Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Why Democrats should not fear “Majority Rules”

Tags:

Last Thursday, Senate Democrats voted to remove the threat of filibuster from most judicial and executive branch confirmations.



Not so scary, really.

Essentially, they said that the majority has the right to govern as a majority. Small-d democracy finally being applied to the Senate which has been in the hands of Big-D Democrats for the last 7 years.

The showdown that led to this rule change was remarkable in it’s blatant disregard for the Constitution of the United States. Senate Republicans were attempting to nullify the law that had established that the DC appeals court would have 11 judges presiding. The Republicans did not put forward and pass a bill to change the number of judges: they blocked the Senate from voting on the confirmation of the three judges needed to fill the court’s vacancies.

The Washington press corps and their sycophants in the punditry were quick to issue warnings about how terrible this would be: for Democrats. The Friday news cycle was filled with scare stories: “Democrats will pay the price”, “Harry Reid’s blunder”, “Democratic overreach will come back to haunt them”, “You did it: more Scalias for you!”, “No filibuster means more rapes!!”.

Of course, as is often the case, the woe-is-you’ers were completely missing the point and 100% wrong.  

There is nothing scary about the majority setting the rules when the minority is shrinking itself to be small enough to fit in Grover Norquist’s coat pocket.

We needn’t fear the retribution from the Republicans should they regain power.

First, if this batch of Republicans were to regain power, does anyone doubt that they would have changed the rules anyway?

Second, this batch of Republicans can’t regain power: the American people despises them. They can win their gerrymandered House districts for now. They won some statewide races in places they have no business winning in a low turnout backlash election in 2010. But they will have an uphill battle winning statewide elections in Obama states if they insist on running on the tea party platform. And they will never win a national election on it. The number of people who embrace the puniness of their vision for America is shrinking, not expanding.

So, sure, Republicans may some day win the White House. They might even win both the Senate and the White House. But they would have to be Reasonable Republicans who would, by definition, be capable of being reasoned with. And there is no quick path to reasonableness as the evidence suggests that they are moving right, not left. The 2016 election cycle will be a bloodbath for them electorally when the bill comes due for the damage that the 2010 Senate class did to America and yet another Republican governor who has to run to the right in the primaries will get crushed when he tries to Etch-a-Sketch away his words. The Republican Party will need to not just rebrand itself but remake itself. To appeal to a majority of Americans, it will have to be a party that wants to share in governance, not obstruct.

Elections should have consequences:

– Eugene Robinson

If Republicans want to appoint more judges they should win more presidential elections.

– Scott Lemieux

But that’s democracy-people who win elections should be able to govern. Democrats should be confident about their ability, over time, to triumph at the ballot box.

– Dave Weigel in Slate describes the “risk”:

They’re trading something that might have brought “consensus” for something that empowers the party that wins elections.

– Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“Whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, it’s important not to vote for people who proudly say they will never compromise.”

Voters will reject those who shut down the government, threaten the full faith and credit of the United States, and refuse to pass laws that the American people want.

The new rules may not prove to be enough to actually achieve the goal of governing. The threat of another rule change may hang like a Damocles sword over Senate obstructionism should a Supreme Court opening arise … or it could be that people will insist that we have up or down votes for legislation also, putting House Republicans on the spot to have to defend their votes in next year’s elections.

In the meantime, President Obama will be able to establish his judicial legacy as he fills the 93 vacancies pending on the federal courts. And THAT is a Big Huge Deal.

Democrats should not fear the majority making rules. If we vote, and get others who think like us to vote, we will be in the majority for a long time.  

Elections Matter. And when we vote we win … and earn the right to govern.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 16 Comments

16 comments

  2. JanF

    I think that opposition to the Affordable Care Act is a risky strategy for Republicans.

    No, people will not wake up January 1, 2014 saying “wow, I love my Obamacare” but with every success, more and more people will realize that for the first time ever ordinary Americans have health care security. The Republicans running in November 2014 on repealing the ACA (and replacing it with “Health Savings Accounts”?) will be roundly rejected.

    “Hands off my Obamacare!!”

  3. blue jersey mom

    We were one of the families that benefited from Obamacare early. We were able to keep Son 2 on our insurance until he turned 26. By that time, he had a job with health benefits.  

  4. JanF

    Health Law Puts People, Not Insurers, First

    It’s pretty straightforward: A major reason we have 50 million uninsured people in the United States is that insurance companies do not see individuals as a profitable market.

    The recent uproar over canceled health insurance plans not only highlights the insurance industry’s out-of-hand dismissal of this market, but also reinforces why there is a need for the new health reforms under the Affordable Care Act.

    Consumers have reason to be angry but they should be angry at the insurers, not the health care law. Connecticut’s Insurance Commissioner, Thomas B. Leonardi, announced Monday that of the approximate 27,000 insurance policy cancellation notices which have gone out only 9,000 of them were because plans were not in compliance with the health care law.

    As noted before, most of the cancellations are pro-forma, not directly related to Obamacare forcing the Good Folks at the Insurance Companies to have to cancel policies.

    Based completely on profits:

    Insurers do not see the individual market as profitable unless they continue to shift risk onto consumers through high deductible plans and unless they can raise rates on their customers as they age and develop health problems to the point they can no longer afford health insurance. That’s why they’re getting out. […]

    It’s too bad the commotion over the cancellations happened to coincide with the rocky rollout of the new health insurance exchange website. But consumers would do well to keep their eyes on the big picture, beyond the political grandstanding and partisan bickering. Websites can be fixed. Health care reform is about improving the quality of coverage benefits and offering more choice and affordability through the health insurance exchanges.

    Exactly.

  6. nomandates

    but I no longer expect honest reporting from them on anything. We have to use blogs and social media to go around them until they’re so irrelevant that they have no choice but to reform or to just report what we’re saying.

    Regarding Senate Republicans, I wonder what their endgame is. They seem to have painted themselves into a corner.

  7. JanF

    A Nuclear End to Denial

    Those who lament the Senate Democrats’ vote to end filibusters for presidential nominations say the move will escalate partisan warfare and destroy what comity is left in Congress. Some also charge hypocrisy, since Democrats once opposed the very step they took last week.

    In fact, seeing the world as it is rather than pining for a world that no longer exists is a precondition for reducing polarization down the road.

    (snip)

    In a column in March of 2005, I called the GOP’s effort to speed the confirmation of conservative judges “a blatant effort to twist the rules” that ignored “the traditions of the Senate.” I might take back the “traditions of the Senate” line, a rhetorical attempt to call conservatism’s bluff. But what animated my argument then is the same concern I have now: This era’s conservatives will use any means at their disposal to win control of the courts.

    (snip)

    Republicans gave the game away when all but a few of them opposed Obama’s three most recent appointments to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals not on the merits but by accusing the president of trying to “pack the court.” In fact, Obama was simply making appointments he was constitutionally and legislatively authorized to make. His nominees were being filibustered because they might alter the circuit court’s philosophical balance. The GOP thus demonstrated beyond any doubt that it cares far more about maintaining conservative influence on the nation’s second most important judicial body than in observing the rules and customs of the Senate.

    This is why the Senate Democrats’ action will, in the end, be constructive. The first step toward resolving a power struggle is to recognize it for what it is. The era of denial is finally over.

Comments are closed.