Letter 2 America for July 19, 2013

Dear America,

On Wednesday, Richard Cordray was confirmed as the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by a vote of 66-34.  You may recall that under the Dodd-Frank Act that was the legislative response to the financial crisis of 2008, The Bureau was created to police and regulate the consumer credit industry so as to prevent from occurring in the future some of the abuses that had been uncovered in the aftermath of our economic crash.  Of course, in that the law was intended to fetter business in its tendency to eschew moral imperatives when making decisions as to how to operate, the Republicans in The Senate took every dilatory step they could think of to prevent its effective operation including filibustering the nomination of its first director, and that filibuster has lasted in excess of two years without a response from the Democrats in The Senate.  This week however, Harry Reid--the diffident leader of the majority, Democratic Party in The Senate--threatened to change the rules regarding cloture of debate (in other words the filibuster that no longer requires that senators actually take the floor and speak) if the Republicans didn't allow up or down votes on seven presidential nominees for various positions, Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau being one of them.  The Republicans opted for discretion over valor on the issue of what they all precociously call "the nuclear option" and the first vote of note to go forward was the one that led to Cordray being confirmed.  Of course, that is significant in itself as The Bureau is an attempt to prevent abuse of consumers and the provisions of Dodd-Frank that created it are finally going to be implemented.  But I assume that the Republicans, who seem to believe that any regulation of any kind on business should be opposed as a matter of economic policy, feel somewhat thwarted by all this.  So much the better for the rest of us, and I say that for this reason: the mindless cleaving to economic policy that blindly favors facilitation of dubious business practices over fundamental fairness in our society has been "outed" by the vote, and consequently, the myth of the filibuster as an implement of caution and moderation has been debunked.

What I mean by that is that for over two years, at least 41 of the 44 Republicans in The Senate have followed the direction of that party's leadership and voted against cloture of debate on this nomination, thus preventing the full implementation of Dodd-Frank.  But now, at least 10 of the 44 Republicans in The Senate have voted to confirm Cordray and let his agency proceed with its function.  That means that principle was not involved in the filibuster of Cordray's nomination; it was sheer partisanship...politics and nothing else, which in turn tells me that even Republicans don't all believe that all regulation is bad regulation when it comes to business.  Without the hammer of requisite party fealty to threaten them any more, they voted their convictions and the result was good for everyone.  Conversely, the partisan withholding of even the opportunity to vote on this nomination--and for that matter the other six nominations as well--was demonstrated to be a disingenuous political exercise directed at nothing greater than thwarting the opposing party, and the president in particular.  That is what the filibuster represents: the power to obstruct.  It does not represent caution, or prudence, or wisdom or civilized governance.  It is sheer obstructionism for obstructionism's sake, and that isn't prudent, much less wise or civilized.  That isn't the ability of grayer heads to prevail, and it isn't an assurance that the rabble that Alexander Hamilton thought the American people to be when he wrote Federalist Paper number 62 will not gain control.  In that paper, Hamilton touted the concept of The Senate and its longer terms of office as a damper on what he conceived of as a threat to democracy: mob rule, which if you think about it is what universal suffrage really is.  That is the sentiment from which the filibuster was spawned.  The theory is that if the minority can keep the majority from implementing its will, a slower pace of governance will result, and it will of necessity be more prudent and well considered.  But that isn't what the filibuster accomplished in the case of Richard Cordray, is it.  A measure intended to serve all Americans was impeded by use of the filibuster, and it was nakedly partisan.  So much for wisdom and civility.

I have often intoned my resentment and scorn over the use of the filibuster in the supposedly- august Senate, and I have said more than once that the filibuster is nothing but a conceit in which some successful politicians enhance their own influence at the expense of democratic process, which is what The Senate is intended to employ.  It isn't in The Constitution, even though Hamilton might have sought to put it there if he had thought of it.  Don't forget that despite his stature as a founding father today, he was a duelist who injured others and eventually died of it because he was a prideful hothead, so the fact that Hamilton might have wanted something isn't credible evidence that it was a good idea.  The filibuster is nothing but a vanity created by old men--and don't take that as ageism because I'm an old man myself--most of whom have too much money and all of whom have far too much self-esteem.  Even Harry Reid, who launched the threat that led to the Cordray vote...a good thing in my opinion...is opposed to eliminating the filibuster, which is why I think he should be voted out of office along with everyone else who seeks to substitute his will for that of the majority when he's not in it.  The fear that the American people will vote for people aiming to do the untoward is not only legitimate, it is manifest in the 113th congress, but the filibuster is not a tool by which their untoward wishes have been interdicted.  It is the means they have used to keep those wishes alive; at best the filibuster is a double edged sword, and at worst it cuts only the wrong way: against all of us who believe in majority rule.  The Constitution was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority by guaranteeing various rights and privileges and limiting the power of government.  Beyond that, however, democratic process should prevail because procedural chicanery like the filibuster hasn't accomplished anything...ever.

Your friend,

Mike