The elimination of the filibuster for administrative and judicial nominees (not including those to the Supreme Court) will have short and long-term consequences. One of the easier things to predict is that the filibuster will be eliminated entirely in fairly short order. John Dickerson had a good insight on that likelihood:
As Majority Leader Harry Reid orchestrated the change in the rules governing executive nominations and lower-court appointments, his opponents cried tyranny, though they also promised that when they took power they would go further, applying the new standard to Supreme Court nominations. In other words, tyranny—but we promise we’ll give you more of it.
The filibuster on non-budgetary legislative items may live on a bit longer, but it won’t survive it’s first contact with anything that the majority’s political base is adamant about passing. So, despite the Democrats’ desire to limit the damage to the filibuster to those areas where the abuse was most egregious and inexcusable, the line they drew will not hold.
The next question to ask is how this change in procedure will affect the culture of the Senate. This one requires careful thought, and I’ve been ruminating on for almost a day now. For Dickerson and Jonathan Weisman, it will empower the moderates or centrists. Here’s Dickerson’s take:
Moderate senators will hold more power. Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor and Joe Manchin voted against the rule change. In the future, in a closely divided Senate, they are the kind of senators who will be the key vote to give or deny the majority their nominee.
Here’s Weisman’s:
If Harry Reid or future majority leaders extend the new rules to curb filibusters on legislation, a core group of moderates could emerge with new muscle. The Senate is usually narrowly divided, and it would not take a large coalition in the center to hold partisan legislation hostage.
Already, a group of former governors, led by Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, Senator Alexander and Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of Delaware, have begun banding together.
At this point, it would probably be helpful to do a thought experiment. Think back to 2007, when the Democrats had just retaken control of the House of Representatives and the Senate (by a 51-49) margin. They introduced the Employee Free Choice Act, passed it by a large margin in the House, and got every Democrat in the Senate (except Tim Johnson of South Dakota who was recovering from a stroke) to vote for it. The only Republican to support the bill was Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who would not remain a Republican much longer.
Because the Republicans filibustered the bill, the 51 votes it got were nine votes shy of what was needed to send it to the president’s desk for signage. But Bush would have vetoed it anyway, so the bill was actually sixteen votes shy (in the Senate) of what would have been needed to become a law. The vote was essentially a free vote. Since everyone knew that the bill wouldn’t become a law that pissed off a bunch of rich anti-labor employers, it was easier to vote for it an avoid pissing off the Democratic Party’s union supporters.
When the bill was introduced again in 2009, circumstances had changed. There was a Democratic president who wouldn’t veto the bill. The Democrats nominally controlled 60 seats, although a delay in seating Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota and severe health issues plaguing Sens. Robert Byrd and Edward Kennedy made it necessary to find Republican votes except a very brief period between September and January that was dedicated to passing the health care reforms.
Nonetheless, unions had a right to expect that those who had supported the bill two years previously would help them again. But Sens. Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, and Arlen Specter bolted. Suddenly, with the prospect of the bill actually becoming a law, they weren’t going to support a cloture vote on it. They were going to filibuster a bill that they had previously supported.
This is the kind of dynamic that is altered by eliminating the filibuster. Hiding behind cloture votes enables you to support things your base wants but that you think are too politically perilous to support if they might actually become law. Blanche Lincoln (D-Walmart) was pro-union when it didn’t count, and the Waltons were okay with that…wink, wink, nod, nod.
In the new Senate, particularly if the legislative filibuster soon succumbs, there will many fewer of these free votes, and imperiled senators in the middle will need to break with their party more often and more openly, which should provide more opportunities for bipartisan coalitions in the middle to form to cover each other’s asses. Rather than joining together to block legislation, which wasn’t even necessary so long as the Republicans remained united in their opposition, these senators will have to join together to mitigate the damage that could be done to their political careers if legislation actually passed. If sufficient mitigation cannot be achieved, they will have to join together to vote the legislation down.
This, then, will cause party unity to fray near the center. If an Arkansan Democrat can no longer make a pretense of being pro-labor, they must pick up some support elsewhere to make up for what they’ve lost. Or, if a Pennsylvania Republican cannot win without union support, they will have to buck the Chamber of Commerce. You can interpret this as either expanding or restricting centrists’ freedom of action, but they should behave differently.
There will still be free votes, for example, when a presidential veto is anticipated or when the House of Representatives has no intention of passing a version of the bill. But, overall, this change in the rules should encourage a different kind of self-protective behavior that will reinvigorate crossover voting.
Does this mean that centrists will have more influence? Once the culture changes enough that bipartisan coalitions form again in the middle, it will give those coalitions significant positive power. However, as long as the Republicans refuse to work on any legislation, the centrist Democrats will be on their own, able to block things by joining the Republicans and to coerce changes in exchange for their support. The main difference will be that they cannot hide behind Republican opposition to disguise their own. They will still see it as highly desirable to avoid purely partisan votes on contentious issues, and will want to find moderate Republicans to give them some cover, but lacking that they will turn against their own party and serve as the blocking agent.
