Conservatives are big on pledges. The Big One is the Club for Growth one about raising no new taxes (even for a war). However, I propose we progressives make all Senate candidate have one of their own: if any Democratic Senatorial Candidate wants money from us, they must pledge to abolish the filibuster!
The Pledge should go something like this:
I _______ believe in majority rule. Though I may not vote for every proposal by the Democratic leadership, I promise I will not block any legislation they propose from being voted upon. I will also not place any holds on any administration appointee. I will support any effort to restore majority rule to the Senate.
First, a few points:
- I have avoided judicial appointees. I feel there is a case to be made on this issue because they are lifetime appointments. I'm open to this being a negotiating position. Also, there is a case to be made that declarations of war and use of military force could also be subjected to the potential of the filibuster. However, there is no case for blocking legislation from getting through.
- I am not for unilateral disarmament. They will not stand in the way of Democratic legislation. However, if the GOP is in power, The Pledge still allows them to filibuster Republican proposals. Hypocritical? Yes. However, that's politics. You should never restrict yourself by saying you won't use certain tools in the toolbox. The stance someone could take is "While I oppose the filibuster and will vote for it's abolition, I will continue to use it so long as I have the power to use it." However, if the Democrats abolish the filibuster, it's gone. It won't come back to being just because the Republicans are in office. If they win a 51 seat majority next election, they have the right to implement their agenda.
- I know some of you are terrified of what I just wrote: Republicans implementing their agenda. There are those out there thinking all that stands between unions staying alive and women having access to abortion is the filibuster. However, keep in mind, when Bush proposed privatizing Social Security, it wasn't the filibuster that stopped it. The GOP didn't even hold one committee hearing on the subject. The threat of loosing reelection is what kept them from pursuing that agenda. Also, the filibuster didn't keep Robert Bork off the court-he lost the vote on the floor in the Senate. On that note, the filibuster didn't stop Clarance Thomas and Samuel Alito from being confirmed.
However, we had to reduce the filibuster from 67 to 60 to get civil rights and Medicare legislation through Congress. The simple fact of the matter is this: a democratically elected party must be allowed to implement their agenda. If you don't agree to that agenda, you protest, call your representatives, do everything you can to make sure they realize they will loose reelection if they go forward with said legislation. Using arcane rules to stall legislation from getting passed is harmful to Democracy. I know this means Republicans would have an easier time implementing their ideas. However, that's Democracy. If they can make a more persuasive case to the voters about their proposal and convince more people to side with them over our proposals, they must be allowed to implement them.
The Senate is already an undemocratic body. 60% of the Senate is represented by 40% of the population. The filibuster makes the Senate even more undemocratic. While you must protect the rights of the minority in a democracy, plenty of democracies have fallen because the government was deadlocked and couldn't implement any sort of policy. The best example of this was the Wiemar Republic, where the government was a coalition of socialist and free-traders, Catholics and atheists, and couldn't get anything done.
What is clear nowadays is who are elected leaders don't play as much of a role as me attribute to them. If we had President Howard Zinn right now, I don't know if we'd be anywhere different than we already are. Any progressive reform (health care, environmental, labor) must include structural reforms to get passed.
That is why I'm proposing this: any Democrat running for the Senate must agree that the filibuster is undemocratic when it comes to legislation and must be abolished. If they agree, they receive money from progressive groups and progressive donors. If not, we cut off the the tap and they have to get cash on their own. I realize structural changes are not the most sexy, but it is becoming very obvious: to change America, we must change the Senate first.