The overbearing majority: why did Schumer force a vote on ending the filibuster?
I’m confess I’m a bit stumped about the motive for this series of votes on Wednesday night. First, there was consideration of HR1 itself, and Republicans blocked taking up the bill. Then Schumer asked for a vote “to change the Senate rules to allow for a talking filibuster on this legislation…That would allow opponents to delay a bill by holding the Senate floor, but the legislation would be able to pass the Senate by a simple majority.”
It was known beforehand that his ploy would fail. And fail it did:
Breaking: Senate Republicans, along with Democratic Sens. Manchin and Sinema, have just blocked changing the filibuster rules for Democrats' voting rights and election package.
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) January 20, 2022
Highly foreseeable. Exactly what one would expect. Not to mention the additional fact that it’s not at all clear that HR1 itself would get Joe Manchin’s vote even if the other hurdles were cleared.
So, what was the point of forcing the vote? One possibility is that Schumer thought Manchin and Sinema were bluffing and that, when push came to shove, they’d cave. Ordinarily that’s not a bad bet, but the way they’ve been talking in recent months it didn’t seem at all likely this time, and Schumer must have known that.
Another theory being tossed around is that because Schumer is up for re-election this year and is afraid he’ll be primaried from the left, he’s protecting himself by holding this vote. Seems to me that trying this ploy and failing won’t hold him in good stead with the left, but perhaps their ire will be directed squarely at Manchin and Sinema. So far I think that’s the way it’s been, because looking at some random Twitter responses, I see that most of them appear to be saying the equivalent of “Keep fighting, Chuck.” But do Democrats on Twitter represent the Democratic Party as a whole?
A third possibility is some extremely Byzantine and Machiavellian machinations by Schumer that can’t be discerned from the outside.
This vote occurred despite the fairly obvious fact that forcing Democratic Senate members from more moderate states to take a leftist stand on the issue by voting with the party seems to me to make them more vulnerable to a defeat in 2022 if they’re up for re-election. Then again, most voters probably have no idea what’s actually in the voting act and how dangerous it is. The MSM certainly isn’t telling them. And rhetoric like this from Schumer makes it sound so fabulous and so vitally important: “We are going to vote — especially when the issue relates to the beating heart of our democracy as voting rights does.”
They don’t plan to give up, either. If you look at Twitter, you can see the underpinnings of the argument. Here’s an example of what I mean, and it’s not the only one:
There is something terribly wrong with a system that allows 41 Senate Republicans representing 21% of the country to block voting rights legislation supported by nearly 70% of Americans. It really, truly, doesn't have to be this way.
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) January 20, 2022
The vote was a lot more than “41 Republicans,” of course, but Reich is saying that it could have been blocked by a mere 41. It wouldn’t have to be members of one party, of course, and he’s also conveniently ignoring the fact that Democrats have used the same ploy when they are in the minority in the Senate.
Reich’s tweet advances more or less the same type of argument that Democrats use when campaigning for the abolition of the Electoral College, when they think that would benefit them – the idea that a simple majority based on a popular vote alone would be more “fair.” I doubt that Robert Reich is so ignorant that he’s unaware of why we have a bicameral legislature with a Senate in which each state has two votes, in addition to a House that’s run along quite different and much more population-centered lines. The Founders were aware of the perils of “overbearing majorities” [emphasis mine]:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority…
…[There is a] prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
That’s why we have a representative government, and it’s also why the House and Senate are structured as they are, in order to pay attention to the relative size of the population of various areas (the House) and to states as equal entities (the Senate). They act as checks on each other.
Meanwhile, “a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.” It’s grown to monstrous proportions now, greater than I can recall at any point in my lifetime.
One must follow through to the end regardless…
The outcome is not fixed, even if everyone thinks its fixed…
So the only way to actually know (this time) is to follow through..
A majority of people give up way before the end they win
from before they start all the way up to the day before the results, they walk away rather than follow through…
They’ve been using this “racist, Jim Crow relic” line to smear anyone who is for the filibuster for weeks now. I believe both Obama and Biden issued statements last week. Then the Democrats used that very same “racist, Jim Crow relic” filibuster to prevent Cruz’s bill that would have placed sanctions back on Putin over the Nord Stream2 pipeline. Funny, last Thursday the filibuster was noble and necessary otherwise Cruz’s bill would have passed with 55 yea votes.
Then on Friday it was back to being a “racist, Jim Crow relic” again.
I couldn’t do this with a straight face. But then, I can’t count on the press to hide my dishonesty and hypocrisy from the public like Democrats can.
