You’ve heard (way too many times) the facile comparison between legislating and making sausage. It’s the kind of analogy that obscures the spectacular level of dysfunction now most impressively on display in the U.S. Senate. This institution has always been a problem with respect to the popular will, but under the current circumstances, the “world’s greatest deliberative body” has become not the cooling saucer of democracy but a dousing bucket of cold water. There is, of course, no question that the Senate is an extremely undemocratic institution, according the same number of votes and, therefore, the same political power to every state, whether it is home to 36 million (California) or 500,000 (Wyoming). Even if the chamber’s arcane rules allowed for voting on a majority-rule basis, it would be intrinsically unfair to larger population centers – i.e. the kinds of communities that most rely on social programs administered by the federal government.

But it’s far more unfair than that. For one thing, under the rules of the senate, a single member can hold up important legislation and key appointments. And in a political moment such as the one we find ourselves in now, any piece of legislation must repeatedly achieve a 60-vote super majority to gain passage. If you combine the populations of all of the states that have 2 Democratic (or Dem-caucusing independent) Senators, that alone makes up more than half of the U.S. population. Those 158 + million people are represented by 44 out of 100 members. A bare majority in the Senate would require votes representing a far greater number than that. That in itself is remarkably limiting, given the important constitutional role the Senate plays in making and shaping legislation, ratifying treaties, confirming presidential appointees, and so on. When you combine that with the additional requirement that legislation – any legislation – must garner 60 votes to gain passage, this is a significant veto power over the will of the majority.

The current situation in the Senate is such that the filibuster is a constant, a given. So the notion that any meaningful action will take place within its walls – landmark legislation supported by a broad swath of the American public – is beyond contemplation. It would be difficult under majoritarian voting procedures, but the 60-vote minimum requires the inclusion of so many watery centrists and “Democrats in name only” that the guts are always ripped out of whatever is under consideration. This is certainly true of the health insurance reform legislation. This will also be true of any other major initiative. After this year’s experience, I am doubtful that they will even attempt to take up the Employee Free Choice Act… and I’m certain that, if they did, the Ben Nelsons (representing 1.8 million), Mary Landrieus (representing 4.8 million), and Joe Liebermans (representing 3.5 million) will easily thwart the will of members representing twice, three times, and even eight times as many people.

We are stuck with the Senate, just as we are stuck with the Electoral College. But the filibuster rule is something that should be eliminated yesterday.

luv u,

jp

Looks like the bottom is falling out of the legislative health insurance reform effort. Oh, there may be a bill, but the political legs are getting very wobbly. All of the compromises and fall-backs the left has agreed to over the past year have been painted as too radical for the public at large, even though the public at large broadly supports elements like the “public option” and expansion of Medicare to people under 65. In other words, the majority of people in the United States think there should be some kind of government provided health insurance available to everyone, not just retirees, veterans, and people in the United States Congress… but Joe Lieberman and 40 G.O.P. senators don’t want it, so it’s not going to happen. Small wonder that more recent polling by one of the major networks and the Wall Street Journal shows a majority now against the health care legislation under consideration in the Senate. Someone should poll Lieberman and make sure that he’s mostly happy now, since that’s all that seems to matter.

The interesting part is that, in announcing the poll results, the newscasters don’t seem to make that connection. We are presented with evidence of shifting public opinion but no real insight on why the shift has taken place. Why should this news warm the cockles of conservatives’ hearts? The public is unhappy with the legislation that they have been instrumental in bringing about. They have consistently demagogued on this issue from the very beginning. And with their titular ally Joe Lieberman – a man who avidly supported their presidential ticket last year and addressed their national convention, Zell Miller style – they have ensured that this legislation will be, at best, weak-as-dishwater reform, and, at worst, a sop to the insurance companies to the tune of millions of new customers and a federal license to print money, in essence. That is something people clearly don’t want. And that makes the conservatives happy. (In fact, it’s very similar to the type of “reform” McCain proposed during the campaign and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts.) They see it as Obama’s failure, and that to them means success.

Okay, so… look at the poll again. Something like 55% of those surveyed say the country is going in the “wrong direction.” What the hell does that mean? Wasn’t it going in the wrong direction last year as well, under Bush? Are we to assume that this means that a majority wants to elect Republicans, the folks who work tirelessly for the failure of the kind of health reform most people support (e.g. single payer, public option, Medicare expansion)? If this is like most political polls, it’s just a simple question – is the country moving in the right direction: yes, no, undecided. It seems as though, as with support for the war, there is an expectation on the part of those being polled that all one needs to do is vote every two years, sit back, fold your arms, and wait for the change to come in the mail. A portion of that is, I would guess, a function of how disconnected most  respondents feel with the policy…. Yeah, war is bad, but I don’t have to fight it, so go for it. Yeah, being grievously ill without health coverage is bad, but it probably won’t happen to me, so leave everything the way it is.

Part of it, though, almost has to be growing cynicism with a political system that seems incapable of translating the will of the electorate into solid, progressive policy.

luv u,

jp

Obama does Oslo this week. There’s been a lot of commentary on this, including my own, so I won’t add much at this point. Suffice to say, he’s collecting the award the Norwegian Nobel committee gave the people of the United States for electing someone who isn’t totally bug-fuck nuts and for putting the enormous American imperial locomotive back onto its tracks. Yeah, it’s still belching toxic smoke and running people over, but it’s doing it along a predictable line, pulling a bunch of lesser cars behind it, and that makes people a lot more comfortable. Let’s face it – Dubya thought the train was a go-cart. He drove it on the grass, into the middle of the street, through people’s living rooms, etc., to the point where no one wanted to hitch-up their boxcar anymore (except our trusty coal-car Britain and, I don’t know, Palau). Now that choo-choo Charlie has chugged his scrawny ass back to Texas, everybody wants back onto the empire gravy train. So… give the guy a medal. Civilization is saved!

Such as it is, anyway. We’ve got an administration that’s committed to pouring more soldiers and resources into Afghanistan (while slowly drawing them out of Iraq), even though it seems clear that, in a variety of ways, we are funding the very forces we seek to defeat. We’ve got a justice department that is refusing to hold domestic war criminals (or “terrorists,” if you prefer) accountable for their actions, providing legal cover for the likes of John Yoo, one of the primary genius theorists behind the Bush administration’s decision to implement its systematic policy of detainee abuse and torture. We’ve got a state department that has apparently reconciled itself with the ratification of the Honduran coup regime, accepting the results of a coup-administered “election” and allowing the establishment of a dangerous precedent for Latin American military overthrows, 2010-style. And we have a military procurement and contracting system that continues to run amok, allocating billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars for questionable weapons systems, well-connected logistics firms, and gun-for-hire mercenary forces like Blackwater that set new standards for unaccountable criminality.

I think it was Jonathan Turley who pointed out the painful irony of Obama’s acceptance of the Nobel at this time, when his justice department has just filed an amicus curiae brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to drop charges against Yoo. They are supporting the Bush contention that providing good faith and frank advice to the President should not make someone liable to even civil litigation. This is pretty much the same defense used by Nazi jurists and advisors before the Nuremberg tribunal. You are, in effect, defending the logic of war criminals, Mr. President. Let’s talk about it when you get back from Oslo. (No, really… we should talk. Put the medal away first.)

What the hell is this, opposite week? C’mon, Barry. You know better… or you ought to, anyway.

luv u,

jp