Quick illustrative example: Jerry is against the filibuster and think it should be ended. Because Jerry wants to see the Democrats get things done in Congress without being derailed in the Senate via the filibuster, and right at this moment the Democrats have a majority but just barely, definitely not enough to override a filibuster.
Quick illustrative examples 2/3: Amy is in favor of the federal government having authority over the states as a guiding principle, because marijuana is not legal to possess according to federal statutes, whereas several states have legalized it for recreational use and Amy does not approve. On the other hand, Amy is in favor of each state being able to decide for themselves, because hey if Mississippi wants to make it illegal to get an abortion, they should have that authority and not be dictated to by the federal government.
Neither Jerry nor Amy have any discernable overall philosophical beliefs and should not pretend otherwise. Some folks like to discuss the underlying principles and their universal implications (at least as far as the participants can imagine them), and it’s frustrating as hell when people come in arguing in those terrains only because of their concern for how it applies to an extremely circumscribed application.
Sure, but unfortunately, that’s how it is. I once pointed out to some Trumpers (who wanted Vice President Pence to overrule the election outcome and declare Trump the victor in January 2021) that by this same logic, not only could Joe Biden have declared Hillary the victor in 2016, but that any future Democratic vice president could also have an incumbent Democratic president reelected by fiat. I was told, “Yes, we understand that, but now is now, forget about the future, we need this outcome now.”
Absolutely zero thought of longterm consequences, only thought of the present. (But to be fair, I’ve known a liberal who once said it should be illegal for the media to criticize the president back when Obama was in the White House - never once thinking that this meant the media wouldn’t be able to criticize someone like Trump as well.)
Presumably once we have reached the point where Republican vice presidents can appoint the successor to the office by fiat, you don’t need to worry about there being a Democratic vice President ever again.
Yep. You don’t have to worry about the wheel coming 'round again if you break the wheel.
Anyway, I’m not sure that it’s intellectually dishonest to “like” a stance just because it will have immediate short term benefits than it is, perhaps, a poorly considered stance. Or maybe it is actually an exceptionally well-considered, albeit somewhat depraved stance, such as the example of letting a Vice President appoint the next President by “fiat.” I mean, sure, it would be bad for one’s own aims if ever the other side were permitted to do that, but whose to say the other side ever gets a chance? Well, the Vice President, of course, who’s not on that side.
I might say the same about the filibuster: maybe busting the filibuster finally gets the Democrats to effectively manipulate the levers of power, enacting necessary legislation to improve the lives of the population, and thereby depriving the Republicans of their usual campaign technique whenever democrats hold a bare majority: “See? You elected them to do X, but they have done NOTHING! They are LYIGING LIARS who LIE!!! [never mind the part where we actively worked against their efforts to effectively legislate: that’s their problem if they can’t figure out a way to compromise with us, even though the only way to compromise with us would be to do the exact opposite of what they mean to do].”
Point being, it’s just possible that a more effective Senate, with a thin Democratic majority, might succeed in getting more Democrats elected the next year, so that Republicans never get a chance to have a majority again unless Republicans become less regressive. So why is it intellectually dishonest if, say, Jerry wants to end the filibuster for the advantage of the democrats? Maybe he really believes ending the filibuster will solidify the democrats hold on power or, failing that, it will at least encourage republicans to stop being so detestable? Poorly considered, perhaps, but not “intellectually dishonest” per se.
Amy is a hypocrite, but I don’t think Jerry necessarily is. If you are consistently in favor of democracy, you should oppose the filibuster and other mechanisms that allow minorities to obstruct the will of the majority. The fact that abolishing the filibuster would make it easier for the party which advocates popular policies to govern is a feature, not a bug. It’s hardly surprising that there is a high correlation between wanting the majority to rule and being personally in favor of the policies that the majority would enact, and there’s no inherent inconsistency there.
Republicans, on the other hand, are being hypocritical to the extent that they claim to be in favor of democracy, while refusing to reform institutions such as the Senate and the Electoral College which lead to their base being overrepresented.
