The Republicans really appreciate the political significance of the Filibuster Rule; and they are constantly laughing to themselves about it (and many of them laugh all the way to the bank and back). However, the hoodwinked Democratic leadership has not figured it out yet; or if they have, they are content to use it as a legislative fiction in which to hide behind, when their personal interests and their personal desires are directly at stake. Remember, almost every current U.S Senator is a millionaire or multi-millionaire. Therefore, when we currently refer to "Government of the people, by the people and for the people," we are potentially talking about government exclusively by rich people for rich people, aren't we?
Indeed, it's very sad, because of the filibuster, 15% of America's total population from the small states (mostly strong Republican states) can and do actually control what happens to the other 85% of Americans. That's right, if one adds up the populations of the twenty-one(21) least popoulated states, that number represents less than fifteen (15%) percent of the total U.S. population. Furthermore, if a party controls the Senators in those twenty-one states (two from each state), that party functionally controls the entire political agenda within the Senate; that is, if the other side of the aisle continues to abide by the undemocratic Filibuster Rule.
Friends, in a political and demographic world where 15% of the population effectively controls the other 85%, that constitutes " complete suppression of the majority will by the nearly insignificant minority."
By the way, if you toss in a Republican or a DINO (like Dodd) here and there, you easily get the necessary forty-one vote, cloture-proof Congress; that is, if we add in the two Senators from the states in the South, the Midwest, and the Rocky Mountain states, all strong Republican or DINO bastions of power. When are wise people finally going to figure this out? Do they really want to? Hey, just check out who have been the real movers and final deciders of the HCR and the financial fix bills in the Senate - and exactly which states these particular Senators hail from. Gosh, is it any wonder why we end up with such weak legislation?
Remember, too, Harry Reid represents one of those small states. So does Baucus, Conrad, Nelson, Lincoln, Pryor, Bennet, Udall, etc.. You get the picture. (By the way, if you see members of this group either sponsoring or leading the passage of an important bill, you should realize that the "political fix" is already in.)
Furthermore, the Filibuster Rule is probably the most undemocratic political maneuver that has ever existed in the Congress, or in all of America for that matter. Undoubtedly, it gives unequal power and voice to people from small states.
You know, when the framers of the Constitution agreed that each state, now matter how populated, would have two Senators with equal voice, they were protecting the minority states. Indeed, that was the exact reason why the provision was included within the Constitution. Even then, there was inherent unfairness in the system. However, at that particular time in our American history, the sparsely populated states far outnumbered the heavily populated states. So it was either that or no final passage of the Constitution at all.
Furthermore, even where a fifty-one majority rule vote will pass a particular bill, the small states still maintain a great advantage over the larger populated states. That is because if you combine the total populations of the twenty-six (26) least populated states right now, that number represents less than thirty (30%) percent of America's total current population of approximately 310,000,000 people. Therefore, even under a fifty-one (51) vote rule in the current Senate, the least populated states have more than twice a political power advantage over the citizens of larger populated states in terms of actually getting favorable congressional legislation passed. How undemocratic is that? Isn't it like the antequated Electoral College - the one that gave Bush II the election (really, in the end it was SCOTUS which determined that particular poilitical coup), despite the fact that Gore had garnered substantially more votes nationwide?
Thus, my friends, even if we finally rid the the Senate of the non-sensical legislative fiction called the filibuster, the citizens of the highly populated states still remain at a distinct political disadvantage. Then, when we continue to legitimize the filibuster scam, we effectively double the power and influence of the small states. Of course, that untoward situation is far from an equally representative federal government.
Friends, in the final analysis, it's really all about maintainly the status quo. Easily, the most important factor in maintaining the current status quo in America has to be the myopic Democratic adherence to the filibuster rule. Therefore, if you like the status quo in America, you should like the filibuster; but if you do not, it should be anathema to you.
Consider this: It's the oil hub states of the south and the shale oil midwestern and Rocky Mountain states that effectively control the entire political agenda here in America. They in fact constitute the largest proportion of the sparsely populated states in America. Make no mistake about that. Thus, changing the current status quo and establishing a real green energy economy here in America is just a pipe dream - so long as the undemocratic legislative fiction called the filibuster remains politically operative.
Indeed, the filibuster has served to maintain the status quo of countless legislatively enacted Republican initiatives over the last thirty years; and these right wing initiatives are very difficult to remove - if not entirely impossible to remove - with the current filibuster impediment in place.
The filibuster has also been a tremendously successful political device which the Republicans have used to great success to frustrate and divide the Democratic Party, between centrists, liberals and progressives, who are either very happy or strongly disappointed with the Obama Administration. Of course, the centrists claim that President Obama has done particularly well in just getting passed what he has in fact gotten passed. On the other hand, the liberals and progressives claim that the President has only given us weak and half-measured legislation, and that has been a direct result of a failure of leadership.
Imagine, in a parallel universe where the Filibuster Rule was non-existent, just how much President Obama could have gotten done by now and really transformed America back to a "government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Of course, there are those who will undoubtedly say that the Filibuster Rule is needed in order to protect the Democratic Party during times when it is in the minority. To them, I would respectfully say that has never stopped the Republicans from getting huge, ground-changing, bills through Congress, even when they have had just a simple majority. For example, the bill that gave huge tax cuts to the filthy rich (and continues to do so today) could only be passed when Vice President Cheney was called into the Senate to vote in order to break the 50/50 Senate tie.
Importantly, as well, most ordinary Americans simply can't wait another thirty years for significant political, social and economic change to occur within America, and that's what changing the currently entrenched status quo in real terms will likely require. Indeed, right now, far too many good Americans are already on social and financial life lines.
You know, between the time when Presidential Obama was elected and the time he was finally sworn in, it would have certainly behooved him (and his advisers) to have gotten together with Harry Reid and other leading Senatorial Democrats and to have summarily done away with the Filibuster Rule once and for all. Again imagine, the powerfully good things that could have been accomplished for the wider America by now. Also, imagine where the economic recovery and Democratic poll numbers might be right now.
Alas, the "road not taken...."
Surely, if the status quo should be considered the natural enemy of all Democratic and democratic thinking people, then so should the filibuster. Additionally, in my opinion, the filibuster will to a large extent determine President Obama's final place in history.
Finally, there are several ways to defeat the perverse and antequated Filibuster Rule, either temporarily or forever. However, that should and could be the subject of another Diary