The Sucking Soul-Crushing Senate
“It sucks,” said Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.) (House Democrats Rip Senate Colleagues: Their Lethargy Is Going To Cost Us Seats In 2010), “and I mean it literally. It sucks the energy out of the room and it sucks the urgency out of what we do… The lack of urgency from the Senate on these jobs bill is soul-crushing.”
This reality lends more to my current attitude that elections are a crap shoot. “What’s in it for me?”, is always the prevailing motivator for all too many electeds to demands the public is making to see some legislative inertia. And “while a fair chunk of the Senate was immune from direct, electoral blowback, every member of the House would have to deal with the taint”.
“They say the senate has a luxury of time, six-year cycles for elections,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the House Progressive Caucus. “But these last 18 months have, in memory, have not only been the most frustrating but the inertia created in the Senate is what is jeopardizing Democrats and progressives’ opportunities in the midterms. It is not our lack of action. It has been their lack of action.”
Ironic, but if an anti-incumbent wave tosses a great number of Democrats to the curb this November, it won’t discriminate between those Dems that at least tried to accomplish things like Perriello and those that didn’t.
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Noooo, what’s going to costs you seats is your Socialist agenda, and advancing it after falsely portraying yourselves as “moderates.”
July 25th, 2010 at 10:30 am
However, by all means, keep telling yourselves that it is your insufficient success in advancing your soul-sucking agenda.
July 25th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I think I remember a Monty Python skit with James in it ….
“Can’t even take a bath without six or seven communists jumping in with me!! They’re in the cupboards now, eating my wife’s jam!!!!”
July 26th, 2010 at 4:08 am
In today’s version of democracy, 41% of the Senate blocks almost everything. Minority rules!
Despite Republican obstructionism and some liberal disappointment about “insufficient success,” Democrats have actually managed to advance quite a lot of the “Socialist agenda” that President Obama ran on during his campaign (see my previous post).
July 26th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Gee, David, I guess it’s probably because we’re NOT a “democracy.”
July 26th, 2010 at 9:24 am
James Young: Yes, I am aware that the U.S. is technically a democratic republic. What is your point? Are you opposed to majority rule?
Senate Republicans are abusing the filibuster (established by Senate Rule XXII, not the Constitution) to obstruct the President and broad majorities in both houses of Congress, instituting a tyranny of the minority.
July 26th, 2010 at 10:14 am
If the US is a “democratic republic”, what happened to the Constitution? Oh, that’s right… it’s an old, moth-eaten relic that is irrelevant to our “current” culture and should be changed to reflect the changing needs and makeup of our “collective” society and should be ratified by the UN. If Republicans are “abusing” the filibuster, then what budget rules did Democrats “abuse” to pass health care in the dead of night? Or how were the “rules” bent to avoid Senate hearings on the new CMS Czar, Dr. Berwick by using a recess appointment?
Your pots and kettles are in the same fire and they are all turning “black”…. (by the way, a metaphor, not a “racist” statement)
July 26th, 2010 at 10:56 am
I am unaware of anyone proposing that the Constitution “should be ratified by the UN.”
Health reform was passed by large majorities of both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. The only reason it passed the House at night was because of Republican delaying tactics. If you want to discuss truly a corrupt process, remember how Republicans passed Medicare Part D?
Senate Republicans have routinely held all of President Obama’s nominations hostage. At the end of March, Obama had 217 nominees still pending before the Senate. By comparison, President Bush had 5 at that same point in his presidency. There are still 180 nominations pending Senate approval today.
As I’m sure you are aware, recess appointments (unlike the filibuster) are authorized by the Constitution (Article II, Section 2):
July 26th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
DC: “I am aware that the U.S. is technically a democratic republic. What is your point? Are you opposed to majority rule?”
How would you feel if the majority decided to re-introduce slavery? There’s plenty that can go wrong with “majority rule”.
And, isn’t Tom Periello the one who said “…if you don’t tie our hands, we’ll keep stealing…”? Please, somebody, tie their hands.
July 26th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Greetings from Illinois.
I like the filibuster which provides the need for super majorities in the Senate to get bills passed, it helps prevent the tyranny of the majority.
