Thanks to the so-dubbed “underpants” bomber, the T.V. airwaves and blogosphere are all about terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, as if it’s something that just appeared out of nowhere this week. Where the hell has everyone been? I think part of the dynamic at work here is the simple fact that television news people spend a lot of their time on airplanes, and the tightened security that results from these attempted bombings is a real inconvenience to the jet set. (Me? I wouldn’t get on a plane these days unless somebody had a gun to my head.) Not sure if anyone else remembers, but a short time after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, it seemed like a lot of television commentators – the McLaughlin Group springs to mind – were complaining piteously about the demise of curbside check-in. Such an inconvenience. However will our civilization survive? (It has, somehow.) That helps to drive the news cycle a bit. I think my cousin had the perfect response at the time: That’s it, no more planes. If I don’t have to fly, you don’t have to fly. End of story. 

Most of the talk, of course, has been about how this could happen and what we can do to keep it from happening again. There has also been a lot of tough pundit talk about Yemen, as if somehow we have the capacity to mount yet another failed invasion. I think, though, that the central point of this whole episode is barely being discussed at all – the simple fact that, after eight years of war, we are still right where we were when it all started. In essence, people can still walk onto a plane and blow it up, make it crash, etc. – maybe not in precisely the same way as on 9-11, but just as devastatingly, it seems likely. So… what have we accomplished by invading two countries halfway around the world? As it turns out, less than nothing – we have, in fact, made ourselves more vulnerable to attack. It’s a classic supply-side argument, so all you Regan-lovers out there should be able to work this out. We’ve killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims, displaced millions more. There are a vastly greater number of people out there who want to see us suffer than there was in 2001. By increasing that pool, we’ve increased the likelihood of attack far beyond what our meager efforts at airline security are able to mitigate. Mission accomplished, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and, yes, now Obama. Good going.

There is also a strong presumption on the part of the Cheneys, the Buchanans, the Lindsey Grahams, etc., against treating terrorism cases as criminal matters rather than through military means. These people seem to have no faith in our justice system whatsoever. Do they really think it’s going to be hard to convict this Nigerian guy? The system is designed to put black people in jail under pretty much any circumstances, thanks in large measure to “conservatives”. For chrissake, it took just the mere mention of terrorism for them to give Jeff Leurs 22 years in a maximum security hell hole when he set fire to 3 pickup trucks at a car dealership with no intention to cause bodily harm to anyone. This case can easily be handled in the context of our courts. The Cheneys and Buchanans of the world are eager to apply the thumbscrew as well, in the full knowledge that to do so is illegal, immoral, unethical… and ineffective. But the desire to resort to torture is such an integral part of their worldview now – it is their way of appealing to the worst in all of us.

When we made this fight against terrorism a “war”, all we did was elevate the status of a bunch of criminals to that of a world power. That obviously hasn’t worked. Let’s try another way.

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