For Democrats there's a big storm ongoing in Massachusetts. But it has some silver linings.
Stop Fussing about The Filibuster
All too much attention has been paid to trying to get a veto-proof vote in the Senate. Fear of filibuster never used to stop Senators from conducting votes in the past. The Senate is designed, under ordinary circumstances, to require simple majority vote for most things. Yes, Republicans have lately been threatening the filibuster more often, but that doesn't mean they'll do it. They're just enjoying the fact that it makes the Democrats give up without trying. If their bluff were called and they really had to filibuster day after day as their only tool, rather than engaging debate, the citizenry would quickly tire of it.
So I'm with David Brin on this, when he says “Invite the filibuster”. With only 59 votes, the Democrats will have to just risk the filibuster or else they might as well all go home because they no longer pretend the magic number is even achievable against the Party of No, whose entire apparent strategy amounts to little more than blocking consensus.
Even if the Democrats do get filibustered, it will help them next election to be able to claim they voted in favor of things like Health Care and that the Republicans voted against. But if instead they never bring these things to vote, it will help them not at all to run on a platform of “Well, it wouldn't have worked so we didn't try.”
Wake-up Call
If the Democrat had won in Massachusetts, the Democratic party might have blown their planning for the next election, thinking there was no real threat. Voters might have stayed home thinking all was calm. Hopefully distress over what happened today will wake Democrats up to the need to organize better. Hopefully, too, disaffected Democrats who just want to throw away their vote on a protest will see how badly that can end up.
Howard Dean, speaking to Rachel Maddow tonight, said he thought the loss was no one's fault. In fact, I think Coakley ran a pretty ineffective campaign, and there's plenty of fault to deal with there in terms of just managing image and controlling message. But Dean is right that a lot of it is just the natural consequence of what Bush left us all with. To some degree it was inevitable that some people would still be experiencing pain, and would take it out on the party in power. Maybe not everyone, but perhaps a critical few percent.
It's almost like the game of eeny, meeny, miny, moe in which it matters whether the specific number of following words is odd or even. There's a pendulum swinging back and forth and it's not magic how the outcome is, it matters who's the odd person and who's the even one.
Boom. The economy crashes. Republicans are in disfavor. Enter Obama. He doesn't clean it all up. Democrats are in disfavor. Enter Scott Brown. He perhaps doesn't fix it either. Republicans now in less favor. How does this affect the 2010 election? Well, it may work out better for the Democrats than if no special election had happened, since it gives them a chance to rally. But then again, if they don't, the 2012 election will be hurt. So some of it relies on real politics, and some on casual chance and opportunity.
Bottom Line
For Democrats it was very important to win this. But now it's spilled milk, so it's time to move on. To quote Nietzsche, “What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.” Only I don't think he had it quite right. What he should have said is, “What doesn't kill you is an opportunity to become stronger, don't waste it.”
If you got value from this post, please "rate" it.


Salon.com
Comments
It seems nearly impossible to figure out what this election really means, if anything in terms of the national picture.
Regardless, I hope it does serve as a “wake-up call” pushing some change in the approach to issues by the representatives in congress. My own view is that nothing will change.
“Republicans have lately been threatening the filibuster more often, but that doesn't mean they'll do it. They're just enjoying the fact that it makes the Democrats give up without trying.”
I think you’re right in the above statement, but doesn’t it seem like the question that should be asked is, “Why do they give without trying?” Why do they?
RATED
Abrawang, that's Brin's point. I think he's right. Incidentally, I would also be happy if the filibuster went away.
Bonnie, certainly there are wounds that are debilitating, but I don't think the optimism is misplaced. And it's funny coming from Nietzsche, who I don't think of as the poster child for optimism. Glad you're on board with the other parts, though.
Steve, look at it this way—the Democrats have been not doing that well up to now. A “restoration of the status quo” wouldn't have been much to look forward to.
"Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until either cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate."
Nonetheless, what to the Dems have to lose? They could probably get rid of those craven compromises and take their chances on some decent legislation.
You write, “I honestly think they're not very thoughtful and/or the leaders are not really leading.”
“Thoughtful” --- what occurs to me as I read that is maybe it just depends on how you define that. Thoughtful about what, or in what direction, towards what goal?
Am I just more cynical than you, or does that seem like a valid question?
Abrawang, my understanding had been that they still had to talk endlessly but I could be wrong. Maybe someone else reading along knows? Or maybe Wikipedia sources the info and you could follow the lead. (It's late and I'm tired or I might try...)
The people of Massachusetts quite frankly must hate black people and more specifically President Obama. After all, if this race had been held in Texas, would we not be talking about how race was a factor? Mississippi, racists! Any state south of the Mason-Dixon line would clearly have a result tainted by racism. People there couldn't possibly but upset with someone on an issue related basis alone. There is a difference between being a party of No, and being a party of "No to that!" Voting against the healthcare bill isn't saying I don't want healthcare; it's saying that particular bill is bad. We keep hearing about how both sides basically agree about so much that can be improved, but do the Democrats go and work with the Republicans to get that portion passed? No, they don't, but yet they want to call them the party of No. When it seems they want to be the party of it has to be my way or nothing else, and I'll just say you are no to everything if you don't vote for my way. Name one concession made in healthcare to the Republicans...just one. I mean the bill is 2000 pages long, there has to be one provision where the Democrats came to Republicans and said, were the leaders and let's actually lead and get this done in the right way. Nope...doesn't exist. Instead they feel that leading means shoving your proposal through the process because we won and elections matter, remember. The people wanted this. Yes, we said we'd be transparent, and we aren't but the people don't really want that. Yes, we said we'd go after the cadillac plans, but we didn't mean the ones held by other Democrats, the people don't want that. Yes, we said we didn't want a mandate, but the people don't want that either. We are passing the exact legislation that the people voted for in 2008, in the same way; you can't speak badly against us. Clearly only the ones who do hate President Obama because they are racists!
