Ditch the filibuster
I’m going to say something heretical. It goes against what we were taught in grade school, and if I were running for elected office it’d be about as bad as refusing to wear an American Flag lapel pin.
Here it is: I don’t think our system of government, with its Constitution, its federation of States, its checks and balances, its three branches of government, etc., is a very good system. I’ll pause now, in case anyone wants hyperventilate into a bag, say the Pledge of Allegiance, then rock back and forth while listening to “I’m proud to be an American”. All better? Good. Please put down the gun.
Not long ago, I overheard a conservative friend of mine say, “Thank God for checks and balances. Our system works.” He said this shortly after Senator Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican, ending the “filibuster-proof” majority enjoyed by Senate Democrats and causing everyone to conclude that the health care overhaul bill was officially dead. My friend’s statement included two ironies. The first was that he probably should have thanked the guy who wears black robes and carries a scythe. (Which would have been in very bad taste, but really, is that a person you want to piss off? I always send him a Christmas card.)
The second irony is that if he had wanted the bill to pass — for example, if it eliminated the income tax, or launched a military operation to bring democracy to France — he would have complained that Congress doesn’t get anything done.
The problem is that since we elect Congress, the Senate, and the President separately, it’s unlikely that either party will control all three houses at the same time. And when one party does manage to pull off that hat trick, we still have the Senate filibuster. Nothing can get through the legislative process without either consensus or compromise. Compromise only works when both parties want to get to the same place, and just disagree about whether to, say, drive or fly, and how much luggage to bring. Compromise doesn’t work nearly as well when one party wants to drive, and the other party wants to take the car to the junk yard because government shouldn’t be in the business of going places or owning vehicles. The “compromise” is that you end up trying to make the trip in a car with no doors and three wheels. And to get the two guys from the other party even to agree to that, you had to let them set up an oil rig in your garden.
Still with me after that tortured analogy?
My point is that we often complain about our government’s inability to get things done, and that when it actually does pass legislation, it is usually incomprehensible, complex, and chock full of “pork” and “earmarks”. Not to mention ineffective. But these are all side effects of the way our system was set up.
It worked fine in the beginning.* The checks and balances and other limitations in the Constitution were supposed to keep the federal government from becoming too powerful. Its job was to manage interstate commerce, fight the occasional war with Britain, and screw the Indians. The states were supposed to do everything else.
It didn’t quite work out that way. Those checks and balances didn’t keep us from getting the biggest and baddest federal government that trillions of borrowed dollars can buy. So as long as we’re spending all this money, it would be nice if we could ditch some of those checks and balances and actually get what we’re paying for.
Come on. At least ditch the Senate filibuster. That’s not even in the Constitution.
* By “beginning”, I mean 1788, not when God formed man from the dust of the earth and/or monkeys.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:48 am
I second your motion
March 13th, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Brilliant man. Had to laugh at the tortured analogy. I like the oil rig in my garden. Its a nice reminder that Exxon has not just paid for my soul, but turned it in for carbon credits.