Let me say at the outset that this is a subject about which I’m conflicted.
There’s a big part of me that’s a fan of the filibuster. I remember well, after the 1994 Contract on America, quaking in fear for our bedrock environmental laws. At the time there was substantial republican desire to repeal or replace the ESA, the CAA, NEPA, the CWA. And I certainly didn’t trust Bill to veto diddly-squat; he hadn’t shown much interest or courage in doing the right thing by the environment. I remember being sheepishly grateful that the filibuster was in place. Absent the CAA remaining intact Obama’s most important climate change efforts almost certainly couldn’t have been launched.
I remember in 2005 when Cheney was pretty excited and interested in using “the nuclear option” to gut the filibuster. Some of us were terrified at the thought of the Bush presidency without any breaks on it at all.
I look forward to the mid-terms in 2018. As part of the reality-based community I have to recognize that the odds are substantially in favor of republicans regaining the Senate (Democrats are expected to have 23 seats up for election, in addition to 2 independents who caucuses with the Democrats. Republicans are expected to have 8 seats up for election). We get all manner of nasty shenanigans then — all manner.
So, part of me rather likes the idea of the filibuster remaining in place. It can, and does, slow things down. It serves as a break on some of the craziness. And, at the same time, I recognize full well how the filibuster has screwed us up.
It’s tempting to think in self-serving terms. Like: do away with the filibuster for all judicial appointments. It definitely sounds good, as D’s never go to the mat on Supreme Court appointments anyway. And lordy, given the crazy we’ve been treated to over Scalia’s replacement it would appear that such measures might well be necessary (McCain’s recent statements on blocking Hilary’s appointments are exhibit #1). But doing so is a slippery slope; it’s hard for me to imagine the filibuster surviving were that to be done. And maybe that is indeed a good thing. But maybe it’s really not.
The problem, as I see it, is that our politics are so polarized and broken: we’re unwilling, collectively, to embrace restraint in our action. In my lifetime I can indeed recall a greater degree of forbearance being exercised. (The ‘Scalia seat’ is a prime example, but it’s really only an exemplar as use of the filibuster has increased and increased and increased… it’s horrible.) I’m skeptical that the answer is to “fix the problem” by having institutions where less forbearance is needed. Ultimately no institutions are possible absent braking mechanisms — whether social norms, like forbearance, or institutional breaks, like the filibuster.
The sad part is that bold action is required on so many fronts. Climate change, wealth inequality, racism, sexism, the corporatization of higher education (indebtedness, for-profit colleges, the goofy notion that the purpose of an education is to make one more useful for corporate ends)… In such context it’s difficult to embrace the need for forbearance, let alone caution.
Where this leaves me is perhaps not surprising: comfortable with the half measures of filibuster reform, and uncomfortably leaning towards doing away with the filibuster of Supreme Court justices.