I don’t see this as necessarily meaning that they will have more power under the new rules. I think they will have to exercise their power in new ways. And there will be more perilous votes and fewer ways to avoid accountability.
These are just some initial thoughts. I’ll have more.
And there will be more perilous votes and fewer ways to avoid accountability.
Isn’t this what voters should want?
On that narrow issue, I think the answer is ‘yes.’ More transparency and accountability is desirable. On the other hand, I know how you enjoy watching scared moderate Democrats block progressive legislation, so I kind of doubt you’ll enjoy seeing more of that.
And at least it will end some of that shitty headline writing.
“Obama’s X fails to get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.”
What scared moderate? It really all depends on how many Senators the party has in the Senate at the time. It we only have 51, that would be a problem. If we have 50 to 60(or more) it would be a lot less of a problem.
The 51st Senator on any vote now has more power. Before it was the 61st Senator. That moves the “center” back toward the majority and away from the minority. And thus the movement is in the more progressive direction. Susan Collins just lost power because she never used it to buck the GOP leadership. Some Senator to the left of Mary Landrieu just gained power.
IMO, the issue to take care of the non-budget legislative filibuster is raising the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Going to $15.00 an hour is legislative going to be as difficult as going to $10.10 an hour and has a more economically beneficial effect. It, unlike expanding Social Security benefits, is not a budget item. And it will have the effect of increasing revenues without nominally raising taxes. And if the House refuses to pass it between now and the 2014 election, there is a constituency who can be mobilized.
Democrats will just have to learn to argue against the bogus economics that will be used to oppose it.
What it does is eventually tilt the Senate back in a progressive direction.
Because rural, red states are over-represented in the Senate, they can gum up the works, even when said works should not be gummed up.
As mentioned, it shifts the center of gravity to the majority.
It does, obviously, put the onus on winning elections, but unlike the House, which can be gerrymandered, the “gerrymander” of the Senate is that Wyoming and Vermont get the same representation as California and Texas.
The only way to get around that is to allow for majority votes.
Think about the debate on the health care law. My sense was that there was a rather large bloc of “centrists” who all had to be placated at the same time: not just the infamous troublemakers like Lieberman and Ben Nelson and Landrieu and Lincoln but the other Nelson, Pryor, Carper, Webb, the senators from the Dakotas, and more.
I mean, even with the new lineup that has emerged since then, Manchin is an obvious irritant, but beyond that, it ain’t like Bob Casey Junior or Mark Warner or Kay Hagan is a gung-ho activist, although they’ve been team players to this point.
Among the Senate Dems there are IMHO at least 15, if not even more, who could function as a bloc and/or compete to get the perks of being Vote Number 51. I’m not sure we’re any more likely to see unanimity under the new rules.
Wrong answer.
Go look what happened to the blue dogs in the House. Heck, go look at what happened to the blue dogs in the senate. Moderation is dead. A kneejerk reaction to minority-race ascension to positions of power and influence plus a unique confluence of historically powerful party/chamber leaders (Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and Obama) and massively financed outside political actors killed it.
All Democrats are inextricably linked to the party agenda of transfer payments and economic placation, public investment, sexual and gender-based liberty, corporate regulation and cost-bearing, and an intent to undermine the current definition of the second amendment. Republicans, who traditionally have little domestic agenda other than upward wealth distribution, laissez-faire disregard, corporate rent-seeking and white supremacy, have driven themselves to wholesale opposition of the entire Democratic agenda on basic principle. As long as party leadership (and outside groups) remain strong, the moderates are in no-man’s land. For moderates to have power, they have to assume a leadership role with the ability to dictate the legislative calendar and agenda.
Yup, Tea Baggers can fuck their leadership because they have the money to lie to the Yahoos. As it happens this is what I want since I believe parliamentary democracy is superior to what we have.
Agree with this, but it’s rare that I disagree with most of your prognoses, Joe.
Nuking the filibuster will be a huge, huge, huge benefit to us in the long term. The only legislative benefit we got from the filibuster under Bush was that the Bush tax cuts were limited to 10 years so as to go under reconciliation. In the end, with the 2012 compromises, we got some slightly higher taxes on the very wealthy and certain unearned income. That’s it.
On the other hand, the filibuster cost us a huge laundry list of great legislation, including card check, cap n’ trade, federal parental leave, journalist shielding, and AIDS prevention in prison, plus no doubt some substantial improvements in the stimulus, Dodd-Frank and the ACA.
