The filibuster is making [Congress] less relevant. If you look back at the financial crisis, the lead response came from the Federal Reserve, because everyone understood that Congress couldn't move quickly enough.
Now I'm no history scholar, but wasn't the argument for consolidation of the Roman Triumvirate, and Augustus Caesar's rise to power upon dissolution of the Triumvirate, based largely on the argument that the Roman Republic couldn't move quickly enough? Once again, I'm not a genius like Ezra Klein, but it seems to me that Congressional bodies are large for the specific reason that they must move slowly, and to check the rash behavior of the Executive Branch.
Nor do I understand what exactly he wanted Congress to do? Quickly pass a law enabling the Federal Reserve to act? That would have slowed things, obviously, but what is not obvious to me is in absence of a filibuster, exactly what would Congress have been able to swiftly do??
Once again, I am not a genius like Ezra Klein.
_
2 comments:
I don't think you're really addressing Ezra's point here. What he's saying is that the filibuster is part of what is requiring other actors--the Fed, the EPA, the judiciary in some cases--to deal with big problems that Congress, because of its structural flaws, is proving incapable of addressing. And, as Ezra points out, this is not a good thing. It's better for the elected representatives to make policy, but that presumes they are able to make policy.
The Senate has always been the worst aspect of our political system. It managed to stop civil rights, worker's compensation laws, you name it for a long time. This has always been the case. The filibuster in its present form, however, is very new and has only been used in this cavalier, routine way (by both parties) in the recent past. Liberals like Matt Yglesias pointed out in 2005 that the filibuster was bad, even when his side was using it.
Also, I don't know what point you're making with the parallel of the Roman Republic. I mean, the Republic's institutions failed, whether you like what replaced them or not (I don't). Regimes like Rome's, which had some democratic elements, and Athens', which was strongly democratic, and our own are historically the exception rather than the rule. Democracy and republicanism present a lot of institutional issues that autocratic regimes don't. That makes it very, very important to get the institutions right. Having a bicameral legislature in which 40% of one house representing as little as 12% of the population can routinely bring governance to a halt is the kind of institutional quirk that can destabilize a regime in a crisis.
Post a Comment