Why it made sense for the GOP Senate NOT to change the filibuster rule
The GOP won control of the Senate in the 2014 election. This meant that the party controlled both houses of Congress for the first time since the earlier years of the Bush administration, when they also had the presidency. But in neither case did they control the Senate with a majority large enough (over 60) to be able to stop the minority party from blocking legislation by voting against cloture. And of course in 2014 the Republican Senate also had to deal with a left-leaning Democratic president determined to thwart them.
One of the many things that hamstrung the effectiveness of the majority-GOP Senate since January of 2015, despite their gaining control in the 2014 election, was the filibuster/cloture rule. Some people who are angry at the GOP for not doing more don’t even take into account the problem of filibuster/cloture, or the veto. But others are well aware of the rule and are very angry at the GOP establishment because of their reluctance to change that rule. They could do it; they chose not to.
I also have been very frustrated by this state of affairs. But although I go back and forth on the issue, I’m not at all sure that ending the filibuster/cloture rule would have been a good move, and I certainly can see why a Republican senator might decide in good faith not to go that route. As long as the GOP didn’t have the presidency, all that ending the filibuster/cloture rule would mean would have been sending a lot of bills to Obama’s desk that he would then veto.
The argument, however, is that this would have been worth it, just to show good intent by the GOP and to show how determined Obama was to block anything the GOP did. It seems to me, however, that most voters wouldn’t have been paying all that much attention, and Obama’s supporters (and the MSM) would have spun it as GOP refusal to compromise. In addition, even those who advocate doing it anyway often seem to ignore the fact that it would have meant that if the Republicans were to lose the Senate in the next election, and to lose the presidency as well (two things that could easily happen), then the filibuster would be gone and it would have been the Republicans who had taken it away from themselves. Of course, the Democrats could do it themselves, but in this case the Republicans couldn’t even blame the Democrats for their own loss of power to block the Democrats in the Senate from doing whatever a simple majority wanted to do.
What a laugh that situation would be for the Democrats! And no doubt if that were to happen, the “trash the GOP establishment” crowd would criticize the GOP members of the Senate for it, too, without thinking it through. And all to gain what? A bunch of bills from January 2015 to January 2017 that Obama would have immediately vetoed, saying (with the support of the MSM) that Republicans were just wasting his time rather than doing something productive?
Let me reiterate that I’m not even a Republican, and have no particular interest in kneejerk defense of the Republican Party in the Senate or anywhere else. And sometimes I think they should have done away with the filibuster/cloture rule anyway. But certainly one needn’t posit horrible motives on the part of the more moderate GOP members of the Senate in order to understand why they might have acted as they did. There are very reasonable arguments for it.
Neo:
“It seems to me, however, that most voters wouldn’t have been paying all that much attention, and Obama’s supporters (and the MSM) would have spun it as GOP refusal to compromise.”
That’s what activists are for. The party can’t do everything by/for itself.
Eric:
Yes, but the activists weren’t anywhere near active enough on that. Their activism seems to have focused instead on excoriating the GOP in Congress rather than talking up the times it did something right and made Obama veto something, or the times the House repealed Obamacare and that sort of thing.
I vacillate on this too, but honestly, I think the problem is that far too often Republicans bring knives to gun fights. Once the Democrats decide it’s ok to Bork, then it’s a noble, but probably futile effort to try to regain decency through restraint. Similarly, someone like Reid would drop the filibuster rule in a heartbeat if it suited him. Trying to restore Senate convention through restraint is probably equally futile. The die have been cast. Once one side decides it’s all about power, then it’s tough to play any other game. I think we’ve seen, with Obama’s regal presidency, open borders, activist judges, attacks on the 1st amendment etc, that the Democrats have crossed that bridge some time ago.
It’s an ongoing problem for any kind of constitutionalist or conservative (in the original meaning of honoring durable institutions). How to avoid powerless irrelevance without compromising institutions of restraint?
This illustrates my biggest problem with Trumpsters: they are so angry that they are unable to think strategically and have honest debates over the best strategy. Many seem willing to give up the separation of powers just to strike back. Many are more willing to blame Republicans than to blame Dems or Obama. I simply can’t turn off my brain because I get angry.
Agree with you Neo regarding maintaining the filibuster rule. My deepest frustration is the Repub Congress having abdicated the control of the purse and de-facto legislation to the Executive branch. The Founders intentions were subverted by both parties perhaps irreversibly.
Neo-neocon wrote:
That is what I have been saying about myself for ever.
If I remember correctly, I’ve always registered to vote whenever I was qualified to do so, and I always declined to identify a party preference. Why? Because I’m no fan of the stinkin’ Democratic Party, and too many Republicans have been, in my opinion, RINOs.
However, I want to vote in this year’s Republican presidential party, and the California Republican Party rightfully does NOT allow voters who have not registered as Republicans to vote in its primary. So, I’ve re-registered to vote and I am now a registered Republican.
One dares not end the cloture rule as it otherwise is too easy for the minority to be crushed – even if the minority holds 49% of the Senate.
That event has happened to both parties — time and time, again.
“Of course, the Democrats
couldwill do it themselves,”There is NO ‘could’. It is as certain as democrats voting to raise taxes.
“but in this case the Republicans couldn’t even blame the Democrats for their own loss of power to block the Democrats in the Senate from doing whatever a simple majority wanted to do.”
Your own valid assertion neo, serves as rebuttal;
“It seems to me, however, that most voters wouldn’t have been paying all that much attention, and Obama’s supporters (and the MSM) would have spun it as GOP refusal to compromise.”
No matter what they do, the left will blame the right and, will especially do so, when it is they who are guilty of what they accuse the innocent.
By waiting to jettison the cloture/filibuster rule till they have a republican President, they open the door to democrat/MSM assertions of tyranny. That the democrats did it first will be ‘forgotten’ in MSM coverage and, the meme that the evil republicans are once again up to their underhanded, immoral, evil machinations, all in favor of greed… will be reinforced among the LIVs.
And if the republicans do not jettison the rule, then they continue to insist that it’s a knife fight, all while the democrats shoot at them.
People want action. If the cloture rule was repealed, then bills get passed. Obama then has to sign or veto.
The burden of proof then shifted from the Senate to Obama.