Obstructionism and how it works (or doesn’t work)
In the impeachment thread, commenter “Matt_SE” had an idea that sounds good:
There are two types of victories to be had: legislative and political. If you can’t get the former, then go for the latter.
That USED to be the plan, before McConnell’s Senate proved to be so spineless. It was obvious from the beginning that we didn’t have 67 votes, and that Democratic lockstep wouldn’t usually allow crossover votes.
No matter.
The point was to pass popular bills that Obama hated, have him veto them, then put Senate Democrats on the record as opposing the will of the people.
It was the exact opposite of Reid’s stealth campaign of never allowing a vote on a bill Dems didn’t want.
Yes, but here’s the rub, as Hamlet would say. I’m well aware that the point was to pass popular bills and have Obama veto them. But there is an impediment to that plan of action: many such bills can’t get to the floor for a vote in the Senate because that would need 60 votes, and not enough Democrats would cross over to give the Republicans those 60. In that impeachment post I also explained what it would take to circumvent that problem, and why it may not be worth it; that’s why I discussed cloture at such great length. But I’ll repeat it, because it seems important:
And if McConnell were to change the Senate rules and say that suddenly they only needed a simple majority to pass bills there, it wouldn’t help to override a presidential veto anyway, which would still need to reach that nearly-impossible 2/3-vote threshold. All that would happen, therefore, is that the Republican Senate would have thrown away a rule and be subject to a huge amount of criticism in order to get more bills on Obama’s desk that he would then veto. Is it worth it? I don’t think so, and this is why.
Talk about kabuki theater! Yes, it would satisfy the angry conservative wing, but it would accomplish nothing other than paving the way for the Democrats. Why do I say that? Because in order for doing away with the 60-vote rule to actually accomplish anything in terms of legislation, a party has to have both a majority in the Senate (and House) and a president of the same party as that majority, so that bills won’t be vetoed. Historically speaking, the Democrats have been in that position since the FDR years far more often than the Republicans have.
In addition, there is little question in my mind that the vast majority of Americans are not following Obama’s vetoes with anything even remotely resembling the sort of attention we in the blogosphere give them. In fact, most people don’t pay any attention to that sort of thing. The publicity the Republicans would get from a series of Obama vetoes would be small, and it would mostly be noticed only by the news-junkie conservatives among us (I count myself as one of them). Most other people, if they noticed it at all, would take away from that entire exchange whatever it was that the MSM decided to impart to them, which would be something like this: “Republicans do away with time-honored Senate rule just to upset Obama, all to no avail.”
But, as I said, to most people it’s an arcane point of parliamentary procedure with little meaning. Maybe I’m wrong, but I challenge you to an experiment. Stop the next 100 people on the street, or your non-political-junkie friends, and ask them what happened to the Keystone bill. That was a very popular bill that Obama successfully vetoed because Congress couldn’t muster the votes for an override. How many will have a clue what happened to it?
Also, take a look at where those Keystone “nay” votes came from. It was almost entirely from true-blue states, with just an exception or two. There were very few senators from states where Keystone actually was popular who voted against it, and who would be at risk of disapproval if the people in their states were actually paying attention.
So as far as Matt_SE’s idea of the political approach of “put[ting] Senate Democrats on the record as opposing the will of the people” goes, it’s a good one except for one thing: lots of Senate Democrats can vote for these popular bills, as happened with Keystone (which was especially popular). The bill then goes to Obama’s desk. He vetoes it. Then it goes back to House and Senate, and probably all the Democratic senators where that bill is actually popular (those from red or purplish states, for example) can vote to override that veto. As long as just 36 Democratic senators hang tough against an override, the veto is not overridden and Obama wins. There are usually at least 18 states with 2 Democratic senators each where these bills are not so very popular and where Democratic senators voting against overriding a veto would not be at risk of being accused of opposing the people’s will.
That is the unpleasant reality Republicans face, even those who have a spine and want to do what it takes to undermine Obama’s agenda and to embarrass the Democrats as well.
[NOTE: By the way, if a Republican president were to be elected in 2016, and a Republican Senate is elected as well but is short of 60 Republican votes, the Republicans actually might end the cloture rule at that point because it would actually mean something. However, I strongly suspect that if the opposite were true, and a Democratic president and Democratic Senate short of 60 votes were to be elected, the Democrats would almost certainly end cloture themselves. But neither is the situation we find ourselves in at the moment.]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a report on a plan by Mike Lee to jettison cloture for a vote in the Senate in order to pass a bill to abolish Obamacare that Obama will undoubtedly veto and will not be overriden.]
