "filibusters" no longer require the spectacular endurance that they did when Strom Thurmond was conducting them?

[publius]

i like it. tough love.

a few other points:

1 - Dems might also want to taste the forbidden fruit. I think one thing that Dems forget is that they can block stuff too. If you could assemble a progressive "Gang of 40", you could essentially prevent horrible FISA legislation and -- if you want to really go nuts -- stop war funding.

I actually did the math on this, and i don't think there are 40 senators who would do this, but it's fairly close.

2 - incertus - i think ben nelson should not be slandered by including him with lieberman. with nelson, we should be happy with the vote for Reid and let him do whatever the hell he wants. check out the 2004 nebraska presidential tally. lieberman is of course totally different.

he's a wanker because he chooses to be.

[MobiusKlein]

It does make sense for a sub group to work together. If your group has the votes to ensure a bill gets through the filibuster, it gives that group leverage to get things they want back.

[CVSG]

Believe it or not, there is another side to the number of cloture votes. A cloture vote does not mean there was a preexisting filibuster. It just means that the majority has decided it's time to end debate and time to end the possibility of any amendments.

Reasonable Republicans believe that Democratic Senators are shutting them out of the process by limiting amendments and yes, by bringing so many cloture votes.

I'm not sure I completely understand it or agree, but people I know who know about these things do not necessarily count the number of cloture votes as something bad that Republicans are doing. Some think that it indicates something bad that Democrats are doing.

As I say, believe it or not.

[Baskaborr]

CVSG, thanks, but I don't believe it. Too much history and much dissappointment with the congressional Democratic leadership to really believe they acting as ruthlessly as Republicans.

[Baskaborr]

Wow, I really should proof read my comments before posting.

[rea]

Reasonable Republicans believe that Democratic Senators are shutting them out of the process by limiting amendments and yes, by bringing so many cloture votes.

"Reasonable Republicans" [you know, the kind who don't believe in wars of aggression, torture, or the abolition of social security], having been on the endangered species list since the Reagan Adminstration, became extinct in 2001 . . .

[freelunch]

Reasonable Republicans believe that Democratic Senators are shutting them out of the process by limiting amendments and yes, by bringing so many cloture votes.

Any Republican who voted to marginalize the Democrats from 2002-2006 has no complaints. Could you name some reasonable Republicans who are being unfairly treated?