By Mike Lee
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
To Nuke or Not to Nuke
Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema publicly declared
their support for the Senate’s cloture rule, which requires a supermajority of
60 votes to end floor debates and pass most legislation. Their statements
effectively ended the Senate’s latest flirtation with the so-called “nuclear
option” — the parliamentary gambit by which many Democrats want to eliminate
the 60-vote threshold with only their 50 votes.
While Manchin and Sinema’s principled, institutionalist
stand will allow the Senate to finally organize itself for the new 50-50
partisan split, they are coming in for criticism from progressive activists.
“Woke” leftists tend to see the Senate’s 60-vote cloture
threshold not as a prudent protection of minority rights, but as an
anti-democratic obstacle to progress. Indeed, last year former president Barack
Obama — a prolific filibusterer himself during his Senate career — falsely
derided the filibuster rule as a “Jim Crow relic.” With the 60-vote cloture
rule now branded as racist (however unjustly), progressive activists have grown
more emboldened and enthusiastic to nuke it.
The Left seems to see nuking the cloture rule as a pure
win for its side, with no tradeoffs or downsides. It’s a simple step, they
believe, that will lead the United States, at long last, to the broad, sunlit
uplands of Scandinavian social democracy and campus-style woke-ism.
In this belief, the pro-nuke Left is not just wrong, but
has things almost completely backwards. They should not be criticizing Manchin
and Sinema, but thanking them.
Before making my case, let me state unequivocally that I
support the legislative filibuster and the current cloture rule (as I supported
the 60-vote threshold for presidential nominees until Senate Democrats nuked
that in 2013, ultimately to the benefit of Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch,
Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett).
I believe — as I think the Framers believed — that
federal law should reflect national consensus and that a divided Senate simply
signals the absence of such consensus. Having served in the Senate in both the
majority and the minority, I understand the frustrations of inaction on
important issues. But the suggestion that Senate inaction on a given bill is a
function of outdated — let alone evil — rules is a dodge. Except in the rarest
of circumstances, Senate inaction on a given bill is simply a function of its
unpopularity.
Contrary to most commentary, it actually is not hard to
pass any and all legislation in the Senate. Rather, it’s hard to pass one-sided
or ideologically aggressive legislation. And so, unlike in the majoritarian
House of Representatives, where members of the speaker’s party can generally
pass whatever they collectively want, legislating in the Senate requires
partisan, ideological, socioeconomic, and often regional compromise.
This is no more and no less true than it was decades ago,
when the Senate processed legislation all the time. Indeed, the whole purpose
of the Senate is to provide the American people — a culturally, religiously,
politically, economically, and geographically diverse people — a venue for
considered, deliberative debate to forge compromise and consensus bridging all
those divides. That’s what the Senate did from the Founding until just a few
years ago, when the ideological sorting of the parties and the media-driven
intensification of our political discourse made bipartisan compromise ever more
inconvenient to incumbent senators’ reelection campaigns.
When in control of the Senate, members of both parties
blame their lack of success on what they inevitably characterize as
“obstruction” by their minority opponents. But in truth, it has been Republican
and Democratic majorities’ own choice, on issue after issue, to pass nothing
rather than to compromise or — heaven forbid — to put unfinished bills on the
floor and allow all 100 senators to organically work out the will of the Senate
through an open debate and amendment process.
The true purpose of nuking the filibuster, then, is not
to “finally get things done” or to “break through the gridlock” or any other
hackish trope parroted by the political press. Rather, it is to allow a Senate
majority to pass partisan bills that aren’t politically compelling enough to
attract bipartisan support. That’s not a value judgment; it’s a fact.
What the Democrats’ “Nuke It!” caucus seems to believe is
that such bills — those popular enough to get 51 Senate votes, but not 60 — are
somehow, by definition, progressive. This is where they veer from theory into
fantasy.
The Ratchet and the
Wrench
Conservatives often complain about the growth of the
federal government as a “ratchet” — Democrats expand government when they are
in charge, but Republicans can never shrink it when we take over. It seems that
the Left has convinced itself that this phenomenon is a law of nature, like gravity
or the rotation of the earth. Progressives who want to nuke the 60-vote cloture
rule seem not to understand that their ratchet, their immutable law of nature,
is really just . . . the 60-vote cloture rule.
Again, I believe nuking the filibuster would be bad for
the Senate and bad for the country. But make no mistake: It would be very, very
good for many conservative activists and an absolute disaster for the
Democratic Party’s woke, progressive elite.
Here, in no particular order, is an inexhaustive list of
conservative policy reforms that have never had a serious chance to win 60
Senate votes under current rules, but that could very plausibly get 51 in a
post-nuclear upper chamber after the next “red wave” election.
·
Education reforms embracing school choice,
simultaneously rescuing poor families from lousy school bureaucracies and
politically declawing left-wing teachers’ unions.
