Creamer:
Three points:
First, fundamentally Democrats are the party of change and Republicans the Party of the status quo. The Senate rules are mainly used by entrenched defenders of the status quo to keep things the way they are. Over time, the advocates of change will benefit by making the Senate rules more "change friendly."
Second, most major progressive structural changes become very popular once they are in place. Try fundamentally changing Social Security or Medicare - even with 50 Senate votes. We stopped the privatization of Social Security by making it radioactive among the voters. Besides, if we don't change the Senate rules, we won't be able to pass many of the most critical elements in our agenda in the first place.
Third, we don't have to completely eliminate the filibuster to make the Senate more democratic (with a small d). The rule could be set, for instance, so that while it takes 60 votes to cut off debate the first time cloture is invoked, two days later it takes 57 votes, two days after that 55 votes, two days later 53 and finally 51. That would allow a minority to demand a vigorous debate. It would allow a minority to exact a legislative cost for the passage of controversial legislation. But it would not ultimately allow a minority to block the will of the majority - which is the current state of affairs.
Any number of other formulas is possible, but the bottom line is clear. If the voters want fundamental change, the majority of the House and Senate want fundamental change, and the President of the United States will sign a bill creating fundamental change, a tiny minority of Senators - people like Joe Lieberman -- should not be empowered by archaic Senate rules to stop fundamental change.
Three points:
First, fundamentally Democrats are the party of change and Republicans the Party of the status quo. The Senate rules are mainly used by entrenched defenders of the status quo to keep things the way they are. Over time, the advocates of change will benefit by making the Senate rules more "change friendly."
Second, most major progressive structural changes become very popular once they are in place. Try fundamentally changing Social Security or Medicare - even with 50 Senate votes. We stopped the privatization of Social Security by making it radioactive among the voters. Besides, if we don't change the Senate rules, we won't be able to pass many of the most critical elements in our agenda in the first place.
Third, we don't have to completely eliminate the filibuster to make the Senate more democratic (with a small d). The rule could be set, for instance, so that while it takes 60 votes to cut off debate the first time cloture is invoked, two days later it takes 57 votes, two days after that 55 votes, two days later 53 and finally 51. That would allow a minority to demand a vigorous debate. It would allow a minority to exact a legislative cost for the passage of controversial legislation. But it would not ultimately allow a minority to block the will of the majority - which is the current state of affairs.
Any number of other formulas is possible, but the bottom line is clear. If the voters want fundamental change, the majority of the House and Senate want fundamental change, and the President of the United States will sign a bill creating fundamental change, a tiny minority of Senators - people like Joe Lieberman -- should not be empowered by archaic Senate rules to stop fundamental change.
(more...)
