Democrats’ Fear of Democracy

[phantom power]

To deal with the incredibly obstructionism of Senate Republicans Harry Reid is again talking about rules reform. Reid is having trouble getting support from his entire caucus because apparently Democrats are terrified of the concept of democracy. From Politico:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he has “mixed” feelings about the nuclear option, saying he feared a GOP-controlled Senate would replicate the nuclear option to change filibuster rules in a bid to repeal Obamacare.

“If they take over the White House and over the Senate, they will get rid of the health care bill in a shot,” Rockefeller said. “We can do business the way we are.”

Asked if that meant he’d vote against the nuclear option, Rockefeller said: “Don’t put me down there yet, OK?”

This answer is deeply wrong on so many levels. First, Republicans don’t even need to get rid of the filibuster to eliminate Obamacare. Before the 2012 election Mitch McConnell prepared a plan to repeal the bulk of the law using reconciliation.

Second, just because Democrats are pathetic cowards doesn’t mean Republicans will be. Deciding not to fix the rules now will do nothing to stop a future Republican majority from taking action.

Finally, Republicans should have the right to repeal Obamacare if they win. That is how a democracy is supposed to work.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/05/23/democrats-fear-of-democracy/

[patrice]

1. Last sentence in the excerpt: Even when it's not democracy, but is, instead, an oligarchy of

corporate persons?

Has FDL gone off the deep end?

[msongs]

2. when dems win they pass laws favoring corporations, as do repubs when they win nt

[patrice]

5. Agreed. & That places the responsibility on us to change where those kinds of

Democrats are coming from, so that they'll become extinct, but . . .

We're not going to turn on our own countrywo/men, no matter how mistaken they are, and END corporations. We must end their influence and that is not going to happen through violence and oppression.

[raouldukelives]

7. Correct. Only way it ends, non-violently, is by them having less money & supporters.

At least in the short term, until we can starve them into accepting regulations that appease people who truly place things like the environment, wildlife, the future of their children and the idea of America over money.

[patrice]

3. Are you a member of the "Let the corruption crash and destroy the whole system, so we can start

over from scratch" cohort?

[phantom power]

6. Hmm, no, I'm not from that cohort...

If anything, i view the filibuster as part of the corruption. Not exactly corruption in the sense of moral corruption, but systemic corruption. It is an impediment to allowing the govt to get anything done.

As I understand the OP, the point is, the Dems have an opportunity to get rid of it, and get some stuff done. Some of them are afraid of what might happen if the GOP ever gets the senate back. But... for better or worse, that *is* the breaks in a democracy.

When I look at some of the details of what it takes to pass legislation, I see a lot of noise in the system, that wastes time and obscures "who stands for what" to voters. The filibuster is one of those things. It allows congressmen to float a lot of bullshit, and claim "well I'd *love* to do X, but gosh the filibuster will stop us so, shoot, we just won't even have a vote." Another example is our bicameral legislature. All kinds of bills get pass in one house, but fail in another. Many of those bills are *intended* to fail in the "other" house, so politicians can make pretty speeches about how they voted for this, or that, but gosh it didn't pass the Other House.

It's a lot of bullshit for the average voter to sort through. It wastes a ton of time. Congresscritters can hide behind a lot of rules, if they so desire, reducing transparency.

Ending the filibuster would be at least one step away from this pathology. An even better one would be to get rid of the Senate: if the House votes, and passes a law, it's law. There's no bullshitting us voters about how the mean, mean Senate prevented it. There's no endless time-wasting reconciling House and Senate versions of legislation and budget. Another great one would be to end un-recorded votes. If Congressman X votes "yes" or "no" on a bill, everyone gets to know about how he voted. The idea that these fuckers can vote on *our* laws without us knowing who voted how is one of the most anti-democratic things I can think of.

I can't picture achieving a unicameral legislative branch, good as that would be. I can picture ending the filibuster, and perhaps forcing all votes to be recorded.

[byeya]

4. Of your many good points, this one junps out: The RepubliKKKans will change the filibuster rule if

they feel it suits their needs. Period.
Making the Senate take simple majority votes on appointees is very mild and much needed.