Ira Shapiro
By Ira Shapiro
The Senate narrowly avoided catastrophe this week, reaching an agreement at the eleventh hour, and reminding those of us who remember it of how the upper house worked in its better days.
The Senate’s compromise on the “nuclear option” — Majority Leader Harry Reid’s proposal to change the institution’s rules mid-session on handling the nomination of executive-branch appointees — deserves praise. Almost every senator, including Reid, knows that changing the Senate rules in the way he proposed could cause incalculable harm. Likewise, almost every senator, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, knows that executive-branch nominations should be confirmed by a simple majority vote, not the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster by an intransigent minority party. Credit goes to Reid for forcing the issue after facing months of unprecedented obstructionism. But credit is also due to Senate Republicans, who did one of the rarest things in politics: admitted they were wrong and changed course.
Compromise is what the Senate achieves when it is working properly. Because of its tradition of unlimited debate, requiring unanimous consent to conduct business, the Senate seems always to walk a line between paralysis and chaos. Gary Hart, who served in the Senate in the 1970s and ‘80s, once described it as “a kind of controlled madhouse.” In the ‘70s, when the upper house still functioned effectively, almost every major legislative battle — including President Jimmy Carter’s energy programme, the bailout of Chrysler Corp and the extended protection of Alaska’s wilderness — came to a point where the opposition seemed insurmountable and common ground looked to be unreachable.
The Senate will inevitably return to considering its rules and the proper scope of the filibuster. For now, though, its goal should be to regain the once-respected place it held in our political system, serving as what Walter Mondale called the “nation’s mediator.” In its best years, the Senate was a politically demilitarised zone, a governing body that included conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northern and Midwestern Republicans striving together and keeping their partisan interests in check.
The Senate’s decline has been long and the downward spiral has accelerated in recent years. In particular, the Senate I knew bore little resemblance to the dysfunctional group that served in the 112th Congress from 2011 until January of this year. Fortunately, this year has been different, and better. By the end of 2012, frustration within the upper chamber over its polarised and paralysed state had hardened into disgust which then turned into a determination to change. With the battle over nominations at least temporarily behind us, we can see signs of the Senate beginning to make a comeback. The passage of the immigration bill was reminiscent of how the Senate used to work. Crafting important legislation in the past almost always required the formation of bipartisan coalitions, such as the Gang of 8, which worked to write and pass the immigration bill. It has been heartening to watch the Senate function once again as a place where competing interests are heard, hard bargaining occurs and compromises are reached.
The Senate’s agreements this year go beyond the immigration bill. Although it was rejected soundly in the House of Representatives, the Senate passed a farm bill last month, as well as its first budget in four years. It also had a serious debate over gun control, even if the outcome was disappointing.
WP-BLOOMBERG
By Ira Shapiro
The Senate narrowly avoided catastrophe this week, reaching an agreement at the eleventh hour, and reminding those of us who remember it of how the upper house worked in its better days.
The Senate’s compromise on the “nuclear option” — Majority Leader Harry Reid’s proposal to change the institution’s rules mid-session on handling the nomination of executive-branch appointees — deserves praise. Almost every senator, including Reid, knows that changing the Senate rules in the way he proposed could cause incalculable harm. Likewise, almost every senator, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, knows that executive-branch nominations should be confirmed by a simple majority vote, not the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster by an intransigent minority party. Credit goes to Reid for forcing the issue after facing months of unprecedented obstructionism. But credit is also due to Senate Republicans, who did one of the rarest things in politics: admitted they were wrong and changed course.
Compromise is what the Senate achieves when it is working properly. Because of its tradition of unlimited debate, requiring unanimous consent to conduct business, the Senate seems always to walk a line between paralysis and chaos. Gary Hart, who served in the Senate in the 1970s and ‘80s, once described it as “a kind of controlled madhouse.” In the ‘70s, when the upper house still functioned effectively, almost every major legislative battle — including President Jimmy Carter’s energy programme, the bailout of Chrysler Corp and the extended protection of Alaska’s wilderness — came to a point where the opposition seemed insurmountable and common ground looked to be unreachable.
The Senate will inevitably return to considering its rules and the proper scope of the filibuster. For now, though, its goal should be to regain the once-respected place it held in our political system, serving as what Walter Mondale called the “nation’s mediator.” In its best years, the Senate was a politically demilitarised zone, a governing body that included conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northern and Midwestern Republicans striving together and keeping their partisan interests in check.
The Senate’s decline has been long and the downward spiral has accelerated in recent years. In particular, the Senate I knew bore little resemblance to the dysfunctional group that served in the 112th Congress from 2011 until January of this year. Fortunately, this year has been different, and better. By the end of 2012, frustration within the upper chamber over its polarised and paralysed state had hardened into disgust which then turned into a determination to change. With the battle over nominations at least temporarily behind us, we can see signs of the Senate beginning to make a comeback. The passage of the immigration bill was reminiscent of how the Senate used to work. Crafting important legislation in the past almost always required the formation of bipartisan coalitions, such as the Gang of 8, which worked to write and pass the immigration bill. It has been heartening to watch the Senate function once again as a place where competing interests are heard, hard bargaining occurs and compromises are reached.
The Senate’s agreements this year go beyond the immigration bill. Although it was rejected soundly in the House of Representatives, the Senate passed a farm bill last month, as well as its first budget in four years. It also had a serious debate over gun control, even if the outcome was disappointing.
WP-BLOOMBERG