“So as far as Matt_SE’s idea of the political approach of “put[ting] Senate Democrats on the record as opposing the will of the people” goes, it’s a good one except for one thing: lots of Senate Democrats can vote for these popular bills, as happened with Keystone (which was especially popular). The bill then goes to Obama’s desk. He vetoes it. Then it goes back to House and Senate, and probably all the Democratic senators where that bill is actually popular (those from red or purplish states, for example) can vote to override that veto. As long as just 36 Democratic senators hang tough against an override, the veto is not overridden and Obama wins. There are usually at least 18 states with 2 Democratic senators each where these bills are not so very popular and where Democratic senators voting against overriding a veto would not be at risk of being accused of opposing the people’s will.”
With all due respect neo, the above rationale indicates that you miss the larger point.
After passage in the House, bringing bills to a vote in the Senate, whether it passes or not, places those bills on the record. Critically, it would invalidate the common democrat criticism that the GOP has no alternative to offer.
If the GOP sent bill after bill to the floor for vote, sending as many as possible for Obama’s veto, their claim that the record shows that they have offered many alternative bills would have credibility and, that polls proved that the majority of Americans supported them and that it is Obama and the democrat party that oppose the majority.
If the bill passes and Obama vetoes it, and his veto then fails to be overridden, Obama and his Congressional supporters would then be on record as responsible for ‘opposing the will of the people’. Let congressional democrats explain ‘why they were for it, before they were against it’. Force open wedges of disagreement between democrats.
That 18 states are secure democrat strongholds is irrelevant to the larger meme that the GOP should be seeking to establish; that the GOP does have a tried and true alternative to the socialism that democrat’s offer and that, a regulated capitalism grounded in common sense is the economic engine that created American prosperity.
While democrat socialism has proven that it results in the economic wasteland of Detroits. That ‘main street’ America’s failure to rebound from recession is a direct result of democrat policies. That while capitalism has its ups and downs, at least it has up periods of growth and prosperity unlike socialism’s “equal sharing of misery”. An ‘equality’ that denies merit and industriousness.
Geoffrey, I think you are expecting that reason will work on enough people to matter. I frequently fall victim to the same illusion. Please slap me whenever I talk like that.
I am increasingly in favor of Glenn Reynold’s position that rich Republicans should stop investing in small think tanks and put their money in popular, manipulative media. It wouldn’t even have to be dishonest.
AVI:……”that rich Republicans should stop investing in small think tanks and put their money in popular, manipulative media.”
Capital idea! Perfect place for Trump, the Koch brothers, Sherman Adelson, and others to make their mark on the country.
GB: The scenario you laid out was supposed to be what the GOP was going to do. Somehow that morphed into we’ll show the public we can govern by working with Obama. Which would be fine if that’s what they had been elected to do. As per your last two paragraphs, that is why I’d like to see a Cruz v Sanders election. ( I’m pretty sure that won’t happen). It would be good to see both sides clearly articulated. Although, after electing O twice, I don’t trust the electorate to make the wise choice.
Geoffrey Britain:
I am not missing the larger point. That meme will never see the light of day with anyone but conservative news junkies. Assistant Village Idiot has the larger point.
I wish it were otherwise–I wish people paid attention to stuff like that, and I wish the MSM framed it in a fair way. But they don’t, and it doesn’t.
I think it’s too late to fix things, they are irretrievably broken, now. People have been too complacent as the government over and over again oversteps its bounds, but only with a toe here, then another toe… then the ball of the foot… and so on.
I’d like to put into people’s heads an idea suggested by Robert Heinlein in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress:
Two houses, like ours.
But instead…
One house PASSES laws by a 2/3rds supermajority
The other house REPEALS laws by a 1/3rd minority.
This would tend to keep the actual lawbooks down to a minimum, by keeping The Law to things that at least 1/3rd of the people believe should be law.
Reason isn’t what humans use. Rationalization is the primary mode.
For example, many Democrats excuse their inability to take responsibility for their history or behavior concerning slavery and wrecking the country via a war, by talking about the Dixiecrats becoming Republicans. Even though there’s no evidence and plenty of counter facts such as kKK Byrd sitting there in his undead throne, to negate that statement, people still believe in it because they want to believe in it so they’ll come up with a rationalization for why they aren’t guilty.
The brighter the light, the darker the shadows it casts. That is the very image of America now.
Besides, since Americans can’t save themselves, why was it reasonable to expect Americans to save the world? In reverse, if Americans can’t save the world, does that mean Americans can save themselves?
We don’t have a clue about the extent of the damage done by Obama’s presidency, and probably won’t for years, if ever. This, added on top of all the already existing dysfunction. So I’m pessimistic.
Yes: what GB said.
Having Obama veto a bill is just icing on the cake, and allows a second vote on the record. The main purpose was always to get Senate Democrats on the record, regardless of whether the bill passes. In that case, you don’t even need the 60 votes; make them filibuster EVERYTHING.
Now, the average voter may not pay attention to this, but we’re talking about doing the best we can with what we have.
This plan, even if futile, would’ve been better than cooperating with Obama’s agenda. It would’ve gone a long way toward stopping a demagogue like Trump.
This is all about style, and nearly nothing about substance. Substance comes when Obama is gone.