The Brown defeat of Coakley in yesterday's Massachusetts Senate race is being spun as a huge loss for Democrats. But why? Democrats still have a hefty 59-41 seat majority. The only reason this looks like a LOSS is because the Senate has become so dysfunctional, so lazy, so broken as an institution, that the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to bring all meaningful business to a halt.
The only reason a 60-seat majority is needed in the Senate is because of the fillibuster. 59 seats is still a large Democratic majority. Even with the seating of Brown, a 59-41 majority still hugely favors the Democrats. If the Democrats cared enough to play power politics, they could dismantle the filibuster and that would be that. Democrats could pass any bill they want.
What we have at work in today's Senate is nothing but Filibuster Abuse. In 1964, when the Democratic Congress passed the historic Civil Rights Act, Senators who opposed a bill literally had to stand and hold the floor to prevent passage of the bill. In 1964, Southern Senators did exactly that: they held the floor for 57 days in order to try and prevent passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Even though 67 votes were required back then to end a filibuster, the Democrats were eventually able to pass the Civil Rights bill 73-27. Even Senators who opposed the bill grew tired of the filibuster tying up the floor and voted for cloture, clearing the way for passage of this historic legislation.
Today, the Senate has become the laziest body of legislators in the world. All one side has to say is "I'll filibuster" and the other side says "oh no, looks like we're done for." Then they give up. Or, Senators go through tremendous public, prcedural machinations to try and line up 60 votes.
Because of this institutional laziness - which requires a 20 vote majority to pass anything - Republicans now routinely threaten a filibuster on EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRATIC BILL. This locks up the Senate, gives overwhelming control to the Minority Party, and leads to the kind of travesties we saw on the Health Care Bill, such as groveling to Joe Lieberman, paying off Mary Landrieu, bribing Ben Nelson, and being bitch-slapped by Olympia Snowe, all in an attempt to get enough votes to overcome a THREATENED filibuster.
If Senators actually had to stand and hold the floor to conduct a filibuster, this kind of Filibuster Abuse would not nearly be so prevelant. If all filibuster threats actually had to be carried out, on the floor, like American Senators have done for most of our history, actual filibusters would be much less frequent, much more difficult to do, and ultimately much more meaningful, than the ease and convenience of making a simple procedural threat.
My point is, the current 59-41 Democratic majority in the Senate today - even after the loss to Brown in Massachusetts - is still a very substantial one. And, this substantial majority has been legitimately voted into office by the American people. In a sane universe, this would be MORE than enough of a majority to get the government moving, pass legislation, and conduct the people's business. The only thing standing in the way of this smooth functioning in the Senate - and also the prime reason for the ridiculous media circus we see last night in MA - is Filibuster Abuse.
What needs to happen in the Senate is to nullify the THREAT of a filibuster by making the bar higher. That is, change the Senate rules to require that a filibuster actually BE held, not just threatened. In this context, having a 20 vote majority no longer matters as much. It's the Senators' own laziness - and their own eagerness to spend time raising money, rather than standing on the floor talking - that will guarantee this.
If the Minority Party wants to filibuster, fine. That's their right in a Democratic society. But get rid of this whimpy, ridiculous operational procedure that allows the simple threat of a filibuster to derail any and all meaningful legislation.
In 1964, if all it took was a THREATENED filibuster to derail the Civil Rights Act, blacks in the South would NEVER have achieved the meaningful and historic legislation they deserved. Instead, the Civil Rights effort would simply have folded up and died. Think about it.......
Even after last night's loss in Massachusetts, a 19 Senator Democratic majority would still mean a tremendous Democratic edge, if the Senate was run the way it was in 1964. But, rank institutional laziness has turned a massive 19 seat Democratic majority into a hamstrung, whimpering, failure-driven disadvantage.
It'a a pathetic commentary on how lazy and useless the Senate as an institutional body has become, when a 19 Senator ADVANTAGE means not being able to get ANYTHING meaningful done.
The root cause of this deplorable, meaningless gridlock is Filibuster Abuse. Change this, and the loss of one Senate seat in a smallish Eastern state would be hardly be a tear in anyone's eye, except perhaps the losing candidate herself.
Only in a perverted and broken system - like the Senate today - could a 19 seat advantage be treated as a humongous, humiliating, and incapacitating LOSS.
Yet everyone - everyone - all across the pundit and TV spectrum, and across both parties, is completley bought into this scenario. "41 Seats for Republicans means disaster for Democrats!'
Bullshit. DEMOCRATS STILL HAVE A 19 SEAT ADVANTAGE.
The Democrats in the Senate need to grow up, act like politicians, use the power they've been given, and make a simple change in the Senate rules. All filibusters have to be carried out, in person and on the floor, rather than just threatened.
Democrats need to snap out of the Doom and Gloom scenario the pundits and professionals are pushing today and see what's right in front of their eyes: THEY STILL HAVE A 19 SEAT ADVANTAGE IN THE SENATE. So do something with it! Shore up your position, exersize some muscle, and stop acting like panty-waist ninnies.
The biggest mistake being made by Democrats is buying into the narrative that a 19 seat Senate advantage is really nothing but a crippling loss. Instead, Democrats need to focus on how to change the narrative to turn the tide back where it really lays, which is strongly in the Democrats' favor.
Change the rules, change the game. If the shoe was on the other foot, the GOP would not waste a minute looking for a way to do just that....