Filibusters and Dialogue

by Kakofonous

As somewhat of a response to Young Sentinel's run-down of Democratic prospects in the Senate run-offs/recounts that are and will be happening over the next month or two, I thought I'd write a bit about my firm belief that a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would be bad for the country. Just to clarify, I am a Democrat and a liberal. I support many of Barack Obama's and the Democratic Party's positions. Nonetheless, the prospect of a majority that can literally quash opposition is never a beneficial part of a democratic state.

One of the recurring notions that President-elect Obama put forth throughout his campaign was post-partisanship–"reaching across the aisle". This is an admirable sentiment that is extremely relevant in the current US political and economic environment, thrashed for eight years by the political tactics of Karl Rove and his associates into a competition for votes rather than a collaboration for progress. However, a filibuster-proof could very likely diminish this step forward. Those in power always want to retain it–if the Democrats, energized by a 60+ majority in the Senate, began to pursue keeping seats before producing results, we could be looking at another Rovian period in politics. What is needed at this moment, as the global economic situation, the environment, and the domestic situation in the US need major overhaul, is not a reprise of divisive politics, one-party rule, and stifling of debate. What is needed is the true role of the Senate and the House: deliberation and legislation.