Sure the filibuster has occasionally been used for good, but historically it’s been far more for bad than for good. Far, far more. When you get right down to it, Republican ideas are mostly bad and Democratic ones are mostly good; if the government if more free to make changes the Republican changes will usually be reversible and the Democratic one irreversible. For all their yapping, the Republicans couldn’t reverse the ACA in 2015 even if they could somehow replace Obama. Even if they did, they’d be wiped out in 2016 and Obamacare reinstated.
About the killing of the filibuster…
Between the previous 43 White Presidents, there were 86 Presidential Appointees.
Since President Barack Obama took office, there have been 82 of his nominees blocked.
Previous 43 White Presidents=86
President Barack Obama (1/20/2009-Present)=82
and folks don’t see what the hell is wrong here?
those sanctimonious turd repukeliscum brought this day upon themselves. they pushed and pushed and now their power is greatly reduced. This is great.
I accept or am willing to consider much of your historical chronicle and current analysis, BooMan, but not this:
“Blanche Lincoln (D-Walmart) was pro-union when it didn’t count, and the Waltons were okay with that…wink, wink, nod, nod.”
The first chance they got after Lincoln’s Yes vote on EFCA in 2007, the Waltons added their share to the oligarchs’ big pile of money and successfully took Blanche out. Her No on EFCA when it counted in 2009 didn’t save her. In fact, it’s completely laughable to think that such cowardice could save her. Other Blue Dogs have been in the same hole-filled boat, after all.
This reminds me, it wasn’t just Republican Senators who abused the filibuster, moderate Democratic Senators did so as well. If the filibuster is to make sense as a tool to prevent overreach by the majority, and not simply a requirement for legislation to require 60 votes to pass, it should only be used in extreme cases that might be considered matters of principle. Certainly it shouldn’t be used to kill legislation one might otherwise pretend to support, or would support with mild modifications. This is how I felt when Senator Liebermann exercised the filibuster for health care, to force the changes to it he wanted. It doesn’t make sense to claim that reforming healthcare is fine, unless it includes a public option in which case it is so reprehensible it requires an instrument intended for matters of principle.
One more thing:
The GOP has NEVER in my represented the majority of Americans.
Yes, they cobbled together some inappropriate and incompatible factions to make it look like they represented the majority. The rich. The religious fundamentalists. The rural poor/trailer trash. These groups have about as much in common as Marx had with Hitler.
But the Tea Party idiocy is simply the immensely ignorant people who can’t even see that the rich are using them, and that the rich have no intention of serving the needs of the rural poor (the vast majority of the Tea Party). Those rural poor are too stupid to see that they are voting against their own self-interest. And they are too stupid to see that it is the Dems who DO wish to serve the rural poor’s self interest.
The rich pay for vote-getting messages to be parsed by think tanks, solely to make sure the rural poor’s knee-jerk issues are kept up to date: Race (which includes immigration), abortion, same-sex marriage, and (non-existent) voter fraud. Over and over. In doing so, the rural poor are blinded to their own needs, in favor of “Omhygod!” issues. As in, “Ohmygod! That black man is sleeping with that blond! We have to vote for the GOP now!”
The GOP has not done one thing since (perhaps) Lincoln for the poor and the weak. And still, since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the GOP has had the rural poor wrapped around the GOP’s little finger. And that all stemmed from racism, and it still does.
If the rural poor ever wake up to the fact the Dem issues actually HELP them, God help the GOP.
Two current things may help this happen:
If the Tea Party – who as rural poor SHOULD be voting for their own self-interest instead of trying to control the actions of others – ever part with the GOP, as they should, both those factions are screwed. THEN the Dems will be able to control Congress and begin to pass some effective legislation to HELP the Joe Main Streets of America and the poor. The GOP will never win another national election and few Congressional ones. The old-line GOP simply doesn’t have enough voters without the Southern Strategy. No one wants the rich to have everything – except the rich. The rural poor do not vote FOR the rich to have more and more; the rural poor vote AGAINST abortions, etc. If the Tea Party takes those votes with them, where are the Repugs going to get enough votes? Nowhere.
It is also possible that the GOP will lose enough seats in the next Presidential year election to hand the Dems the House. Add a House Dem majority to a cloture-free Senate, and THEN some real legislation can get passed – legislation that will help Joe Main Street and finally stop helping the rich get richer.
The GOP is petrified that Obamacare will actually work on behalf of the citizenry – and that the rural poor will see, finally, which side their bread is buttered on. When that happens, the GOP is totally screwed. And they already know it. But fighting Obamacare has been the only thing they could DO; if people see a real increase in benefits accruing to the middle class and the poor (for the first time since Civil Rights), they are going to abandon the GOP in droves. No matter about same-sex marriage, when medical care becomes affordable and accessible FINALLY. When they see that Obamacare is GOOD for them, they will have to be truly stupid to vote GOP after that.
And rich in the GOP know that. Right now they are quaking in their boots.