Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
When Did the Senate Get So Bad?
Over at Talking Points Memo, a friendly argument has broken out between a former Senate staffer and a political scientist over what might be called the problem of the Senate. That's the kind of fight I have to jump into!
In summary, the two viewpoints on filibusters are: (1) Something changed in the culture of the Senate, and filibusters used to be rare, mostly threatened by individual senators or factions who wanted some change to a bill rather than to block it completely. (2) It's a much more structural change, and in the past there were often large bipartisan majorities that wanted to pass major legislation, so the filibuster wasn't even an issue. (With the notable exception of civil rights.)
Both are probably right: In terms of culture and custom, the turning point was almost certainly the previous health-reform debate, in 1993 and 1994. That's when Bob Dole, then the majority leader, made the phrase "You need 60 votes to do anything around here" his mantra, and when -- thanks to Bill Kristol's famous memo -- the idea of blocking major legislation for political reasons, rather than trying to get it revised to reflect your own policy preferences, took hold. Maybe I put too much weight on that period because that happens to be when I worked in the Senate, but there's no doubt that at that time, a whole bunch of obstructionist techniques came out of the dusty toolbox, such as "filling the amendment tree" and, in the House, the motion to recommit a bill to conference. (I once witnessed Ted Kennedy asking staffers for advice about how to break one of these tactics, which he had never seen in 34 years in the Senate.)
Underlying that, of course, was the structural change that came with the realignment from a four-party system, in which each party had a liberal and conservative wing, to two ideological parties. (A center-left party and a far right party.) As frustrating as today's conservative Democrats like Mary Landrieu are, none of them are more conservative than any Republican, and no Republican is more liberal than even the most conservative Democrat. As a result, a filibuster can be organized and enforced by a party leader, whereas in the past, there was considerable ideological overlap, so both sides of a fight would be cross-partisan, and thus loose and shifting.
In the old Senate (up to the early 1990s), there were dozens of possible configurations that could produce legislation that won broad majority support. You could see it quite visibly in the Senate Finance Committee when Lloyd Bentsen of Texas was the chair -- from the center of that horseshoe dais, he might put together a coalition on the center-left one day, and one on the center-right the next, and if he played the politics right, the vote in committee would typically be something like 17-4, with a similar majority on the floor. My boss, as one of the more liberal members, was sometimes in the majority coalition and sometimes a dissenter -- it changed all the time. As debate began, it was hard to predict the final vote. But to watch Max Baucus maneuver in the same committee last month, you had to sympathize with how little he had to work with: Forty percent of his members were completely opting out -- any amendments they offered were purely symbolic or intended to support a talking point in opposition. The only coalitions available were a totally Democratic one and one that included Olympia Snowe. On the Senate floor, it's the same thing -- with a hundred senators, there are in theory, some mathematically unimaginable number of coalitions. But in reality, there are only two: Keep every single Democrat, including red-staters up for re-election and the now unabashedly malevolent Joe Lieberman, or lose one and get Olympia Snowe. There are no other options, and no legislative wheeling-and-dealing will open up any other possibilities.
As a result the Senate feels suffocating. It's easy to fantasize that maybe a tougher or more creative Harry Reid could do something, but even LBJ would be stuck if he drew this hand. The combination of the change in custom -- which involves not just using the filibuster to excess, but pushing to defeat legislation regardless of its content, for political purposes -- and the particular alignment of parties leaves shockingly little room for legislative maneuvering.
-- Mark Schmitt
COMMENTS (24)
As corporations consolidated, so too did the political parties that serve them.
Posted by: anon | November 24, 2009 5:35 PM
The break-up of the Filibuster Four was evident on the classic "Let It Pass" album . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9jic9Kaf_s
sp
Posted by: Simon Paul | November 24, 2009 6:34 PM
Today's Democratic Party isn't center-left; it's center-right, somewhere between Nixon and Eisenhower, but with less regard for labor and the middle class.
There is no liberal major political party in the USA.
