The filibuster is a bulwark against hyper-partisanship. If you can't get at least a few people in the opposing party to put it to a vote, it's probably a bad idea.
Same with the electoral college system. Who wants an absolute tyranny of the majority?
I trust Republicans over Democrats to safeguard these safeguards, and not because they're…
The filibuster is a bulwark against hyper-partisanship. If you can't get at least a few people in the opposing party to put it to a vote, it's probably a bad idea.
Same with the electoral college system. Who wants an absolute tyranny of the majority?
I trust Republicans over Democrats to safeguard these safeguards, and not because they're (frequently) in the minority, but because they're sticklers for tradition.
It's like my dad told me when I wanted to buy a new car. "Don't ever buy a 'completely redesigned' model. It'll take them at least 5 years to work out the bugs from a total factory redo. Yes, it's flashy and shiny and exciting, but you'll get burned every time. Always wait at least 5 years, because that's when the problems will start showing up, and the company will have tweaked the design to correct them."
Republicans (even the crooked ones) generally want incremental change. Progressives (especially the crooked ones) generally want immediate, radical change.
Ironically, Trump was probably the one president over the last few decades who took a little from column A and a little from column B. Both Republicans and Democrats wasted the opportunities he presented.
I agree with most of what you've posted in this thread, so please don't take this as *too* much of a rebuke . . .
Republicans aren't strict stickers for tradition; the Merrick Garland maneuver took balls and was, frankly, the kind of move that Dixiecrats would've pulled to kill civil rights. And even they might not have done it.
And there's some strip-mining of regulations, particularly of the financial industry, that could've done with a bit of incrementalism in the late 20th century. Both parties have approved of radical changes, just for different reasons.
If the platform is decent, it's more like 2-3 years. Because the engineers already know, in advance, what is problematic and are already working on the fixes as they launch. THEY KNOW...they just typically run out of time. For example, Explorer rollover problems with under inflated Firestones. The ride/handling guys knew what happened when they did a high speed J turn. They talked about it during the design/test phase. "Just make sure tires are properly inflated" - yep, like the average American checks their tire inflation weekly ;-)
«The filibuster is a bulwark against hyper-partisanship. If you can't get at least a few people in the opposing party to put it to a vote, it's probably a bad idea.»
To me that is not a serious argument, in the USA case it is more in practice supercharging the enormously larger weight given to states with smaller populations.
Also the "bad idea" and "bipartisan" concept seems to me to related to the eternal illusion that politics is about choosing the best ideas during a debate among philosopher-kings rather than a fight among competing interests.
«Same with the electoral college system. Who wants an absolute tyranny of the majority?»
Same: the Senate already has an anti-majority device in the 2-per-state rule.
«I trust Republicans over Democrats [...} because they're sticklers for tradition. Republicans (even the crooked ones) generally want incremental change. Progressives (especially the crooked ones) generally want immediate, radical change.»
That to me seems the usual burkean propaganda, which was bullshit even as he wrote it. The conservatives are always and everywhere not for incremental change, but for advancing the vested interests of incumbents. That often is done defensively, by delaying change adverse to incumbent with the "incremental change" argument, but when advancing the interests of incumbents they can switch and do radical change. This has been even codified in a saying "change everything so that nothing changes" ("tout changer pour rien changer").
PS Burke was defending the vested interests of incumbent feudal "tory" landowners against the potential "radical change" of the french and american "whig" revolutions, or at least slow down the takeover of the english state by the new class of "whig" ironmasters. A battle that in some ways is echoed today in that between the tradcon right and the neoliberal right.
The more expansive and intrusive government policy and regulation become, the more important that said policies represent those of most people. Since both parties pander to fringe partisans, we need super-majorities in Congress to keep more extreme ideas from being imposed by 50% plus one.
As for conservatives promoting incumbents and GOP party interests, of course they do--just like Democrats.
«The more expansive and intrusive government policy and regulation become, the more important that said policies represent those of most people. Since both parties pander to fringe partisans, we need super-majorities»
I think that you may be forgetting that the most "expansive and intrusive government policy and regulation" like PATRIOT Act, Afghanistan+Iraq TARP+bailout have been approved by 90%+ congressional majorities, because those are the policies where the entire ruling class likes. The "controversial" ones that appear prominently on the media are usually just posturing for the benefit of gullible voters.
The filibuster was supposed to only be used sparingly, rarely. Yet it is used daily, repeatedly to block just to prevent a "win" from the other Team. We elected these people - we don't need bulwarks on top of bulwarks. We already have a bulwark - representative democracy versus mob rule.
I have held for a while for the need for the filibuster to "hurt", especially politically, to be used. It aligns with Manchin's idea of going back to the speaking filbuster.
The filibuster is a bulwark against hyper-partisanship. If you can't get at least a few people in the opposing party to put it to a vote, it's probably a bad idea.
