Paul Krugman, in his latest post on health care reform, argues that our primary goal in the next Congress should be to reform the filibuster rules in the Senate. It's required reading. The crucial point is that a simple majority vote when the Senate organizes should be sufficient to overturn the Senate's filibuster rule, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.
We have talked ourselves into accepting a dysfunctional Senate because we have a media that is a mile wide and a micron deep in its reporting on politics. We report the battles endlessly but never the broader context that produces the battle, in this case rules in the Congress and mainly the Senate that gives sectionalism and conservative democracy a stronghold even after they are decisively defeated in a presidential election---as they were in 2008.
Should we come to that juncture after the 2010 elections, and should the Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate, the question will be this: will a majority of Senate Democrats give up a rule that enables a minority to rule, especially when most Senate Democrats might conceive of a time when they will want to quietly support a major business interest, or to vote conservatively to avoid a challenge during a primary or a general election?
The filibuster rule and other arcane Senate rules allows many a Senator who is otherwise a Democrat to engage in anti-democratic shenanigans.
In the meantime could the president please, please stop holding Olympia Snowe's hand every couple of weeks and finally give credit to progressives for standing up for Americans and voting for a seriously dysfunctional piece of legislation? This is precisely what Senator Snowe, Republican of Maine, has refused to do.
Sir,
Are you so ignorant that you believe that the 51-vote Senate will always pass laws favorable to you ? Have you considered the possibility of a 51-vote Republican majority which can vote to put your rear in jail ?
Posted by: Paddy Clarke | January 25, 2010 at 10:23 AM