I agree that Jerry has an integrity problem if he depends on the filibuster today, but wants it abolished as soon as it doesn’t serve his interests. I’ve heard a lot of people advancing this complaint, but few instances of it actually occurring. Democrats accepted the filibuster as a fact of life and settled matter, until this point in time when it seems like democracy itself may be threatened by the filibuster. In that case, you’re morally and philosophically obligated to change your stance.
I think it’s far more intellectually dishonest to hold someone to your own false standard of consistency, mischaracterizing them as having situational ethics, when you haven’t really bothered to learn what (if any) philosophical principles one is applying.
I also think it’s foolish, if not outright dishonest, to say something like “if you want the federal government to be supreme in one area then it should be supreme in all areas.” A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
Sepcifically with regard to the filibuster, I am actually of two minds. I started writing a post specifically in one direction, but realizing certain implication of what I was writing started me thinking in the opposite direction. So I’ll divide my post into two parts.
Original thoughts:
Wiith respect to the filibuster, we can argue whether or not its a good thing for Dems to do in an of itself, in terms of politics and long term stability of government, but I don’t think that worry that it would allow the Republicans to do things that they otherwise wouldn’t if they came to power should be a concern. McConnel has shown that his interest rules and traditions of the senate, extend exactly as far as they are in his favor. If the filibuster ever posed a serious threat to his agenda it would be gone the next day, regardless of what the Democrats do or don’t do.
The reason he keeps it around is that the existence of the filibuster strongly favors the conservative “agenda” over the liberal one. For a party that believes the the government that governs least governs best, gridlock is the best of all possible outcomes. Other than tax cuts that can avoid the filibuster via reconciliation, the Republicans have no other agenda, its only the Democrats who want to get things done. So its really only a one sided obstruction.
Secondary thoughts:
The above only applies to the old school McConnell style conservatives The new Trumpian Republicans in which the id of the nation is concentrated is likely to have a much more activist and harmful agenda concentrated on short term emotional tribalism rules the day consequences be damned. In particular once Roe v. Wade is taken out there is going to be a push to pass national legislation to make abortion illegal throughout the country. Politically savvy McConnell may realize that this would be a bad move politically and that he is much better served by perpetually chasing chasing the car rather than catching it. So long as the filibuster is in place he can placate his base by going through the motions of voting on abortion bans knowing that the Democrats will block it and shifting the blame to them when they do. If however he doesn’t have the cover of the filibuster his constituency is going to demand action and he will lack the political cover to stop them. So if they take the Senate and house in 2022 we can say goodbye to abortion rights nation wide, followed by whatever other crazy thing that the Trumpists want. Mandatory gun ownership, criminalizing unions, eliminating public education, etc.
Ugh, no. The filibuster itself aside, pure majoritarian rule can lead to all sorts of ugly disasters. Unfortunately there are many times the majority have their heads wedged firmly up their own asses and will happily oppress some element of the minority if given the means. Japanese internment was sadly more popular than not in 1942.
Yep. Majority rule can lead to bad things. Democracy is easy to do wrong and tough to do right, requiring a strong democratic tradition and a respect for the rights of all. However, can you point to an instance in which the filibuster has actually saved us from the tyranny of the majority? I mean, was there a filibuster against the internment of Japanese-Americans?
As it stands, the only examples that come to mind involve the clear will of the majority seeking to improve the overall welfare of the nation and/or to enshrine into law greater protections for minorities, and then a minority of Senators succeeding in stalling or outright killing such initiatives. But talk about ending the filibuster and suddenly it’s God save us from the tyranny of the majority!
I have no idea offhand and I’m not going to research it . Which is why I said “the filibuster itself aside” - I was responding entirely to the notion that the minority should never be allowed to obstruct the majority in a democracy. I’m somewhat neutral on the filibuster itself, which I think has it uses but also has been abused.
My main issue with most of these contentious political “let’s cut the Gordian knot!” solutions is always the analysis-paralysis I get over unintended consequences. They always lurk, just itching to drag you down into a metaphorical swamp and lock you into a cultural death roll .
That was the intended point, yes. I’m open to opposing-the-filibuster arguments, I just don’t like it when people speak as if they’re philosophically opposed to it on principle when what they mean is “Look where it gets me right now if I can get everyone on board with that”.
