FILIBUSTER CHUTZPAH
IN April 2005, then-Sen. Barack Obama took to the Senate floor and ardently spoke out against GOP efforts to end the filibuster. Then a rising star in the Democratic Party, Obama noted that despite the pressure partisans might feel, it was imperative to “rise above an ‘ends-justify-the-means’ mentality, because we’re here to answer to the people — all of the people — not just the ones wearing our party label.”
Last month, Obama made precisely the opposite argument at John Lewis’ funeral, contending that eliminating a vital check on partisan power was justified as long as Dems got their desired policies.
After offering a shamefully dishonest comparison between George Wallace, Bull Connor and contemporary Republicans, Obama argued that passing a “voting-rights” bill was worth stripping away countermajoritarian norms. “If all this takes eliminating the filibuster, another Jim Crow relic, in order to secure the God-given rights of every American,” Obama told the congregants, “then that’s what we should do.”
And by “we,” Obama means 51 percent of Washington should dictate the legislative agenda to the entire country. Why is it a bad idea? Let’s turn to 2005 Obama, who explained that while the American people expected rigorous debate in Congress . . .
“What they don’t expect is for one party — be it Republican or Democrat — to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster — if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate — then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.”
One wonders why Obama felt comfortable using a “relic of Jim Crow” when it suited his purposes. Why did he claim that allegedly racist institution was an indispensable check on power and a bulwark against assaults on debate?
Again in 2006, Obama told ABC News that he supported a filibuster of Samuel Alito because he was not only “somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values,” but had not shown “himself willing” to temper executive power. Considering Obama’s subsequent abuse of that very power, the statement reads especially hypocritically.
When it was expedient, Obama claimed to “regret” participating in the Alito filibuster. But even if we allow that President Obama changed his mind, why didn’t citizen Obama call for the filibuster’s end from 2016 to 2019? Because Obama wants Democrats, who believe they will win 2020, to govern without being encumbered by the minority.
It’s no coincidence the same politicos clamoring for more direct democracy are the ones who view the Constitution as the biggest impediment to their goals.
The filibuster complements the constitutional checks and balances that have historically made American governance effective.
A strong minority has always been a distinguishing feature of the upper house. Because when thin majorities ram through massive centralized federal laws that affect all states, as Democrats plan to do, it not only undermines political stability but self-governance, as well. The blowback to the heavy-handed passage of Obamacare should have been instructive. The more divergent our views become, the more imperative it is to build consensus.
Democrats increasingly favor centralized federal reforms on green energy and single-payer and so on. A minority gums up the works. It’s that simple.
Earlier, Democrats destroyed norms on executive appointments so they could name some bureaucrats to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. They seemed to think they would hold power in perpetuity. “One day Democrats will be in the majority again, and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority,” Obama presciently warned back in 2005. That warning still stands.