I remember back when it was the Republicans complaining about it and threatening to use the nuclear option (changing the rules) to get Supreme Court justices approved if their approval was filibustered. Seems like the party with the majority always chafes at the inability to get things passed without reaching super majority backing.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:01 am
“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” – Abraham Maslow
The filibuster is just a tool. It is intended to be used sparingly, “reserved for matters of special importance” (in the words of the Republican policy committee) or “extraordinary circumstances” (according to the Gang of 14).
The current Republican abuse of the filibuster is unprecedented. It was just used just 2 times during the 8 years of the Eisenhower administration. Even during the turbulent sixties, with contentious issues like Vietnam, civil rights, and the Great Society, the filibuster was only used about 5 times per term. During the last session, Senate Republicans used it 52 times.
A majority of American voters elected President Obama and majorities of American voters elected large Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. According to the Constitution, legislation is passed in both houses by majority votes. The 41 Republican Senators were not elected to set the agenda.
Senate minorities are unrepresentative of the public. When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it’s 68 to 1. It is theoretically possible for the Senators representing just 11% of the population in the 21 least populous states to nullify the will of 88% of Americans.
“The tyranny of the majority?” What is the alternative to majority rule?
July 31st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
What is the alternative? How about what we have? The requirement for super majorities for passage of controversial measures.
Some other nations have requirements for super majorities in their parliamentary governments for certain measures because they have witnessed the stability of governance our nation has enjoyed because of this.
Your statement how theoretically 11% of the population can nullify the will of 88% is food for thought. Hmmm, maybe we could improve on things. How about simple majorities for everything in the Senate and super majorities required for passage of anything in the House? This would allow for more proportional representation while still helping to prevent the tyranny of the majority. But it is the Senate alone’s approval which is required for appointment of Supreme Court justices and ratifying treaties with foreign nations, so…. Fat lot of chance of that change happening, huh? But you spoke of theoretic possibilities which provided an opening for me to dream a little bit.
As for the increased use of the filibuster I think it is just evidence of the increasingly extreme polarization of American politics. In order to win your party’s nomination you must pass a litmus test on a whole gamut of issues and if elected you are expected to never compromise on these ideals. I will say that the modern Republican Party is more guilty of this then the Democratic Party. I attribute this being true to be due to the conservative base of the Republican Party is larger then the liberal base of the Democratic Party. Democratic leadership seems to realize that to win elections they must be more open to moderate opinions and support candidates with moderate/conservative credentials in many areas of our nation. But even the best leadership can not completely control the ideologically driven, rowdy membership of the party. Witness what happened in the primaries up in Pennsylvania. 30 year incumbent Arlen Specter lost to Joe Sestak. I consider Joe a fine candidate (very impressive resume) however Arlen would have had the best chances in the general election and for this reason he had the backing of strong elements of the national Democratic leadership (including both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama). We’ll see come November if the Pennsylvania Democratic Party voters were wise in rejecting the leadership offered to them.
August 1st, 2010 at 12:41 pm
One big reason this is an issue is the bloc-voting which has become the norm in the Senate. We have become so divided along partisan lines that all the D’s are usually for something while all the R’s are against. Or vice versa.
If there’s a measure which the majority of one party supports, the common methodology now is to load the bill up with pork to get the remaining votes needed for victory. Forget any attempts to moderate the bill to gain bipartisan support for a worthwhile bill.
LD, Specter had the backing of the strong elements of the Democrat leadership because his defection from the Republican party proved to be a decisive swing in the power structure. That support was sealed over a year ago when he made his switch, at the time saying “I’m not going to leave the future of my political career up to the voters of Pennsylvania.”
August 1st, 2010 at 1:20 pm
@Open Minded
I think the Democratic leadership was willing to back Arlen due to his track record of being willing to occasionally vote with the Democrats based upon principle even when such a vote conflicted with the ideologically driven Republican Party stance.
I think this leadership judged it was better to have such a person who might occasionally be willing to vote with them elected then to face dealing with an ideological Republican purist in the seat who will always vote against them.
Who was right? The Democratic leadership or the Democratic grass roots? We’ll see in November.