Schumer may fear an AOC primary challenge but are New York voters that crazy ? Maybe although NYC voters elected a “moderate” as Mayor this time. He may fear the crazy media more than her. The billionaires and the LA Times had more to do with George Gascon winning the DA race over a black woman incumbent.
Set up ADs for Dems for 2022. Paint Rep as mean, evil White Supremacists. So nothing new in 2022.
Schumer may fear an AOC primary challenge but are New York voters that crazy ?
Letitia James, a childless spinster who hadn’t practiced law in 19 years, who had been limited to public defender and legal aid work during the decade when she did practice, and who back in the day required multiple attempts to pass the bar exam, was elected state attorney-general over a black Republican with over 20 years experience in BigLaw, a family man with other things to do with his life than hold public office. She’s sworn in and does just what you’d expect, exploit the attorney-general’s office to persue political vendettas. New York voters haven’t hit bottom yet.
If you recall his writings in The New Republic ca. 1983, you have to ask yourself what a neuropsychiatric examiner would make of Robert Reich today. Age does damage.
SHIREHOME:
The Democrats didn’t actually have to take a vote to say “Republicans are racist.” They’ve been doing that nonstop for years, plus everyone already knew the Republicans were against the bill even without taking an actual vote.
It is hard to figure out Schumer or any Democrat/liberal unless you know just how deep in denial they are about the state of things.
I just went to a political blog that prides itself on how moderate and thoughtful it is (even after being consumed with anti-Trump hysteria for four years) and discovered they didn’t have ONE post on Biden’s press conference. They had multiple Biden-related posts the past week but NOT ONE on his press conference or ANYTHING he said during it.
When you selectively withdraw from reality to that extent, you become indecipherable to normal people.
Mike
“New York voters haven’t hit bottom yet.”
I sure hope they do and then get a chance to stew in the mire they have made for a long, long time.
Most likely, the motivation was placating the activist base. Whether for Schumer personally and/or for the party.
“Robert Reich calls for violence against Kyrsten Sinema…”
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/robert-reich-calls-for-violence-against-kyrsten-sinema/
The senate adopted the filibuster in the very early 19th century. Then, every senators were chosen by their state government, either legislature, governor or some combo. They could be recalled by the same method. The President ran the federal government and had obligations to its apparatus. The People’s House represent the individual populations of the various congressional districts. But the senate was designed to represent the states, at the federal level… a triad of representational government meant to provide checks & balances before any resort to the courts. The 17th Amendment of 1913 made senators popularly elected across their state, cut them loose as free agents, beholden to none but their large donors or, worse, family interests. That’s why they are all millionaires now. Our very own House of Lords. But the worse outcome is that the 50 states lost the power of representation at the federal level, and the very real protections for the minority of states provided by the filibuster rule. It’s now wielded by the free agents, for whatever purposes they have in mind. I’m not for changing the rule… while it is misused for petty purposes, it is still used to protect minority interests of regions the senators (and their donors) are from from being dominated by a majority by forcing issues to be negotiated, compromised & a super majority can act if needed. But the only legitimate fix is to repeal the 17th, taking away the senate free agent status and giving representation back to the states. It’s no coincidence that the erosion of state powers (and tax base) to be amassed and consolidated at the federal level began in the Wilson administration circa 1914. It’s only accelerated since, as the state only option to influence federal governance now is by lobbying (outbidding corporations and other actors) or through the courts in lawsuits. It wasn’t designed or meant to be this way.
}}} but Reich…
… has ALWAYS been a prevaricating ambulatory humaniform container of excreta.
In actual fact, there is strong evidence that, at birth, he came out of the wrong orifice.
😛
“… has ALWAYS been a prevaricating ambulatory humaniform container of excreta.
In actual fact, there is strong evidence that, at birth, he came out of the wrong orifice.”
🙂
I would have said as much about Sy Hersh once upon a time… but nowadays I’ve warmed to the man.
Reich though… Pity he didn’t go on an ill-starred Freedom Ride.
I think Schumer forced the vote to use as an example of how unfair, undemocratic, and just plain mean the Senate is and how it needs to be reimagined like the electoral college and the Constitution itself.
There are going to be some tough times ahead and the Dems will say tough times call for radical measures. We can’t solve the problems of today using the tools of dead, slave-owning, white males.
I usually ignore what Robert Reeiiiiiicccchh has to say.
There’s something to be said for people who push 100% even when they know they are going to lose. Although Manchin and Sinema stayed strong, the vote must have taken an emotional toll and isolated them further from their fellow senators. And that’s a kind of sweet vengeance.
