A very well reasoned editorial from the Nation argues that the filibuster should be abolished.
This is not what democracy looks like. When Americans vote, by overwhelming majorities, to place control of the executive and legislative branches in the hands of a party that has promised fundamental change, they are supposed to get that change. They are not supposed to watch as a handful of self-interested and special-interested senators prevent progress by exploiting the arcane rules of the less representative of our two legislative chambers--rules requiring that not a majority but a supermajority be attained in order even to discuss necessary reforms, and that a similar supermajority be in place to thwart a filibuster.I wasn't a big fan of the Republican proposal to do away with the filibuster a few years back, and I'm still a bit nervous about this one. Yes, the GOP is thwarting democracy by blocking something the overwhelming majority of the public wants. But the Democrats in Congress, and our president in the White House, are complicit. They refuse to lay down the law with errant Democrats, and they refuse to truly fight back against the Republicans. So while I worry that the filibuster is being abused, I remember what happened the last time someone promised me that one simple change in the Senate would solve all of our problems.
Yet this is where America, a nation often inclined to tell other nations how to practice democracy, finds itself as the debate about healthcare reform reaches its critical stage. We have a president who is prepared to sign legislation to expand access to healthcare while establishing at least some controls against profiteering by insurers. We have a House of Representatives in which a majority has voted for imperfect but real reform. We have a Senate in which a majority is ready to vote for what could be even better reform. Unfortunately, that majority is sidelined as a few wavering senators game the system.
Unless Harry Reid and his colleagues implement majority rule--by abolishing rules that allow two-fifths of the chamber's members (as few as forty-one senators) to prevent passage of that legislation--the character and quality of any "reform" will be dictated by a tiny minority from some of the nation's least populous states.
It was the folks who told me that all we needed was 60 votes, then my dreams would come true.
What do you think?