Posted by: joel hanes | November 24, 2009 10:04 PM
I just wish the Obamanauts had realized earlier on that meaningful structural change is impossible in this system (unless it involves cutting marginal tax rates for the wealthiest 1%).
The only realistic political objective at this point is to try to keep the wingnut right out of power by using tiny, symbolic gestures to maintain a weak center-left coalition (ala Clinton and "triangulation")
A feeble ambition, I know, but an absolutely vital one -- considering what the wing nut right and its Rovian brain trust did and tried to do when they were in power.
Posted by: Peter Principle | November 24, 2009 10:56 PM
why you think that, the senate will go to bad?I don't think so.
Posted by: valves manufacturer | November 25, 2009 12:03 AM
The only way out is to kill the filibuster, by hook or by crook. Otherwise if the Democrats lose a few seats in 2010, the Republicans will rule the Senate even if they are in the minority, because they will stick together and the Democrats won't.
Start with federal judges; use the Republicans' own words and tactics against them.
Posted by: Joe Buck | November 25, 2009 12:04 AM
typo alert "1993 and 1994. That's when Bob Dole, then the majority leader," should be "1993 and 1994. That's when Bob Dole, then the *minority* leader,"
Rather an important distinction when one is talking about 51 vs 60 votes and the change in the Republican caucus's attitude towards scorched earth partisanship was due to the fact that he became the majority leader in the next congress.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | November 25, 2009 5:41 AM
I find the phrase "mathematically unimaginable" provocative.
There are 100!/(60!40!) possible 60 vote coalitions. That is on the order of
1.374623 times ten to the 28th or 13,746,234 hexillion (or whatever comes after quintillian).
The number of coalitions with at least 60 votes is, of course, much larger.
It would be soooo much simpler if only 50 votes were needed (plus Biden if necessary) and all Senators definitely voted. Then half of the possible role calls plus 100!/(50!50!2) would pass the bill. There are 2 to the 100th possible roll calls so, without the filibuster, there would be in theory a few octillion more than 2 to the 99th ways to win.
With the filibuster it is somewhere in between 20 octillion and 2 to the 99th (thats about 0.5 times ten to the 3oth or half a nonillion).
The number is waaaaay less than a google.
See simple really. I admit that the numbers I tossed out aren't the one I really want and all of them are considerably larger than 2.
Really there are 6 possible winning coalitions which are 58 D + 2 I plus Snowe for one spare vote (not very likely but conceivable) or
those 61 minus Snowe or Lieberman or Nelson or Landrieu or Lincoln = total of 6 of which one is very unlikely.
All assuming that Dorgan (up for re-election in a red state) votes for cloture.
still I admit that even a quintillion is considerably more than 6 so your point stands.
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | November 25, 2009 6:12 AM
can't get that number out of my head
It is roughly
3.6057012 times 10^28
or about 36 octillion.
I am counting being absent and voting "present" as voting no as all that counts is 60 or more yesses or not.
The number for 50 or more yesses is really more than 5 times 10^29 more like 5.83 times 10^29 (sorry it's like how a gigabyte is really more than a billion bytes 2^2= 1024 > 10^3).
Posted by: Anonymous | November 25, 2009 6:28 AM
It's kind of irrelevant if these guys are 'further to the left' than former democratic conservatives. I'm not even sure such a thing can be accurately measured.
They ARE pushing the senate as a whole further to the right than normal, so it's perfectly reasonable to target them as if they were themselves more conservative. We could tolerate conservative Democrats when liberal Republicans balanced them out. We can not tolerate conservative Democrats without liberal Republicans.
Posted by: soullite | November 25, 2009 10:08 AM
even LBJ would be stuck if he drew this hand.
I can't help but think LBJ would have found ways to make Senators pay a price for joining in GOP filibusters.
The Dems need to get away from 'choosing' committee chairs strictly by seniority. Under any other method, there's at least a chance that either leadership, or the majority of the caucus, could exact some consequences when a Lieberman or Lincoln votes to filibuster important Dem legislation.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | November 25, 2009 11:15 AM
Primaries, anyone?