I think that every time the Ds talk about “democracy” and control by the federal government, the R’s need to mention that the US is a constitutional Republic and control is in the states.
Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.
Why did Schumer push this? I suspect it was a setup for the hyperbole media campaign from the likes of Robert Reich, which I think is what G. Harper is saying.
And as Steve57 said, the Dems don’t have to be in the minority to use the filibuster as they used it just recently to stop Ted Cruz’s bill. Talk about hypocrisy. But hey, if you own the media, not many will know these inconvenient details.
This propaganda point that the Dems are protecting voting rights, civil rights, and democracy itself with HR1 sounds bonkers, but it has a history.
The Obama admin. strong armed Texas when they passed a voter ID law, blocking it under the authority of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That Act was intended to stop excesses such as poll taxes and poll qualifying examinations, but was used by the Dems to block anything that makes the voting process less than a trivial exercise. One problem with the old Act is that it only applied to states or counties that had demonstrated these excesses in the past. Gotta fix that.
See this from 2013.
… more than a trivial exercise. Sheesh.
A friend who maintains social media links with lots of progressives (colleagues) reports that their only take on the press conference was, “Isn’t it nice that he’s going to send us free masks and test kits?”
Bottom line is dems have known elections in many locales have been illegitmate for years. They will not let this go easily. Its all they have.
Wilson was a truly Evil Man.
@ MBunge > “They had multiple Biden-related posts the past week but NOT ONE on his press conference or ANYTHING he said during it.
When you selectively withdraw from reality to that extent, you become indecipherable to normal people.”
They could have printed this one.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-performance-press-conference-kevin-walling
“Biden gave a commanding performance at his press conference.
Biden was forceful, direct, self-deprecating and earnest on Wednesday”
I had to double-check that this was a Fox post, and not The Babylon Bee.
I’m not sure why Fox is printing it, but I suppose it’s part of the “fair and balanced” mantra.
It was a good reminder that we need to keep looking at the movie the Democrat voters see on their screen.
That’s the perception that has to be countered, and reality doesn’t always get the job done, as with Wendy’s friends.
But, I don’t know of any other weapon that has a better chance; counter-propaganda (aka fake news) might do it, but at the certain risk of making things worse.
Kamikaze missions have costs. Schumer did this knowing his side would lose. Maybe he did it because he, politically, felt threatened by AOC and her squad. Maybe it was something else. Maybe his donors demanded it. No matter. In his party only Manchin and Sinema voted against it. In a lot of swing states, voters didn’t want their Senators to “carve out” an exemption for this bill which isn’t particularly popular. If it were popular, it wouldn’t need a carve out. And I at least recognize, and if I recognize it then so do millions more voters, that there’s no such thing as a carve out. If you get rid of a rule like the filibuster “just once,” then you’re only pretending it’s still a rule. Schumer’s “carve out” would have proven it’s not a rule but only a pretense.
Whatever his short sighted reasons, Schumer may well have sacrificed some of his vulnerable members in purple states by making them vote on the record for this opportunistic, naked power-grab.
And if I’m right, and Schumer just threw those Senate seats away, I’m fine with that.
The most vulnerable Republican seat is Pat Toomey’s in Pennsylvania. The most vulnerable Democratic seats are those of Mastro (Nevada), Kelly (Arizona), Warnock (Georgia), and Hassan (New Hampshire).
I tend to doubt votes on procedural matters will make much of a difference. The Democrats’ horrid treatment of Brett Kavanaugh in September 2018 does not appear to have injured them significantly in congressional elections held less than two months later. See James Neuchterlein on swing voters. Per Neuchterlein, the exemplary swing voter casts a ballot for or against based on sterling wisdom like “she reminds me of my first wife”. Not my trade, but I think the hope for Republicans is that the inflation and the continual fellatio given the predators in the teachers’ unions and the school apparat will persuade weak Democrats to switch sides and a critical mass of swing voters to hit the ‘on’ switch on their brain.
Senator AOC.
Why force a vote on a losing cause? Because they have determined it somehow works to their advantage politically, and as propaganda against their opponents. I don’t see it as anything more than that.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.”
The senate filibuster, presidential veto, and any legislation that requires a supermajority to pass is protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Schumer and all the others complaining right now about this fully support those principles when they oppose something.
And Cornhead has identified Schumer’s reason #1.