Also - I love your revision of the Nietzsche - thanks for that one, Obi Wan!
I want to know A; WHY did we not use a reconciliation vote to pass a better health care bill? and B. WHY was a filibuster to be so feared and avoided at all costs? Let the Republicans explain at length why they're blocking everything American needs to accomplish for reasons OTHER than "We just want to screw Obama because he's not white and Republiccan." We should not only invite the filibuster, we should call their bluff and MAKE them do it.
And why haven't they done it? While they're in ideological right wing lock step, the Republicans would have a hard time coming up with logical reasons for their opposition that would hold water rather than just screaming "SOCIALISM! NAZISIM! FEAR, FIRE FOES AWAKE!" They don't want to have to come out with that town hall bullying stuff on the floor of the Senate.
I think though that the Democrats need to be bolder and lean further left, and the Republicans need to get their heads out of their behinds, and BOTH parties need to reinvent themselves.
Do they care?
Look it's not Bush's fault that she lost. She lost because the people of MA realize that the health care bill is nothing but bribes and back room deals. BTW, how many closed door, no Republicans allowed, meetings did they have to get this done? How many polls are available that say the people want this 2000 page POS bill? Not polls that say the people want some sort of health care reform, but this bill.
The Republicans didn't obstruct anything in this bill. They couldn't stop anything. The only reason they have pissed off a year is because they won't stop fighting with each other or looking for their bribes to go and vote on something. At no point did they ever need the first Republican to do anything. They could have done this in just a few weeks, but no, they have to get their bribe.
You complain about how the Republicans are the party of no. How is it that if both sides vote along party lines it's the Republican's who are not being bipartisan? Why can't the Dems vote with the Republicans? At some points I thought Snow did vote with you.
So go ahead and push how the Republicans obstructed this and they are the party of no. Then watch as the Republicans push back with how the Dems wanted to push down everybody's throat something they don't want at any cost. Watch as you are branded as the party of "smoky back room deals", and the party of special deals and vote buying and selling. Watch as you are branded as the party that won't keep their promises on what they will do. You don't need anything to get C-SPAN film something.
So Kent, you and your friends just keep on going down the road you're on. In 2010 when you are taken to the wood shed you can blame that on Bush too.
CJ, the truth is that this was just a badly run campaign. And in spite of Jane Smithie's comments (below yours), the problem is that one cannot afford to not organize. Scott Brown's campaign was slick (even if arguably misleading) and criticisms he made went unanswered at critical times. I could write more about this some other time, but this is not a victory for The Republican Way or a change in thought, this is a loss due to failing to tend to things that matter and that were easily tendable if the candidate had done it better.
IW, yes, I'd love to see YouTube go to town on that one. It would be like Bush after 9/11 ... Michael Moore could make a movie.
Doug, I wouldn't have said it that way but I agree the race card is out of place here. I tried to just look past it in my reply.
Shiral, what sinks the Dems is they don't use the power available to them in an environment where the the Republicans would. They didn't do reconciliation because they felt it wasn't intended for that, I think. They moralized. The Republicans would have just said "we can and we will." That's a fundamental philosophical divide. As for the question of why they do the tallying up of the filibuster, I think the behavior was evolved during a time when filibusters were used for serious reasons and when people cared about time use.
I recall something in Sun Tzu's The Art of War about how one should never fight a war they knew they were going to lose. But this referred to real wars with real carnage; I think the economic calculation of Congressional wars and the cost of fighting vs. not fighting is complicated, and it even has to take into account the fact that the decision to go to the floor or not with something is part of the war, it's not an avoidance of war. All of the actions and inactions are scrutinized now in ways they never previously were, and the tactics of how to deal with that tend to lag the technology, making a lot of the warfare on the matter get handled as issues of surprise tactics, new ways to use information, rather than as issues of routine. And even there, the Republicans are better adaptive tacticians than the Democrats; I think the Democrats have too much heart sometimes to do that.
The Democrats don't want to sink to the Republicans level, and that's the sad thing about Obama. He offered hope, another way, and yet the essence of that hope tends to be to offer compromise to people who don't want compromise. He should instead be just having the courage of what he said his convictions were and pushing through with grace for what he promised.
There was a good analysis on NPR with Tom Ashbrook today. I don't know who said it. They said that Obama is a consensus builder by nature and a populist only by last resort. He had populism behind him getting elected but as soon as he was comfortable he settled back into consensus building. (The quote was slightly different but that was the essence of it.)
Akopsa, I like Dean and think he would do well with this issue, but one issue that worries me was raised indirectly on NPR today. It may be that the problem was doing health care first, instead of the economy. This puts the Democrats on the defensive about the economy. If that causes Obama to be in disfavor, then correcting it by someone associated with health care as your primary candidate may be trouble (even if Dean actually is competent at other things—it could be a perception thing). So Dean might not be timed well in 2012. But we'll see how people are feeling about health care then, too. The silver lining again if electing Brown sinks the health care bill is that the Republicans will have to answer for that having been the thing to do.
Banana, thanks for visiting. Nice to see new faces in the crowd.
CJ, there might have been some of that—in a big population it is nearly impossible to say there is none of any particular point of view—but I can't buy that it's the whole of the problem nor perhaps even the majority part. I suggest you write a blog on this topic since responding to it in detail is something I don't have room for here and since I'm sure people would be happy to debate you on it.