By most accounts, it now requires 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate due to the filibuster. So, my question, largely for Democrats I guess, is do you want to see your party do the same thing if and when they are in the minority? Should Democrats filibuster every meaningful bill and require 60 votes to pass any bills that Republicans want?
(Yes, we all want to see filibuster reform, but this question assumes that this won’t happen)
I don’t think so.
While Democrats can perhaps be more aggressive in countering especially bad bills proposed by Republicans and also exercise greater discipline against some wavering members of their caucus, simply copying Republican obstructionism by blocking even good laws Republicans propose will not help the party’s fortune and perpetuate the myth that both parties are equally to blame for the gridlock in Washington.
Right. In other words, IOIYAR, BNIYAAD. Appeasement.
Presuming the republicans gain control of the senate again then it has to be done or we will end up as a third world country.
When did I say we should appease Republicans (no idea what the acronyms stand for)? I said if the Republicans have a reasonable proposal, it should not be opposed solely because it is from a Republican.
What we really need to do is somehow, anyhow, change the filibuster rules so that 60 isn’t the new 50. Hamstringing the legislature is an end, not a means, for the Republicans: They want a crippled government.
It’s a shitty game theory situation. You either cooperate and potentially pass laws that make the country better, but at the cost of long term power, or you retaliate and do the same thing they did, resulting in bad short term outcomes. Do you let the republicans “win” by being willing to hurt the country when you have the majority while still acting like responsible adults when they’re in power? I hate rewarding the sort of behavior, but on the other hand I don’t think that democrats are willing to hurt the country to play these political games as the Republicans have shown themselves willing to.
The other concern is that even if you do decide to play the role of the responsible adult interested in the future of the country, if you keep ceding power to them while they block anything you do, the country will gradually be shaped by their agenda, which you may ultimately think is more harmful than the immediately negative effects of obstructing good laws.
It’s actually a really tricky situation.
Well optimistically speaking, demographic and voting trends in this country are overwhelming in favour of the Democrats, especially as Republicans are refusing to reform as of yet.
It’s Okay If You Are Republican, But Not If You Are A Democrat.
Thanks.
Heaven forbid the Republicans take the Senate again, but if they do, every single measure they propose should be opposed by every single Democrat. Either you play the game or accept the fact that Republicans have permanent legislative control, be they in majority or minority.
The Democratic Party has become a party of weak-kneed no-balls, worms who have no stomach for hard-edged in the trenches politics. How I long for the days of Senator Kennedy and Speaker Tip O’Neill.
I have no doubt that if the Democrats begin routinely filibustering legislation in a GOP majority, the Republicans will, without a trace of irony, declare the filibuster to be anti-democracy and invoke the nuclear option.
Absolutely. Conservatism as practiced by the Republican Party is dangerous and destructive, and Democrats should obstruct the passage of all Republican-backed legislation by whatever means the law permits. If a Republican proposes it, it should get zero votes from Democrats.
This has been the policy of the Republicans toward Democrats for the last 20 years when they are out of power, and Democrats would be damn fools not to adopt the same tactic when we are out of power.
No, there were a very few select things Bush did that I supported. The grand majority though should be opposed, not because they are Republican propositions but because they are retarded.
I agree, and to some extent this is what I hope happens (and why the answer to my own question is that yes, the Democrats should be obstructionist). I think that the only way to get filibuster reform is for the Republicans to push it, as the Democrats seem to pansy ass to do it.
This seems almost guaranteed to happen unless the filibuster is reformed the way it should have been in January. I don’t know if it should and I think there’s some credibility to the notion that Democratic voters like compromise more than Republican voters do, but it I have trouble imagining how this wouldn’t happen otherwise. If the Republicans filibuster the Democratic agenda to death for years at a time and the Democrats work with the Republicans and help them pass bills, that’s pretty much running up the white flag.
If something is a good idea, then they should have no trouble convincing 60 out of a hundred people to vote for it.
I’d much rather require 60 votes to pass anything than 50, regardless of party.
If only 50 votes were required than the gun control background check would have passed, for instance.
So this conservative likes the current system just fine and I’d say that’s true regardless of which party is in power.
I vote for the Republicans not so much because I support the laws they pass but because the laws they want to pass are far less harmful to me than the ones the Democrats want. Ideally I want both of them to have less ability to pass laws that further tax me and restrict my rights.
That sounds like a nice guideline for a something like a community association, but it has nothing at all to do with the way the U.S. Senate works.
It also assumes that every member of the body in question is rational and believes in good government, which isn’t a proposition I’ve seen any evidence of for at least the last decade or more.