59 > 41


The unfortunate part about writing before you go to bed is that as consciousness flees from your mind, and escaping with it is general cohesion and argument in any discussion. This is well-evidenced by my previous post.

To pick-up where it left off, the simple matter is that there are parliamentary tricks to deal with this situation. It is very likely, in fact, that any filibuster will be made at all-- this sort of stalling tactic is precisely that which no one needs, putting all incumbents in danger this November. The Republicans might be in the minority now, but there are 34 senators* who are not terribly interested in joining the growing unemployed numbers among their constituents.

*Interesting note-- of these 34, eighteen are Republicans and sixteen are Democrats. Even if we assume a total overturn in Senate elections this fall, this places the Democrats at a now 61 vote advantage with eighteen fresh faces. Nate Silver, you have inspired me.

Psychologically, it takes a lot to stand up and scream "No! This is who I am and you cannot change me!", and I will give this to the GOP. In fact, the psychological antonyms to this are such things as: consideration, empathy, avoiding conflict, avoiding extremes, thoughtfulness and reflection; those general trademarks of the left. It seems since the second red scare of seventy years ago, the progressives of American politics have been afraid of their own shadow-- their own belief. In the end (as so much of politics do), this comes down to high school sociology; a desire to move with the herd represses one natural tendancies. For so long, the left has played the game as defined by the right.... they have tried to be strong Democrats by either trying to be (1) the same as or (2) subservient to the Republican party.

Let the left be the left. Progressive has a meaning beyond its buzzwordiness.

Filibuster.

Let them do it. Tonight was a disappointment to progressives across the country, but no less pinching in the Commonwealth this evening. While one can look upon the Brown-Coakley race with our glasses-less hindsight, this is looking into the future.

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart, the jester speaking truth to authority put the situation delicately "Democrats will only have an 18-vote majority in the Senate, which is more than George W. Bush ever had when he did whatever the fuck he wanted." (note: the strongest Republican Senate during the last administration was 55 majority in 2003-4). Nonetheless, the upper house of Congress is designed to operate on a strict majority vote. Last week, the New York Times published a great article discussion the constitutionality of this parliamentary maneuver, in particularly how this effectively negates the Vice President's one of two functions. So why is the filibuster in existence? One may argue that in the grand tradition of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, this provides a platform on which the minority will never lose their voice in a tyranny and a possible steamrolling by the majority. A few years ago, in fact, when the dominant Republican party was discussing "the nuclear option," wherein the filibuster was to be destroyed, Democrats were rightfully offended.

So let the Republicans have it. If there is one thing that Americans have no patience for, it is legislative inaction. While the control of the 111^th Congress has been doing a fine job of this all by themselves, as soon as the minority "party of No," rushes to scream as loud as it can with its 41^st vote, this tactic can only explode in their face. Not only will this grind healthcare reform to a halt, but the senate Republicans will take the spotlight.

While proper analysis is necessary, why is this not an option? One may picture the minority party screaming like a petulant child, throwing a tantrum until they at last fall asleep. Let their own legislative exhaustion exhibit itself. An eighteen-vote majority is more than enough to accomplish the Democratic Senate's goals.

A majority simply needs fifty.

Comments welcome