I was stunned today while watching Crossfire for coverage of the filibuster debate to see Bob Novak flash a graphic of an LA Times editorial
endorsing the Nuclear Option. I pulled out my copy of today's paper and sure enough, the Times has an editorial entitled
"Nuke It, Already."
We usually like it when centrist senators like John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) try to galvanize the sensible center on behalf of some compromise, but we sincerely hope they fail in their attempt to preserve the Senate's filibuster. Count this page on the side of conservative social activists who are pushing Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to "nuke" the filibuster.
Believe it or not, it goes downhill from there. More on the flip.
It's difficult to pick what's most offensive about the editorial. Is it the laid-back yet arrogant stop-kicking-up-a-fuss-you-liberals-we-know-what's-good-for-America-and-you-don't tone?
We don't share these activists' enthusiasm for the White House judicial nominees triggering the current showdown. But we do believe that nominees are entitled to a vote on the floor of the Senate.... The filibuster is an inherently reactionary instrument most famously used to block civil rights legislation for a generation. Democratic senators themselves decried the filibuster not long ago when they were in the majority and President Clinton's judicial nominees were being blocked.
Hmmm, they sure like parroting those GOP talking points, don't they? Let's see if we can cut through the uh, ahem, fog, and clarify their points.
- We think Bush's picks stink, but advise & consent is just another of those quaint, reactionary ideas, so let's give the boss man what he wants and get on with things.
- People who want to use the filibuster = those who oppose civil rights = bad guys.
- Democrats didn't like the filibuster when Republicans blocked Clinton's judges, so why are they complaining now? They had their chance to pull the nuclear trigger, and they didn't do it. Now they should get out of the way so a party with bigger cojones can do the job.
Or is the most awful thing about this editorial that it reaches such a preposterous conclusion about what a "successful' execution of the nuclear option would mean for America and its citizens?
Democrats have blocked her nomination in the past, and Frist is now threatening to force a change in rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees. That would be a great triumph for the American people. It would be an even greater triumph if the Senate were to destroy the filibuster altogether.
Yeah, that would really be a great day. An out-of-control GOP controlled by right wing extremists would then need a mere 50 votes (with Cheney) to impose any element of their agenda on the oh-so-fortunate American people. What a cheering vision. But, the Times warns us, there is a caveat:
Alas, we shouldn't uncork the champagne bottles just yet. Because . . . we're fearful that the centrists may yet prevail. That would be one judicious compromise that would deny the American people a worthwhile victory.
No, in the end, what is the most awful thing about this editorial is what it doesn't say or even mention: that in the end, the nuclear option is not about stripping the Senate of the filibuster, but of the trust and collegiality of an institution where the rules mean something. If Senator Frist can have Vice President Cheney basically rule that the rules are anything he says they are, we don't have a democracy anymore, we have a GOP that has modified Louis XIV from a person to a party: "L'etat c'est moi." I am the state.
For an amazing counterpoint to the bankrupt political vision espoused in the Times editorial, please check out this editorial written by Rebecca L. Brown, Allen Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School that also appeared today. She perfectly articulates what is so wrong, superficial, and -- in the end -- dangerous about the Los Angeles Times' take on the nuclear option:
A democracy can survive with or without a filibuster. It cannot, however, long survive without respect for the rule of law at the top levels of government.
Yet we hear much about whether the filibuster is good practice and almost nothing about the subversive nature of the proposal to end it. Citizens of all parties should be banding together to resist the way in which the Senate leadership plans to bring about the change they want at the expense of the rule of law.