Letter 2 America for November 22, 2013

Dear America,

The Democrats in The Senate acted today to require only fifty one votes to confirm federal  presidential nominees, and all I can say is, finally.  The Republicans bellowed like stuck elephants, but the effective repeal of the filibuster rule relative to such nominations wasn't a result of their being elephants...of their being Republicans.  It was a result of their being pigs.  They made "compromises" relative to the filibuster--specifically with regard to judicial nominees--at the beginning of this session of congress.  They promised in that "gentlemen's agreement" not to abuse the filibuster by holding it in abeyance except for dire objections to a particular nominee, but then they used it for every presidential judicial nominee, in particular those for the Federal, or 12th, Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the second most influential court in the United States, behind only The Supreme Court.  That Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rules not just on cases from the federal courts within its geographic jurisdiction, but with regard to all matters stemming from certain laws and on certain issues, patents for example.  There can be only twelve active judges on the court, and there are currently two vacancies, but the Republicans claim that they aren't needed, and that is how they have justified their filibuster of President Obama's nominees for those slots.   But then there is Janet Yellen, President Obama's nominee to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve.  They have expressed their intention to filibuster her nomination as well, but there is only one Chairman of the Federal Reserve, now Ben Bernanke, and he wants to retire; he isn't being allowed to for the moment because of the Republicans' filibuster of his successor.  The Republicans response to the threat to change the filibuster rules over the past few weeks has been...well, to filibuster it by contriving reasons for doing what they were doing.  And now, since they have left the Democrats no choice, they are complaining, and more importantly, threatening.

What goes around comes around, they are saying, and that's true.  But when you are dealing with the Republicans, it comes around whether it goes around or not.  As I heard one reporter on NPR put it, it is of no avail to threaten to shoot the hostages once you have shot the hostages, and that is the Republican strategy on everything.  The threat is, if you don't give us what we want, we're going to do to you what we're already doing to you.  And frankly, the fact that Harry Reid and the other veteran senators refused to confront the Republicans before this has astounded me.  The reason for many of our woes, economic in particular, is the filibuster rule in The Senate, followed closely by the power of the Speaker of the House of Representatives to keep votes from occurring.  So, the next step is for the Democrats to start calling for votes in The House, which requires of Speaker Boehner that he change what is called "the regular order"--under which any congressman can call for a vote--by procedural votes in which Republicans will vote unanimously to make the change, if he wants to continue to obstruct legislative progress as he did to keep the government shut-down going a few weeks ago.  By changing the regular order, the Republicans can change the rule that any congressman can call a vote on a bill so that only Boehner, his designee or Eric Cantor will be able to call a vote on a particular bill.  Once the Democrats get that kind of gumption, it will become an election issue, and then the Republicans will no longer be able to obstruct with impunity.  Sooner or later, the voters of this country will hold it against them, and that will be the beginning of the end for the Republican/Tea Party reign of terror.  I can't wait, but there will have to be more.

The major impediment to legislative progress on issues like immigration and gun control is the senate filibuster rule as it applies to legislation in general.  Sixty votes are required for cloture, which is the termination of debate on a bill.  That is how the filibuster works.  The Republicans just say that they are going to filibuster in a procedural vote and if sixty votes cannot be mustered for cloture, the filibuster has succeeded and the Senate moves on to other business.  Senators on both sides of the aisle hail this process as a damping mechanism that slows popular movements, purportedly allowing wiser heads to prevail, but that isn't what happens anymore.  Today, the filibuster is used to impede and obstruct, and both parties have been guilty of it.  But the Republican Party has raised the use of the filibuster to a nefarious art form, and that is demonstrable.  Last night on NPR, Robert Siegel asked a senator from Mississippi if, since Republicans think that the rule is necessarily to cool our political environment, the Republicans will restore the filibuster when they can change the rules, which will occur if they take a majority in The Senate.  The senator hemmed and hawed, and in the end, after being asked the question a second time because he evaded the issue the first time, he said maybe they will.  But I've got a bridge for sale to anyone who believes that, but I hope he isn't telling the truth.

The filibuster is the means by which the will of the American people has been thwarted.  The Republicans have used it to sabotage the Democratic program, and thus to discredit the Democrats as failures because while they have a majority in The Senate, the Democrats don't have a majority of sixty.  The filibuster is anti-democratic, and it should be abolished, or at least returned to its original form in which a senator filibustering had to take the floor and stay on it, speaking all the while as Rand Paul did recently.  That was just showboating, but when it is the only way to filibuster, the senator responsible is on trial with the American people for as long as he speaks, and if they do not demonstrate favor toward his position, he assumes the risk.  This initial change in the filibuster rule is a historic moment, and it is to be savored, but it is just a good beginning.  I hope the Democrats are up to finishing the job.

Your friend,

Mike

P.S.: Today is the anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.  I was a senior in high school in my last period history class on this date in 1963 when one of the teachers, a yellow-blond man with a pasty complexion stuck his head in the room.  His cheeks were maroon with the flush of the moment and he said that President Kennedy had been shot.  My teacher, Mr. Lavin, launched on a rant about lunatics and why there always had to be one, and the class sat in stunned silence for about ten minutes until the final bell of the day rang.  I had largely forgotten the feelings I had in that moment, but over the last few days, and last night in particular, the recapitulations of the Kennedy years--Camelot as his administration was dubbed--and that of Kennedy's assassination have been ubiquitous, and rightfully so.  Last night as I heard the tape of the announcement of the assassination on the radio at the Boston Symphony performance that afternoon, I found myself crying again...this time silently, alone in my living room with no hope of explaining what I felt to my family, all of them far too young to remember that day.  I still cannot recount the accomplishments of President Kennedy, but I remember vividly seeing him on television in October 1962 telling us all that only the Soviets could pull us back from the brink of nuclear war.  I went to bed that night thinking that missiles would fly in my sleep and I would never wake up, but I did, and Kennedy's will and political fortitude carried us through that potentially lethal moment in our history.  I remember the confrontations in The South over what we used to call Negroes going to school with white kids because while it had been the law for seven years or so that separate was not equal, it still was in Selma and Birmingham, Alabama...and in Dallas, Texas too.  I remember Jimmy Hoffa being pressed in his congressional testimony about the corruption over which he presided in the Teamsters' Union, and most of all, I have the general memory of a vigorous, intelligent, charismatic man leading the country.  While Lyndon Johnson continued Kennedy's work and added some of his own that was transformative, we haven't seen Kennedy's like since except for Bill Clinton, who suffered from the same peccadilloes as it turns out Kennedy did.  Still, our country needs another transformative figure today, because although President Obama portended to be one, it just hasn't worked out for him...or for us.  I hope the next president will fill the bill, but all I know now is that I wish John F. Kennedy were here