Breakup with Dangerous Fallout
Published in Dagens Nyheter
(Sweden) on 24 November 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
(Sweden) on 24 November 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Åsa Westerlund.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
The Democrats’ break with Senate traditions may seem necessary. Unfortunately, it also has serious consequences.
It sounds a bit distasteful when the Americans compare a change in Senate rules with a nuclear war, but the Democrats pressed a dangerous button last week.
The filibuster, talking for hours to stop a decision one does not agree with, has characterized the Senate. The first time it was used was probably 1837. In the 1950s, Storm Thurmond went on for over 24 hours to delay increased rights for black Americans.
Today, this is rare. It is often enough for senators to threaten to use the filibuster in order to block a debate or vote. Up until now, a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes has been needed to win; the Democrats have 55. From now on a simple majority will enough to approve nominations from the president for everything from department heads to judges. The Supreme Court is excluded.
This is the biggest change in the Senate for nearly 40 years. The majority has also broken established practice by ignoring the Republican minority in a crucial question of procedure. The role of the Senate as a brake on rash decisions is jeopardized.
The filibuster used to be a curiosity, but due to increasing polarization in the ‘90s, bad practice was increased. The Democrats often used the system when they were in the minority and warned loudly against changing the 60 rule. But during President Obama’s time, the Republicans have made the filibuster a principle. A number of important posts have been left vacant for months.
Things came to a head when the Republicans refused to approve candidates for the second most important court in the United States, which deals with, among other things, central federal directives. Three out of 11 posts are vacant. The Republicans do not want to fill these positions at all. They reject all suggestions, regardless of merits, all to avoid tipping the balance of liberal and conservative judges.
This sabotage was disgraceful. What the Democrats have done is, in some ways, the only way to get a working process of appointments. But this medicine will not cure the patient; it will be much the opposite.
The will to compromise is not likely to be increased. If one party can, the other can too. The Democrats are in danger of losing their majority as early as the mid-term election in 2014, and then the Republicans have the chance to remove the remaining demands for a super-majority. With a new balance in strength, the Senate could demand that Obama’s health insurance reform is sent for a post-mortem with a majority of 51-49.
Political Washington may already be paralyzed. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives pass a large volume of bills that are only a show for the galleries, as both parties have a majority in one chamber each but do not even consider discussing what the other one decides.
However, the polarization could now spread like a plague to the judiciary. A tendency to look for lawyers who shared the same opinion was already in place, although presidents have been forced to make an effort to find qualified people who are not too extreme. Now these incentives are under threat.
The Republicans should have stopped obstructing; the Democrats should not have dropped the bomb. The fact that both these wishes were hopeless illusions is a sad summary of the political situation in the United States.
It sounds a bit distasteful when the Americans compare a change in Senate rules with a nuclear war, but the Democrats pressed a dangerous button last week.
The filibuster, talking for hours to stop a decision one does not agree with, has characterized the Senate. The first time it was used was probably 1837. In the 1950s, Storm Thurmond went on for over 24 hours to delay increased rights for black Americans.
Today, this is rare. It is often enough for senators to threaten to use the filibuster in order to block a debate or vote. Up until now, a super-majority of 60 out of 100 votes has been needed to win; the Democrats have 55. From now on a simple majority will enough to approve nominations from the president for everything from department heads to judges. The Supreme Court is excluded.
This is the biggest change in the Senate for nearly 40 years. The majority has also broken established practice by ignoring the Republican minority in a crucial question of procedure. The role of the Senate as a brake on rash decisions is jeopardized.
The filibuster used to be a curiosity, but due to increasing polarization in the ‘90s, bad practice was increased. The Democrats often used the system when they were in the minority and warned loudly against changing the 60 rule. But during President Obama’s time, the Republicans have made the filibuster a principle. A number of important posts have been left vacant for months.
Things came to a head when the Republicans refused to approve candidates for the second most important court in the United States, which deals with, among other things, central federal directives. Three out of 11 posts are vacant. The Republicans do not want to fill these positions at all. They reject all suggestions, regardless of merits, all to avoid tipping the balance of liberal and conservative judges.
This sabotage was disgraceful. What the Democrats have done is, in some ways, the only way to get a working process of appointments. But this medicine will not cure the patient; it will be much the opposite.
The will to compromise is not likely to be increased. If one party can, the other can too. The Democrats are in danger of losing their majority as early as the mid-term election in 2014, and then the Republicans have the chance to remove the remaining demands for a super-majority. With a new balance in strength, the Senate could demand that Obama’s health insurance reform is sent for a post-mortem with a majority of 51-49.
Political Washington may already be paralyzed. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives pass a large volume of bills that are only a show for the galleries, as both parties have a majority in one chamber each but do not even consider discussing what the other one decides.
However, the polarization could now spread like a plague to the judiciary. A tendency to look for lawyers who shared the same opinion was already in place, although presidents have been forced to make an effort to find qualified people who are not too extreme. Now these incentives are under threat.
The Republicans should have stopped obstructing; the Democrats should not have dropped the bomb. The fact that both these wishes were hopeless illusions is a sad summary of the political situation in the United States.