·
Fully funding a border wall and workplace
enforcement of immigration laws, including the overdue “E-Verify” system.
·
Wholesale reform of the federal civil service
and the Administrative Procedures Act, depoliticizing and disempowering the
unaccountable, monolithically leftist federal bureaucracy.
·
Health-care reform to make health-savings
accounts or association health plans more attractive than government-run
insurance programs.
·
Laws to improve America’s election security and
integrity.
·
Defunding Planned Parenthood and other abortion
providers, and restricting post-viability and sex-selection abortions.
·
Defunding critical-race-theory boondoggles at
federal agencies and federal contractors.
·
Defunding school districts and universities that
embrace the “1619 Project” and similar anti-American, ahistorical fiction.
·
Correcting outdated regulations governing our
biggest technology corporations, especially the rules governing social media
companies’ opaque and biased moderation practices.
·
Barring federal aid to cities that defund their
police departments.
·
Protecting religious freedom from woke outrage
mobs.
·
Stripping jurisdiction over controversial social
issues from activist federal judges, and democratically overturning past
unconstitutional judicial rulings.
·
Turning the District of Columbia — over which
Congress has total legislative authority — into a working laboratory of
conservative policy experimentation.
·
Ending “fiscal cliff” brinkmanship with laws
that automatically trigger continuing resolutions and debt-limit increases
coupled with across-the-board spending cuts, should Democrats ever fail to
compromise with Republicans on those deadline bills.
·
Further protecting Americans’ Second Amendment
rights.
·
Ending cronyist policies that empower
corporations at the expense of small businesses, and cutting into the federally
subsidized corporate sponsorship of left-wing activism.
·
Tying colleges’ eligibility for federal student
loans and tax-free endowments to their protection of the First Amendment and
due-process rights on campus, and perhaps even the intellectual diversity of
their faculty.
·
Tying U.S. contributions to the United Nations
to the implementation of long-overdue reforms of the corrupt international
organization.
·
Adding work requirements and ending marriage
penalties in every federal welfare program and every state program that
receives federal matching funds.
·
Updating the National Labor Relations Act with
right-to-work reforms and modernizing its rules for America’s hyper-politicized
public-sector unions.
·
Block-granting or voucherizing Head Start and
low-income housing programs so they don’t fail yet another generation of poor
families.
·
Increasing fracking and nuclear-energy
production.
·
Divesting the federal government of millions of
acres of land it owes to western states like Utah.
This list doesn’t even consider the Cheesecake Factory
menu of structural budget reforms, regulatory reforms, and legislation calling
for devolution of dysfunctional federal programs down to the states, proposals
that are piled up at conservative think tanks across the country just waiting
to be implemented.
Unified Republican governments have failed to enact these
things before not because we lack the nerve or because we’re secretly just as
socialistic as the Left. It’s because of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate!
Each of the reforms mentioned above offends powerful and
generous Democratic special interests. Indeed, many would render those special
interests much less powerful and generous. And so, Senate Democrats, as perfectly
rational partisans, deny Republicans the 60-vote majorities they need to pass
such reforms.
When reform-minded conservatives complain about the GOP
only ever using congressional majorities to pass tax cuts, this is part of the
reason: Thanks to the reconciliation process, tax bills can pass the Senate
with only 51 votes.
Outside of basic fiscal policy, though, even when
Republicans win elections, four-fifths of our agenda is left on a shelf from
day one because Democrats have no interest supporting bills that would defund
and defang their government-subsidized political coalition. If Democrats nuke
the legislative filibuster, however — as they did the judicial filibuster, to
their equally predictable regret — all of a sudden the ratchet of American
politics will become a wrench. Immediately, and for the first time since the
emergence of the modern conservative movement, the entire Republican platform
would become legislatively achievable.
This would be a change to American politics not in
degree, but in kind — and in partisan terms, almost entirely to the advantage
of the Right.
The Reactionary Left
Deep down, everyone is conservative about the things he
loves. And what Washington Democrats love — much more than they would ever
admit — is the status quo.
I don’t think progressives today appreciate how
conservative — even reactionary — they have become. And like all good,
crotchety conservatives, the Democratic Party’s deepest mission today is
preserving past gains, not achieving new ones. The Senate cloture rule helps —
not hurts, helps — Democrats by digging moats and erecting stone walls around
existing policies.
If Democrats were to nuke the filibuster this year to
pass, say, the Green New Deal, not only would that accomplishment be built on
sand, but they would also, at a stroke, unintentionally relocate dozens of
heretofore impregnable Democratic policy fortresses onto the sand with it.
