So it's come down to this, eh? Our government (and our political discourse in general) has really devolved into such fiercely divided and utterly uncivilized partisanship that we can't get anything passed and we need "super-majorities" for everything? We're really broken up into such impenetrable camps that we can't agree on anything? Then do our current rules in the Senate really make sense?
James Fallows writes today about Sen. Mitch McConnell's one-man crusade to bullocks up the democratic process and exactly why he's doing what he's doing. McConnell, in an attempt to protest the President's recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, is objecting to (and thereby completely postponing) the appointment of 80 different positions, including ambassadors, military officers and other diplomats. Sure McConnell's tactics are childish, but what else do expect from a politician these days? The problem seems to be more in the fact that any one senator can do this, and less in the fact that they would.
After Sen. Jim Bunning continuously objected to moving ahead on extending unemployment benefits during the recession- more out of spite than conviction- and then complained that he'd be missing an important Univ. of KY basketball game, Senate staffers should have been drawing up changes to the rules of the Senate immediately.
I understand the importance of allowing the minority party to have the power to object to things and stand as an opposition to the other side simply steamrolling in whatever legislation they'd like. However, the new tactic (and I don't doubt that the Democrats would do the same thing if the roles were reversed) seems to be to allow one senator to object to something, take the heat in the media, gain the support of his base at home and leave the party, as a whole, off the hook. That's not being a responsible minority party, that's simply spiting the other side and gaining political traction because of it. Having not worked in the Senate, I can't promise to have a foolproof fix to the current ways our government does business, but I do know that if we really have moved so far away from mature discourse, then we shouldn't still use the rules that assume that discourse to be taking place.
James Fallows writes today about Sen. Mitch McConnell's one-man crusade to bullocks up the democratic process and exactly why he's doing what he's doing. McConnell, in an attempt to protest the President's recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, is objecting to (and thereby completely postponing) the appointment of 80 different positions, including ambassadors, military officers and other diplomats. Sure McConnell's tactics are childish, but what else do expect from a politician these days? The problem seems to be more in the fact that any one senator can do this, and less in the fact that they would.
After Sen. Jim Bunning continuously objected to moving ahead on extending unemployment benefits during the recession- more out of spite than conviction- and then complained that he'd be missing an important Univ. of KY basketball game, Senate staffers should have been drawing up changes to the rules of the Senate immediately.
I understand the importance of allowing the minority party to have the power to object to things and stand as an opposition to the other side simply steamrolling in whatever legislation they'd like. However, the new tactic (and I don't doubt that the Democrats would do the same thing if the roles were reversed) seems to be to allow one senator to object to something, take the heat in the media, gain the support of his base at home and leave the party, as a whole, off the hook. That's not being a responsible minority party, that's simply spiting the other side and gaining political traction because of it. Having not worked in the Senate, I can't promise to have a foolproof fix to the current ways our government does business, but I do know that if we really have moved so far away from mature discourse, then we shouldn't still use the rules that assume that discourse to be taking place.
2 comments:
The conservative movement believes govenment can't do anything right, therefore tries to sabotage anything the government tries to do. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Cut taxes, gut regulatory agencies (or staff them with incompetants or hacks from the industry being regulated), neglect law enforcement if its inconvenient, viciously punish whistleblowers, etc, etc.
The Dems are talking about rewriting the rules to alter or abolish the filibuster, which is long overdue. We'll see if they follow through.
I certainly agree with your point, but I wouldn't limit obstructionism completely to the Republicans. They've certainly taken the idea and run with it, but the Democrats also drag their heels when they find themselves with minority status.
I think we have a fundamental choice to make: becomes less partisan or change the rules to reflect the movement of political discourse.
Post a Comment