Douthat on the Filibuster
On the Filibuster
The great Ross Douthat of the New York Times editorial page has a superb essay up on the Democratic Party’s obsession with changing the rules for the filibuster, a legislative tactic they felt was not at all anti-democratic when they were in the minority in during the Trump Administration. Putting aside the nation’s capital pastime of hypocrisy, Douthat suggests that beleaguered (but standing tall) West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin nuance his position a little and advocate for a 55 vote requirement to end a filibuster.
Here’s the deal. The filibuster is not in the Constitution. What IS in the Constitution is that each chamber can make up its own rules, and the Senate has for quite some time now, had the filibuster. Since its primary function is to slow things down a bit and try to create legislation that is not a product of the current fashion (you remember your civics right…the whole reason we HAVE a Senate?), the filibuster seems a reasonable practice for that body to have. For much of its history, breaking a filibuster took 67 votes. Now it is only 60, but getting 60 votes these days has been tough (which is the point, after all).
Douthat says, maybe we try 55 votes? Ok. I’m all for it. I’d prefer that the Senate NOT mess with the filibuster any more, but I am not hard over on it, as anything that is done with a rule change can be undone with a rule change. This fact ALONE should make the D’s wary, but we don’t live in a country where our politicians think strategically. At least no one but Cocaine Mitch does.
More Trumpy Corruption
Last week in this space, I wrote about former president Trump through the lens of a current foreign policy debate. In the process, I reinforced opinions I have consistently held about the utter unfitness the man had for the office. A few readers—apparently unfamiliar with the depth of my disdain for the man and his followers—criticized me for allowing Trump to “live rent free” in my brain, that I should “move on”. Here’s how I answered one of those critics: “Guilty, friend. Guilty. I am sadly unable casually to whitewash the memory of the most corrupt man to occupy the presidency in my lifetime, the creator, summoner, instructor, and director of an armed insurrection. I guess I'm funny like that.” I find it interesting—although somewhat predictable—that the Trump-friendly urge us to put our disdain behind us. There just doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the man’s corruption and abuse of power that is enough to shake their support.
We had some more evidence this week, when media reports surfaced of yet another egregious abuse of power perpetrated by the Trump administration, one that—were it to be carried out by a Democratic president—would have the GOP taking to the barricades, given their acceptance of insurrection of late. Apparently seeking the source of leaks, Trump’s DOJ had ordered Apple to provide phone and email metadata on both reporters and members of Congress. That a judge provided the cover for this corruption is worthy of discussion on its own, but that the orders were accompanied by gag orders for Apple not to discuss the case upon penalty of imprisonment for senior officials raises obvious questions of abuse of power. This “gag-order” power—while certainly not without utility—seems to have been really abused here.
News this week also included this lovely tidbit, in which Trump DOJ subpoenas were not only issued for data from reporters and Democratic politicians, but also for data from the accounts of the White House Counsel, Don McGahn. Note to the Trumpy Populists currently considering runs in 2024: if you want to limit leaks, hire people you trust and who trust you.