As you may have read recently in The Harbinger, the Senate voted nearly three weeks ago to change procedural rules surrounding filibusters. Because filibusters are often misunderstood and have a rather complex history in American politics, I thought I would take this opportunity to provide some background on filibusters and give my analysis of the Senate’s vote.
Not only is this rule change politically significant, but it also speaks to a larger trend of bipartisan gridlock in government and growing American dissatisfaction with Congress.
First, the facts: On Nov. 21, the Senate voted by a margin of 52-48 to change filibuster rules surrounding judicial and executive appointment. Previously, 60 votes had been required to trigger a confirmation vote for these Presidential appointments. However, the Democratic-controlled Senate voted to change this total to a simple majority, or 51 votes. Historically, the minority party has used filibuster tactics and the 60 vote requirement to prolong debate in the Senate and delay the confirmation of executive appointments. This rule change will allow the party that controls the Senate to expedite the confirmation of Presidential appointments and significantly weaken the power of the opposition.
This alteration of the filibuster has both immediate political ramifications and long-term implications for the Senate. President Barack Obama’s current and future judicial and executive appointees will almost certainly be immediately confirmed despite strong Republican objections. On a broader scale, though, this rule change fundamentally alters the way in which Presidential appointments are handled by Congress.
The Senate is known historically for granting more legislative rights to the minority party than any other deliberative body. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led the charge to alter the working of filibusters, despite his opposition to similar reform eight years ago when the Democrats constituted a minority in the Senate. Now that times have changed, however, so have has his opinions. However, I fear that the Democrats have taken the first step on a slippery slope towards crippling the opposition party in the Senate and changing historically-tested parliamentary rules to suit the whim of the majority party.
Ostensibly, the Democrats undertook filibuster reform with the goal of improving the efficiency of Congress and reducing partisan gridlock. While both of these are problems that need to be addressed, I feel that reforming the very legislative process itself is a foolhardy way to do so. Not only will this Democratic manuever enrage an already defensive Republican Party, it also sets a standard of strong-arm rule by the majority party. The way to address a corrosive political climate is through compromise and constructive dialogue, not by altering the rules to make it easier for the ruling party to dominate. The founders of this country did not design the legislative process to be speedy, but rather to be effective.
Stripping one of the few powers of the minority party in the Senate is hardly a sound political maneuver, and the Democrats will likely come to recognize this when they no longer hold the chamber and the Presidency. The long term effects of the Senate’s vote last month are yet to be seen, but I belive this rule change sets a dangerous precedent and will compromise the integrity of the legislative process. For the sake of both Washington and the American people, though, I hope I’m wrong.
Leave a Reply