Same with the electoral college system. Who wants an absolute tyranny of the majority?
I trust Republicans over Democrats to safeguard these safeguards, and not because they're (frequently) in the minority, but because they're sticklers for tradition.
It's like my dad told me when I wanted to buy a new car. "Don't ever buy a 'completely redesigned' model. It'll take them at least 5 years to work out the bugs from a total factory redo. Yes, it's flashy and shiny and exciting, but you'll get burned every time. Always wait at least 5 years, because that's when the problems will start showing up, and the company will have tweaked the design to correct them."
Republicans (even the crooked ones) generally want incremental change. Progressives (especially the crooked ones) generally want immediate, radical change.
Ironically, Trump was probably the one president over the last few decades who took a little from column A and a little from column B. Both Republicans and Democrats wasted the opportunities he presented.
I agree with most of what you've posted in this thread, so please don't take this as *too* much of a rebuke . . .
Republicans aren't strict stickers for tradition; the Merrick Garland maneuver took balls and was, frankly, the kind of move that Dixiecrats would've pulled to kill civil rights. And even they might not have done it.
And there's some strip-mining of regulations, particularly of the financial industry, that could've done with a bit of incrementalism in the late 20th century. Both parties have approved of radical changes, just for different reasons.
If the platform is decent, it's more like 2-3 years. Because the engineers already know, in advance, what is problematic and are already working on the fixes as they launch. THEY KNOW...they just typically run out of time. For example, Explorer rollover problems with under inflated Firestones. The ride/handling guys knew what happened when they did a high speed J turn. They talked about it during the design/test phase. "Just make sure tires are properly inflated" - yep, like the average American checks their tire inflation weekly ;-)
«The filibuster is a bulwark against hyper-partisanship. If you can't get at least a few people in the opposing party to put it to a vote, it's probably a bad idea.»
To me that is not a serious argument, in the USA case it is more in practice supercharging the enormously larger weight given to states with smaller populations.
Also the "bad idea" and "bipartisan" concept seems to me to related to the eternal illusion that politics is about choosing the best ideas during a debate among philosopher-kings rather than a fight among competing interests.
«Same with the electoral college system. Who wants an absolute tyranny of the majority?»
Same: the Senate already has an anti-majority device in the 2-per-state rule.
«I trust Republicans over Democrats [...} because they're sticklers for tradition. Republicans (even the crooked ones) generally want incremental change. Progressives (especially the crooked ones) generally want immediate, radical change.»
That to me seems the usual burkean propaganda, which was bullshit even as he wrote it. The conservatives are always and everywhere not for incremental change, but for advancing the vested interests of incumbents. That often is done defensively, by delaying change adverse to incumbent with the "incremental change" argument, but when advancing the interests of incumbents they can switch and do radical change. This has been even codified in a saying "change everything so that nothing changes" ("tout changer pour rien changer").
PS Burke was defending the vested interests of incumbent feudal "tory" landowners against the potential "radical change" of the french and american "whig" revolutions, or at least slow down the takeover of the english state by the new class of "whig" ironmasters. A battle that in some ways is echoed today in that between the tradcon right and the neoliberal right.
The more expansive and intrusive government policy and regulation become, the more important that said policies represent those of most people. Since both parties pander to fringe partisans, we need super-majorities in Congress to keep more extreme ideas from being imposed by 50% plus one.
As for conservatives promoting incumbents and GOP party interests, of course they do--just like Democrats.
«The more expansive and intrusive government policy and regulation become, the more important that said policies represent those of most people. Since both parties pander to fringe partisans, we need super-majorities»
I think that you may be forgetting that the most "expansive and intrusive government policy and regulation" like PATRIOT Act, Afghanistan+Iraq TARP+bailout have been approved by 90%+ congressional majorities, because those are the policies where the entire ruling class likes. The "controversial" ones that appear prominently on the media are usually just posturing for the benefit of gullible voters.
So true. Trump was not an idealogue but a utilitarian. Wanted to get things done. Lost opportunities.
The filibuster was supposed to only be used sparingly, rarely. Yet it is used daily, repeatedly to block just to prevent a "win" from the other Team. We elected these people - we don't need bulwarks on top of bulwarks. We already have a bulwark - representative democracy versus mob rule.
We should go back to the Senate as intended - to represent the interests of each State. Mandating popular election was a mistake.
Probably the second biggest mistake in Constitutional Amendments.
Any time people bitch about Wyoming having two senators, my answer is "Move to Wyoming and vote, or run for the Senate yourself."
Notice those folks use Wyoming as the outlier and not Vermont or Delaware?
Well said. Turns out wyoming is bullish on bitcoin.
I have held for a while for the need for the filibuster to "hurt", especially politically, to be used. It aligns with Manchin's idea of going back to the speaking filbuster.
You're probably happy there was a filibuster in 2017.