Imagine a Senator Franken, or a Senator Lamont. Anyone for a Senator Grayson?
Posted by: red | November 25, 2009 12:33 PM
Everyone wants to know how to evaluate, anticipate and predict where Obama wants to go as America’s President. The best way is to look at what he says. He told us what he believed. He said that the interests of the community are more important than are the interests of the individual. However, America was founded on individual freedom, which means the interests of the individual are more important than the community or the society. America grew economically because of individual freedom and the resulting free market. No other nation experienced America’s level of prosperity. The rest of the world was founded for thousands of years on the community interests being superior to individual interests, because a few elite ruled the many and could never take a chance on individuals having their own way, bordered only by laws to prevent injustice. Obama made his choice to support the Old World position and is moving America, through enormous expansion of government and debt, in that direction. It is clear by his statement, by those with whom he associated, found on claysamerica.com. You need not be confused, as Obama made it clear how to predict his moves.
Posted by: Clay Barham | November 25, 2009 1:55 PM
Everyone wants to know how to evaluate, anticipate and predict where Obama wants to go as America’s President. The best way is to look at what he says. He told us what he believed. He said that the interests of the community are more important than are the interests of the individual. However, America was founded on individual freedom, which means the interests of the individual are more important than the community or the society. America grew economically because of individual freedom and the resulting free market. No other nation experienced America’s level of prosperity. The rest of the world was founded for thousands of years on the community interests being superior to individual interests, because a few elite ruled the many and could never take a chance on individuals having their own way, bordered only by laws to prevent injustice. Obama made his choice to support the Old World position and is moving America, through enormous expansion of government and debt, in that direction. It is clear by his statement, by those with whom he associated, found on claysamerica.com. You need not be confused, as Obama made it clear how to predict his moves.
Posted by: Clay Barham | November 25, 2009 1:57 PM
I can't help but think LBJ would have found ways to make Senators pay a price for joining in GOP filibusters.
Reid can make them pay too, but then nothing will ever get passed. He could take away chairmanships like many of us in the grassroots want, and if the health care bill is defeated there's nothing left to lose, but until then there is something to lose. The ability to crack down ad still get things done depends on there being someone else who can do what leadership wants. In this case, there isn't.
I agree the filibuster has to go. Allow delays and long debates, but not this stoppage. The Senate is dysfunctional.
Posted by: Eric | November 25, 2009 2:00 PM
Are there any good reasons why the Dems shouldn't force the issue by making the GOP _actually_ filibuster (as opposed to simply backing down when a filibuster is threatened)? I mean, wouldn't it then be pretty easy to paint the filibuster minority as actively obstructionist rather than simply oppositional?
Posted by: J. Powers | November 25, 2009 3:09 PM
Hey, anyone ever seen an actual filibuster?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster.
Posted by: red | November 25, 2009 3:13 PM
Abolish the Senate. It's inherently unbalanced, with tiny-population states like Alaska, Vermont and Montana getting the same power as big-population states like California, New York and Texas.
Posted by: giantslor | November 25, 2009 4:36 PM
I think the 60 vote rule of cloture is indefensible in the present day and age. The Senate over-represents the smaller states as a proper constitutional balance, but the filibuster rule turns this from a check into a drag on the democratic process. It should go, like many other anachronisms of the past, and both parties should learn to accept that.
Posted by: yoctobarryc | November 25, 2009 10:38 PM
Support of the Lou Zhu, Lou Zhu worked hard
Signature--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is impossible for a willing heart.
ugg bailey button
Posted by: hanyu | November 29, 2009 11:01 PM
ed hardy ed hardy clothing
ed hardy clothing
Posted by: ED Hardy | December 3, 2009 10:05 PM
The name links of london Necklaces itself screams perfection .
Posted by: links of london | February 1, 2010 9:18 PM
The companies wow gold KEGOC wow gold,
Posted by: wow gold | February 2, 2010 2:53 AM
The Astana cycling team may men's watches be getting men's watches
Posted by: REPLICA WATCHES | February 2, 2010 2:55 AM