By David Harsanyi
Friday, December 09, 2016
I won’t lie. After reading the CNN piece titled “Senate
Dems, Powerless to Stop Trump Nominees, Regret ‘Nuclear Option’ Power Play,” I
experienced some deeply satisfying schadenfreude. Feel free to keep President
Barack Obama, Senator Harry Reid and those who implored Senate Democrats to
blow up the filibuster a few years ago in your thoughts as President-elect
Donald Trump names his Cabinet and judges. But be sure to remember how
recklessness begets recklessness in Washington, D.C.
“I do regret that,” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, a
Democrat who voted to weaken the filibuster three years ago, tells CNN. “I
frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would
have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our
system to slow down nominees.”
It always was a
terrific speed bump, senator. One of the reasons we value tradition, norms, and
process is that we don’t know what the future holds. But, you’ll note, these
Democrats don’t regret their vote for majoritarianism or power grabs. They
regret that Trump (and it would be the same for Mitt Romney or any moderate
Republican, for that matter) will now be able to operate under the rules they
set for themselves.
It’s worth remembering that Democrats didn’t use a
parliamentary procedure to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees
and executive-office appointments can move to confirmation votes with a simple
majority for some grand ideological purpose. They did it for short-term
political gains that no one will remember. Does any Democrat believe helping
Obama name some left-wing populists to run the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (which didn’t even exist until 2011) and the National Labor Relations Board
was worth it?
Senator Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) another leading proponent
of destroying checks and balances, charged at the time that without the nuclear
option Republicans were “going to disable” the executive branch. “It’s come
into a realm where it’s just unacceptable because if the executive branch can’t
function, then the nation can’t respond to the big challenges it faces,” he
explained. He seemed to be under the impression that presidents make laws — or
maybe just liberal presidents.
The liberal punditry hammered the filibuster back then
the same way it’s hammering the Electoral College today. In 2010, Paul Krugman
wrote a column in the New York Times
claiming that the filibuster would destroy America.
I do not exaggerate. He wrote: “We’ve always known that
America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most
of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and
tragic. What we’re getting instead is less a tragedy than a deadly farce.”
The idea that Democrats hadn’t been able to function was
a myth. Obama, supposedly powerless to face America’s “big challenges,” had
already passed a nearly trillion-dollar stimulus, a restructuring of the entire
health-care system and a tangled overhaul of financial regulation. The
president also appointed two wholly liberal Supreme Court justices with no
meaningful opposition.
The American people then said, “That’s enough.” For
Merkley, Krugman, Coons, Reid, and others, that wouldn’t do.
When Reid’s party was in the minority, he warned that
weakening the Senate filibuster would “destroy the very checks and balances our
Founding Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of
government.” He was right. With his party’s attainment of a Senate majority,
Reid’s reverence for the Founding Fathers rapidly faded, so much so that he
used the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster from some Senate debates.
As a practical matter, these changes will likely never be
reversed. What kind of majority is going to restore the filibuster to its
opponents? What kind of majority wouldn’t use the same process to roll back the
previous Senate’s abuses? (And the latter makes complete sense.) After all, the
Chris Coons of the world will never be courageous enough to stand for process
and stability over partisanship gain. In a Republican environment where winning
itself is the ideology, it becomes even less likely.
Although each party detests the filibuster when it is in
power, progressives hold an enduring contempt for it because they hold an
enduring contempt for federalism in general. Even today, some liberals are
trying to figure out ways to work Senate procedure to put Chief Judge Merrick
Garland on the Supreme Court. As if Republicans wouldn’t then simply turn around
and load the court themselves. This kind of arms race sets dangerous
precedents. It’d be nice if the nation realized it.
No comments:
Post a Comment