It’s no coincidence that the erosion of state powers (and tax base) to be amassed and consolidated at the federal level began in the Wilson administration circa 1914. It’s only accelerated since
That never happened. During Wilson’s administration, the ratio of federal expenditure to domestic product was < 0.02. The one troublesome thing which dates from that era would be the foundation of the Bureau of Public Roads, as it was among the 1st instances of the federal treasury providing grants to state governments. IIRC, some of the federal regulatory legislation of that era was rather vague about just what the powers of the agencies being incorporated were, and that was also troublesome.
The expansion of the public sector in general has not accelerated. It has tended to increase in a step-wise fashion, with the most salient period being that running from 1940 to 1974. The ratio of public expenditure to domestic product has tended to fluctuate around a set point since 1974. We've seen two attempts in the last 15 years by the Democratic Party to knock it up another step. That's one thing that has to be resisted before you can begin to reduce the public sector to a more appropriate dimension and menu of powers.
@Liz-I totally agree with you. For the last 10 years I cringe when someone speaks about our democracy. I always make the point that we are fortunate to have a constitutional Republic-and explain why. Civics was poorly taught at my high school 35+ years ago, and now I’m not even sure they teach it.
the length and breath of federal involvement has been staggering specially since the commerce clause became the swiss army knife, conversely it has been less relevant for actual commerce,
pat toomey was elected in part on the tea party banner, against specter, but he very quickly resolved to swamp factory settings (see gun control restrictions) and he enabled the steal in his state,
There is something terribly wrong with a system that allows a singularly unaccomplished mediocrity like Robert Reich to achieve a position of influence.
Art Deco
“The one troublesome thing which dates from that era would be the foundation of the Bureau of Public Roads,”
Have you forgotten the establishment of the Federal Reserve and its pressure to move the US to our fiat money system or do you assert it to be of no importance?
Have you forgotten the establishment of the Federal Reserve and its pressure to move the US to our fiat money system or do you assert it to be of no importance?
I haven’t forgotten it at all. Your scenario is largely imaginary. It took 59 years for federal authorities to discontinue fixed exchange rates, so I’m not sure why you fancy so doing was an inevitable result of erecting a central bank. There’s a reason the federal authorities got rid of gold – it generates unnecessary policy dilemmas and ultimately provides scant benefit. It can, in select circumstances, be quite injurious (see the period running from 1929 to 1933).
There is something terribly wrong with a system that allows a singularly unaccomplished mediocrity like Robert Reich to achieve a position of influence.
That’s overstated. It is true that his academic career is a demonstration of how, even at elite levels, higher education can function as a patronage mill for the nomenklatura. Someone with Reich’s foundational expertise but without his collection of swell friends might have been a professor at a 2d tier law school with a clutch of publications on the issues he was addressing prior to 1981. Or he might have remained at the Federal Trade Commission. Or he might be at Brookings. Instead, he’s gone from the FTC to the Kennedy School to Clinton cabinet to the public policy program at Brandeis, to the public policy program at Berkeley.
Like John Kenneth Galbraith, he’s published a mess of books pitched to professional-managerial class liberals (and people one ratchet down) who are reading outside their field. However, he’s published only a modest quantum scholarly literature and that portion thereof which was not an extension of topical commentary was found in law reviews which hit the presses between 1972 and 1986. Given the content of his magazine journalism and his general interest books, I was stunned to discover he had no background in economics or in the study of business, or in business enterprise. He’s a lawyer, and one who hasn’t had an actual law job since his days at the FTC. I’ve been able to find no indication that he ever immersed himself in the literature of statistical analysis, yet there he’s been on a public policy faculty. Figures as disparate as Thomas Sowell and Paul Krugman have provided critiques of JK Galbraith’s career. Reich merits the same treatment.
Again, if you remember him at The New Republic or on PBS ca. 1983, you’re struck by the decay of his intellect and civic virtue. It’s a cautionary tale for everyone. I don’t think in his last years as a public figure Galbraith was any worse than he’d ever been. Not so Reich.
It’s hard to discern why Schumer did what he did, and there’s no point in listening to his rhetoric, which is for political effect on the Democrat base. He doesn’t seem to me to be an innovative leader, so maybe he simply did it because Pelosi told him to. She’s the leader of her party, not Schumer nor Biden.
Mine: It’s no coincidence that the erosion of state powers (and tax base) to be amassed and consolidated at the federal level began in the Wilson administration circa 1914. It’s only accelerated since
Art Decco: That never happened.
My reply: Underwood-Simmons Act (first ever federal income tax), Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, Child Labor laws, 8 hour workday (for Railroad workers- Commerce Clause), federal government loans to farmers, prohibition amendment. To name a few federal usurpations of state powers.
Whatever your drinking, I want some.