Do Democrats seriously believe that a $15 minimum wage or
Medicare for All (for a few years) is really worth surrendering the permanent
political Death Stars of the administrative state and America’s public-sector
unions? The Planned Parenthood gravy train? The indoctrinating, monolithic
leftism of our education industry? Negotiating leverage on every appropriations
and debt-limit bill? The Donald J. Trump Commemorative Border Wall? Not to
mention the billions of dollars in campaign cash taxpayer-financed interest
groups will no longer have to fund Democratic candidates?
A Gift We Should Not
Want
Upon reading this, conservatives heretofore fretting
about the Democrats deploying the nuclear option might now be licking their
chops, begging Senate Democrats to hand us this gift. But as gratifying as it
would be to see the aforementioned conservative reforms put into law after the
next “red wave” election, and as happy as I would be voting for most of them, I
still urge my victorious Democratic colleagues to resist the temptation.
Partisan advantage aside, it remains the case that nuking the filibuster would
still be bad for America.
Especially as our nation grows more diverse — and, alas
today, more divided — members of Congress should embrace the 60-vote Senate as
an anchor to the realities outside our Beltway and partisan bubbles, a vital
check not only on the other side’s ambitions, but also on our own. The parties
are so far apart now, and public dissatisfaction with the federal government so
high, that what we should be seeking is consensus, not zero-sum partisan gain.
Better still, we might let that consensus be hashed out through amendment votes
and deliberative debates on the floors of the House and Senate, rather than
negotiated behind closed doors and backed up to artificial deadlines
threatening economic disruptions.
As a conservative, I might oppose many of the resulting
compromises. But there would also be lots of bills and amendments I could
support — I’d introduce a lot of them myself — and opportunities to work on
issues such as civil liberties and criminal-justice reform, where I vote with
Democrats at least as much as my own party. There is plenty of room for
bipartisan cooperation in Washington today, even on big issues. But it
requires, among other things, dropping the premise — too popular on both sides
and dogma on political social media — that partisan opponents are not just
wrong but bad, that disagreement is illegitimate, and that “error has no rights.”
America is a constitutional republic, not a church, and political minorities
are equal citizens to be engaged, not heretics to be excommunicated.
Nuking the filibuster is advocated in the interests of
“democracy.” But the United States is not a democracy in the strictest sense,
and thank goodness. Pure democracy, as has been said, is two wolves and a lamb
voting on what to have for lunch. The reason we have a written Constitution is
to set certain things above and outside the authority of a mere majority vote:
the freedoms of speech, religion, and association; the right to bear arms; the
right to equal justice under the law. Our system of counter-majoritarian checks
and balances — including the Senate, the Electoral College, judicial review,
and, yes, the cloture rule — is designed to protect minorities from the
hubristic overreach of fleeting congressional majorities.
The belief that such checks are necessary for “them”
but not for “us” because “our” ideas are so obviously correct is
the very self-righteous folly the Founders had in mind when they created those
checks. The Constitution intentionally diffuses power horizontally among three
branches of the federal government and vertically between the federal
government and the states, specifically to prevent small majorities from
abusing temporary power to stick it to their minority opponents. The
legislative filibuster is not a check on “progress;” it’s a check on our fallen
human nature.
Like the heroes of The Lord of the Rings,
conservatives should not wish to wield unchecked power any more than we would
wish it in the hands of our opponents.
I cannot deny that in the short term, nuking the
filibuster would probably help impatient leftists get more progressive
legislation to President Biden.
In the long term, though, it would hurt the country,
badly, because both parties would have less incentive to build consensus
coalitions. Our current elite-driven divisions would self-reinforce. Our
politics would sink to ever-angrier toxicity. And our future discourse would
make Twitter today look like the Lincoln-Douglas debates. That future is not
inevitable, but that is the future that awaits us on the other side of the
nuclear option.
In a perfect world, this dark picture of political
ugliness and dysfunction would be enough to dissuade Senate Democrats from ever
pressing the nuclear button. In this imperfect world, perhaps the stronger
argument is simple partisan self-interest.
Because in the medium term, Democrats nuking the Senate
filibuster would be greatest gift conservative policy has been given since
Ronald Reagan decided to quit acting. For Democrats, it would be the most
self-destructive miscalculation in the history of American politics, a
voluntary surrender of the legislative high ground in almost every domestic
policy debate. And it would swing a giant wrecking ball into the
taxpayer-subsidized interest groups that constitute the Democrats’ political
and fundraising coalition.
If Democrats ever do start a legislative “nuclear war,”
rest assured: In crude, partisan terms, Republicans would “win” that war, to a
degree and at a pace unimaginable in our current “conventional” political
conflict.
Unfortunately, this unprecedented opportunity for the
Right would come at the expense of our constitutional institutions and the
American people’s right to consensus-based federal policymaking. So patriotic
conservatives should hope Democrats never nuke themselves. And frustrated progressives
should thank Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for saving them from themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment