The window to change Senate rules opens just one week from now, on January 5th. With that date rapidly approaching, at Daily Kos we are stepping up our efforts to support rules reform with a variety of actions over the next week. You can join those efforts now by signing our petition to make the filibuster a real filibuster.
Based on comments I have seen on blogs and social networking sites, there is still some trepidation among progressives about the campaign to reform Senate rules. Here are three of the biggest worries that I have seen, all of which can be put to rest:
#1: It will still take 60 votes to pass legislation or confirm nominations
Of all Senate rules, the 60-vote threshold to end debate has drawn the most attention over the last few years. As such, many casual observers of the current rules reform fight have conflated this campaign with an attempt to put an end to the 60-vote threshold and go to a simple-majority Senate. This prospect worries quite a few people, especially now that Republicans have increased their number in Congress.
However, this campaign, even if successful, will not end the 60-vote Senate. Of the rules changes being discussed, none of them will prevent 41 Senators from blocking any nomination or legislation. Whether or not you want to see the 60-vote threshold lowered, the 60-vote threshold will not be lowered by this campaign. Period.
Among the changes actually being discussed, new rules may shift the burden of a filibuster away from those seeking to break a filibuster, and toward those wishing to continue one. That is, 41 votes will be required to continue a filibuster, rather than the current 60 to break one.
Also, new rules will also require Senators to show up and engage in a televised talk-a-thon if they wish to filibuster. This will enact a public price for obstruction. Right now, Senators don’t even have to show up to filibuster--it’s painless.
Together, these two changes would not end the filibuster, but they would make it a real filibuster. If that’s something you support, sign our petition to make the filibuster a real filibuster.
#2: Republicans will change Senate rules no matter what we do
I’ve also seen some progressives worried that if Democrats change Senate rules with only a simple majority vote (“The Constitutional Option”), then Republicans will retaliate with far more severe rules changes the next time they control the Senate and the White House. There are two reasons why this is not a valid concern.
First, Republicans are going to change Senate rules the next time they are in charge no matter what Democrats do now. Lest we forget, n 2005 Republicans attempted to entirely abolish filibusters on judicial nominations. The GOP acted first on this one, not Democrats. And, as part of their general tendency to more aggressively apply unusual parliamentary procedure to further their goals, Republicans will act to change the rules again, no matter what we do now.
Also, Democrats have come so close to changing the rules now--all Democrats have signed a letter in support, and Harry Reid promised rules reform--that even if Republicans were to act purely out of retaliation, what we have done is already a casus belli for spiteful retaliation. Since there is no preventing retaliation based on what we have already done, we might as well just get the reforms we want.
#3: Senate obstruction helps conservatives more than progressives
A third common fear of rules reform among progressives is that making it more difficult to filibuster would help conservatives over the next two years more than progressives. This line of thinking comes mainly from the left-wing of the party, some of whom believe that the new Republican-controlled House, in combination with a much more conservative Senate and a President willing to cut deals, means progressives must operate as though we were in the opposition.
Again, no. The only way making it more difficult to filibuster would reduce the ability of Senate progressives to block legislation is if there was actually a bloc of 41 progressive Senators willing to filibuster non-progressive legislation. There is no such bloc now, and there won’t be in 2011-2012 either.
In the short-term, no one will ever get 41 Senate Democrats to oppose any nomination or piece of legislation that is supported by both President Obama and a majority of the incoming House and Senate. Even during the inevitable times when President Obama will face significant opposition from Congressional Democrats over deals he cuts with the Republican leadership, 41 of the current 53 Senate Democrats will never, ever rise up in opposition to those deals. All of 12 returning Senate Democrats opposed the tax cut deal, for example. Senate Democrats are simply not a rambunctious enough bunch to find 41 of their number to oppose a Democratic President on anything.
Even in some alternate reality where Senate Democrats were that rebellious, having to take to the floor or the Senate to maintain their opposition doesn’t seem like a real deterrence to such a group. It didn’t deter Bernie Sanders from talking for eight hours on the Senate floor in opposition to the tax cut deal, for example.
***
There is nothing for progressives to fear from Senate rules reform. Additionally, as I will argue tomorrow, there is quite a lot to be gained.
In the meantime, sign up to make the filibuster a real filibuster. We are joining with Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley on that effort, and they will use your show of support to make the case for the real filibuster to their colleagues.
