There is no Senate campaign in Tennessee this year, which is sort of a shame, given the implications in Senate races for President Obama and also because there has been a recent spate of articles on the transformation of the Senate from one of the world's great "deliberative" institutions to one of the world's great "dysfunctional" political chambers.
An op-ed this week in The New York Times calls for various things, including going back to the future with filibuster rules that require the minority party to actually, you know, filibuster by reading from the phone book and bringing out the cots keeping those marginally in favor of obstruction motivated to continue. The column, by Norman Ornstein, does a nice job of explaining the filibuster and calls for modest reforms:
The New Yorker published a long narrative piece on the Senate which featured many passages focused on Tennessee's two senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. Here's one excerpt on Corker and the role he tried to play in fostering bi-partisan teamwork on a financial reform bill:
Alexander was featured as a kind of "institutionalist" who decried the polarization of the Senate but came out against changing rules to make it harder for the minority party to obstruct.
An op-ed this week in The New York Times calls for various things, including going back to the future with filibuster rules that require the minority party to actually, you know, filibuster by reading from the phone book and bringing out the cots keeping those marginally in favor of obstruction motivated to continue. The column, by Norman Ornstein, does a nice job of explaining the filibuster and calls for modest reforms:
True, the filibuster has its benefits: it gives the minority party the power to block hasty legislation and force a debate on what it considers matters of national significance. So how can the Senate reform the filibuster to preserve its usefulness but prevent its abuse?
For starters, the Senate could replace the majority's responsibility to end debate with the minority's responsibility to keep it going. It would work like this: for the first four weeks of debate, the Senate would operate under the old rules, in which the majority has to find enough senators to vote for cloture. Once that time has elapsed, the debate would automatically end unless the minority could assemble 40 senators to continue it.
The New Yorker published a long narrative piece on the Senate which featured many passages focused on Tennessee's two senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander. Here's one excerpt on Corker and the role he tried to play in fostering bi-partisan teamwork on a financial reform bill:
Finally, on February 10th, Dodd called Corker, who, though he was one of the committee's junior members, agreed to be the chairman's Republican negotiating partner. When Corker informed McConnell and Shelby, they expressed surprise. "It was an odd place to be," Corker recalled. "And yet that night we began meeting." The junior Republican savored the rare experience of creating, rather than opposing, legislation. In response, Shelby's conservative staff tried to undermine Corker, spreading rumors among Republicans and their lobbyists that he was giving too much away.
Alexander was featured as a kind of "institutionalist" who decried the polarization of the Senate but came out against changing rules to make it harder for the minority party to obstruct.
"They'll get over it," Alexander said of the Democrats' enthusiasm for rules reform. "And they'll get over it quicker if they're in the minority next January. Because they'll instantly see the value of slowing the Senate down to consider whatever they have to say." He added that the Senate "may be getting done about as much as the American people want done." The President's ambitious agenda, after all, has upset a lot of voters, across the political spectrum. None of the Republicans I spoke to agreed with the contention that the Senate is "broken." Alexander claimed that he and other Republicans were exercising the moderating, thoughtful influence on legislation that the founders wanted in the Senate. "The Senate wasn't created to be efficient," he argued. "It was created to be inefficient."
Leave a comment