If the idea is that Amy is deciding whether or not something is appropriately subject to federal regulation based on her personal views of the subject, then I generally agree.
But the fact that she feels differently about two things doesn’t tell us anything. No one believes that the federal government has no role under the federal system and very few people that states should have no authority. Serious people will disagree over where those lines are.
The same is true for the suggestion in the thread that someone who is “pro democracy” must oppose all un- or anti-democratic institutions (the Senate, the Electoral College, the courts, the Bill of Rights, etc.) or else they are not being consistent. But, you could write volumes on the importance of un-democratic institutions in maintaining a democratic society.
I won’t let myself be hanged by a noose fashioned of ideological consistency.
There are some circumstances where you must choose between a terrible real-world result, or an accusation of hypocrisy. If the only fallout of the latter is that accusation, then it’s monstrous to choose the former.
Assume, arguendo, that climate change presents an existential crisis, and that three years ago the filibuster prevented exacerbating the crisis (by allowing Democrats to filibuster relaxing pollution laws), and that now the filibuster stands in the way of addressing the crisis (by allowing Republicans to filibuster new air pollution laws). An ideologically consistent position either opposes or supports the filibuster in both 2017 and 2021. But a practical position might support it in 2017 and oppose it in 2021.
There’s a case–and a very strong one–that switching support for the filibuster based on its outcomes is practically inadvisable. But it’s not necessarily dishonest to do so.
Hey, Left_Hand! Well, it depends on how you’re couching your argument. If you say your priority is attending to climate change by whatever means necessary, then it isn’t intellectually dishonest to support the filibuster when it helps your cause and oppose it when it’s getting in the way. But if you say that your reason for supporting or opposing the filibuster is that it’s just wrong, totally undemocratic to have it around, or that it’s an important democratic tradition that keeps the majority from running roughshod over the minority, when actually you’re just looking at the pragmatics of what it lets you do or keeping the opposition from doing, then you’re being intellectually dishonest. See the difference?
Me, I’m a fervent abortion rights supporter. I’ve been glad that the Roe decision has been in place these last decades. I have tried to avoid praising the decision per se or the mechanism by which abortion became and remained legal in America, though, because there were aspects of it that, if the subject matter had been different, could be deployed to implement some bad policies, and the abortion-specific rationale wasn’t quite the one I’d have ideally chosen either. Doesn’t mean I’d want to lend my voice to a public criticism of it, that could have bad pragmatic consequences, but if I’m in serious conversation or debate with conservative thinking people I want to be careful about not anchoring my position on principles that aren’t really my principles, if you see what I mean.
The difficulty is that what goes around comes around. Your pragmatic decision now becomes your downfall later because you have given away the high ground.
Of course I can see the pragmatism in what you say, but you are doing a dance that is hard to keep up.
Certainly it’s easy to point to examples of obvious blatant hypocrisy which should be criticized, but I think in general it’s human nature to assume that the process which will produce our desired outcomes must be the best process. People don’t sit in ivory towers working out their political philosophy and only then look at the real world and decide how they feel about the issues of the day. So the contradiction would have to be pretty blatant for me to say it rises to the level of “intellectual dishonesty”.
And I agree with LHOD that in times of crisis, philosophy has to take a back seat to pragmatic considerations. For example, right now Republicans are gerrymandering Congressional districts in States they control. I am opposed to partisan gerrymandering in principle. But I certainly want my Democrat-controlled State to gerrymander as aggressively as possible, because when the stakes get as high as “survival of democracy”, winning is more important than philosophical consistency.
Absolutely–that’s why I said “it’s not necessarily dishonest”. If, as you suggest, someone claims to support the filibuster (for instance) for reasons other than their actual reasons, that’s pretty much dishonest by definition. I try to avoid doing that, as my focus is more on the pragmatic than on the ideological, but I can’t guarantee I don’t ever fall into that trap.
I agree that this is a real difficulty. What I’ve observed over the last three decades is that what doesn’t go around comes around, too. The Republican party doesn’t give a shit about the high ground, except inasmuch as they like to leave Democrats claiming the moral victory while they claim the pragmatic ones. The true danger isn’t ceding the high ground, it’s holding the high ground while ceding the battlefield.
. Which is why I said 
.