The Filibuster and Partisanship

In the wake of the Senate's vote to change internal rules on the filibuster, Republicans are vowing revenge, and The New York Times has expressed fear that partisan disputes will intensify. Both are nonsense.

First, what would revenge look like? The nomination and confirmation of responsible appointees to federal positions? Are we supposed to fear such a thing? Charles Krauthammer seems to think so. He says,

The Democrats will absolutely rue the day, because not only are they going to allow a Republican majority, which will come one day anyway, to get its nominees through, but Chuck Grassley has said that when Republicans come into power, they’re going to include Supreme Court nominees. And that would be a devastating blow to the liberals on the court, and to the liberals in the country.

Say again, why don't we want the elected majority to confirm its nominees? Krauthammer is saying that the Republicans intend to be irresponsible in their nominations just to spite the Democratic Party, then they need to examine their priorities. (I have already said they need to do so, anyway.) What kind of bizarre argument is that?

As for increased partisanship, the filibuster allows a small faction to interfere with the functioning of the system. That's the height of partisanship, and the Times itself published the data to show how bad it already is. Interference with nominations not only has increased steadily, but it's spiked since the election of Obama. How much worse can it get.

I'm glad to see the filibuster reduced. I never liked the thing in the first place. I think it fundamentally violates the principles of Article I section 7 of the Constitution.

Jason Whitlock on Illegitimacy and Society

This column is among the best I have read on any social issue in a long time. It is concise, precise, direct and entirely free from nonsensical party affiliation. I hope it gets a lot of attention.

The highlights:

"Dez Bryant's inability to control his emotions is not a racial issue. It's a family dysfunction issue...

"But the reality is, Dez Bryant is swirling in a cultural tsunami every bit as destructive and powerful as climate change.

Let's call it 'Hurricane Illegitimacy.'

Its victims are primarily black and brown, but Hurricane Illegitimacy is a not black or brown problem. It's an American problem that is denied and exacerbated on the left and mischaracterized and exploited on the right.

Like climate change, Hurricane Illegitimacy is powered by man-made factors:

1. A lack of proper restraints on welfare entitlement programs for single mothers and fathers.

2. America's bogus war on poor people who use and sell drugs.

3. Turning incarceration into a for-profit business model.

4. A refusal to recognize that investment in the education of our poorest and weakest citizens could strengthen our entire society.

5. Our collective lack of courage and resolve to combat popular-culture forces that celebrate, normalize and profit from baby-mama and criminal culture...

"The seeds for Hurricane Illegitimacy were planted in the late 1960s as backlash for the civil rights advances won by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Too much of this current generation of young people are the unwitting victims of America's unwillingness to protect the sanctity of family. The people who deny this obvious reality are every bit as delusional as climate-change deniers...

"The normalization of illegitimacy is so pervasive in black America that people are afraid to publicly address its dangers and consequences out of fear of being labeled a sellout or a racist. It's been so normalized that some people honestly don't believe it's a problem.

Ignorance is blissful and deadly. Ignorance is why we see Dez Bryant misbehave and automatically think race rather than family.

Ignorance is why we don't understand that the black family structure thrived and survived until our lawmakers launched a drug war, mass incarceration and shortsighted welfare policies.

Ignorance is why we've failed to object forcefully to pop-culture forces using their unprecedented power to promote hedonism as the ultimate high over family evolution.

Dez Bryant's behavior and our reaction to it are just symptoms of a much bigger problem."

I don't ordinarily quote at such length, and I hope this does not come as outright theft. Whitlock's words need wide circulation.

Why International Law Matters, Too

Maybe you're a "realist" -- you think pragmatism, not abstract principle ought to dictate our actions, especially in the international theater. Law, you figure, matters less than the application of influence and power in the greater national interest. And maybe you are right, in the end. But if you think that the rule of law is somehow not pragmatic, consider these two stories.

Fueled by information from Edward Snowden, The New York Times and the The Guardian have reported extensively on the widespread, even pervasive, snooping conducted by the NSA.


Edward Snowden

Now, the Agency itself is facing the consequences of its actions. In this piece by Scott Shane, who has been the lead reporter on this story, the spies consider the downside to breaking rules in the pursuit of power. The information gained may or may not be of any real value: do we really need the NSA to give us an economic advantage over Brazil? But, it turns out, our allies do not much like learning that the US government steals everything it can get its hands on. Turns out, theft undermines trust.

Not only that, but it's difficult to rally support allies against rogues like China when the US government itself sees no reason to limit its own behavior.

Likewise, the gunning down of people we do not like, even scumbags like Taliban leaders, can have unintended negative consequences. Sure, Hakimullah Mehsud was a rotten human being. He was brutal and self-centered and mean. He intended to harm American citizens and American interests. He was a liar. But his death at the hands of the US government -- really, at the hands of the President himself -- in a drone strike, may not help much in the long run.

Mehsud, from NYTimes

Just because we can kill people does not mean we ought to do so.

The underlying reasoning behind an adherence to the rule of law is that it provides long-range benefit at short-range cost. When we arrogate to ourselves the privilege of settling scores on our own, we separate ourselves from the larger community. As long as we are the biggest bully on the block, capable of defending ourselves unilaterally, that works for us, if for no one else. But what if we need help? What if we can't go it alone? How do we ask for the aid we need, and if we can we expect to get it?

So be pragmatic, if you like. Just don;t think you can do anything you want and get away with it forever.