Greg Dworkin had a link up to Ezra’s Klein’s piece about how Moscow Mitch has changed the Senate and also probably changed how Democrats view the U.S. Senate. It’s some excellent analysis by Klein, and I recommend everyone read it. Klein does a dive into the U.S. Senate’s unspoken rules that most journalists simply do not do or refuse to do. He provides several reasons why the U.S. Senate functioned the way it did in the past, which really was all based upon norms. And U.S. Senators really do not want to explain to the rest of us Joe Blows why they act they way they do, which is a HUGE disservice to American voters.
What do I mean? A little thing like this:
The Senate has long had a filibuster, and it was technically more powerful in the past than today. Until 1917, there was no procedure by which any number of senators could vote to end a filibuster. From 1917 to 1975, it took a two-thirds supermajority to close a filibuster. Even so, filibusters were rare in this period — with the gruesome exception of the Southern bloc of Dixiecrats who used them to block civil rights legislation. But as the Dixiecrats proved, it was relatively easy for a united group of senators to block any and all legislation, if they so chose. The rules gave them that power, and the minority party could’ve used it with abandon. The norms, and the diffuse nature of the parties themselves, kept them from routinely using it.
What’s changed the US Senate isn’t changes to the rules, and it’s not just McConnell. It’s been the sorting of the parties into ideologically and demographically distinct coalitions. And it’s this trend that McConnell has, depending on how you look at it, harnessed for his ends or embraced because of his weaknesses. Either way, he has wrenched the Senate away from its traditional role as an institution unto itself, governed by norms of restraint and civility, and midwifed its transformation into another forum for party combat. He has created a parliamentary environment in an institution where the rules were designed for comity and cooperation. The result has been gridlock, fury, and confusion.
Emboldened is mine.
This goes along with Klein’s other point that the rules of how the U.S. Senate governed itself are literally shrouded in secrecy. Most Americans have no idea what a filibuster is and how it operates. And how often do you hear ANY U.S. Senator get on TV and tell the rest of us any other so called rules of the Senate? When pressed to discuss some other Senator’s despicable actions or hypocrisy, anyone notice how Senators deflect and never answer the question? You have to infer that there is an unwritten rule that Senators will not directly criticize each other, unless under some extreme conditions.
The U.S. House doesn’t act this way. While you cannot call someone an SOB on the House floor, I have seen plenty of Congressman give each other hell during TV interviews. And in fact, we have seen plenty of good shouting matches in the House during some committee meetings.
But you never see anything like that out of U.S. Senators.
This is part and parcel of that idea of “comity” in the U.S. Senate. Supposedly, it is to grease the wheels of getting things done. You can’t work with someone you are calling a prick on TV.
Too bad the U.S. Senate gets NOTHING done. All that comity from Democrats isn’t returned by their “friends across the aisle.” Every time I hear that BS I keep thinking about that adage, “If you want a friend in Washington, get yourself a dog.”
But as Klein points out, there is another reason for why anti-democratic legislative mechanisms like the filibuster exist in the U.S. Senate: it lets senators off the hook for not passing bills. The more cynical senators use the filibuster to protect themselves from the political consequences of voting for a bill that is opposed by special interests. A senator can lie to their constituents about supporting a certain bill knowing full well that it will never reach the floor of the Senate because of a successful filibuster.
Ain’t democracy in the U.S. Senate grand?
There is one other factor that explains the lack of action and passion for political fighting in the U.S. Senate. Most of the senators are wealthy people or see the U.S. Senate as a stepping stone for future wealth. Boat rocking is not appreciated by corporations and lobbying firms that hire retired senators. And if you are already a wealthy senator, there is no big rush to address problems such as say unemployment.
It’s all one big selective social club in the U.S. Senate.
And it is why Moscow Mitch was able to strip what few gears the Senate has. Moscow Mitch was not afraid to piss off Democrats in the Senate. Democrats clung to the norms and rules of the Senate while McConnell torched them one by one. Those Senate norms are just norms. Breaking them isn’t going to land McConnell in jail.
And like Trump, Moscow Mitch has no shame. Mitch lies with impunity. In fact, he destroys what few norms or rules their are in the Senate then accuses Democrats of doing the same. And for years, Democrats have been taking this abuse from Moscow Mitch.
Hopefully, Democrats in the Senate have finally realized that the Senate is not only broken. It was burned to the ground, bulldozed, and the empty lot sold to the highest bidder by Moscow Mitch. Democracy in the U.S. Senate needs to be rebuilt.