Friday 28 January 2011

Refusing To Change

It seems like a little while since people were howling in outrage over GOP misuse of the filibuster.  I suspect this is partially because the lame-duck session actually achieved something, and partially because in a situation where different parties control the Senate and the House, it becomes less meaningful.  The minority in the Senate don't really need the filibuster; because their colleagues in the House will vote down things they'd dislike in any event.

Regardless, given the sheer number of filibusters thrown up in the last twenty years, it's clear that such a situation can hardly be relied upon - to say nothing of how depressing it is to consider that the only time intra-house partisanship doesn't prevent obstruction is when the inter-house kind can do it instead.

So, given the ludicrous abuse of the filibuster in recent years, and it's total failure to work in anything like the way it was originally intended to, and how angry multiple Democratic figures got about it all, what's going to happen regarding reform?

Nothing.

This, of course, is deeply frustrating, but hardly surprising. Ezra Klein has an excellent piece up on why the Democrats have screwed this up so badly, but the only line you really need to read is here:
Both parties are more committed to being able to obstruct than they are to being able to govern.
Amen.  Despite the bitterness and filthiness of American politics, its hyperventilating and unchecked aggression, and the morass of bigotry and obvious mendacity, this is the part that genuinely makes me more depressed than anything else.  Both parties care less about running the country when they're asked to than making sure the guys that did get asked can can't get on with the job.

2 comments:

Jamie said...

'Both parties care less about running the country when they're asked to than making sure the guys that did get asked can get on with the job.'

I assume you mean 'can't get on with the job'...

SpaceSquid said...

Yes I do. 'Tis fixed now.