How Ripping Of the Bandage Applies to History

The flap in the Senate has me upset. Not so much because it reveals what a travishammockery our governmental kabuki has become. But moreso because it didn't have to play out this way. You see, basically, by threatening a fillibuster, the Republicons have forced a vote of cloture to end debate and move to the up or down vote they were so fond of calling for when they were in power. That takes 60 people to agree to limit things which, you know, is awfully hard to come up with when you've only got a 51 person majority to begin with. But, anyway, the whole fillibuster/cloture thing is a quirk of the Senate. These kind of things don't happen in the House making it easier, for good or for ill, to get things done there. Which is fine as the Senate is supposed to be the most deliberative body and debate is all well and good.

There are all sorts of reasons why the Senate should, at long last, be having that debate about our war policy but, personally, I think if debate were open, there'd be some other parlimentary procedure brought to bear in preventing this, even the smallest of gestures that 3/4s of the country happens to agree with from going on the record. It's not something the conservatives and the warpigs in the White House want to happen. Not because it emboldens our enemies but because it just might embolden theirs. And they can't have that because it's their precious reputations and legacy on the line, then. And they want to be fully prepared for that fight when it comes (Unlike, you know, our troops. A cheap shot, I know. But our troops have lacked the proper body armor for years now. And it's not because we aren't spending enough on this damn war. Supporting them isn't sending them into harm's way with anything but the best. As it makes me incredibly angry when I hear that I'm the one betraying them when I say things like that I think I'll make as many cheap shots as I want against the people responsible.). And it will come.

Not if the Senate has anything to say about it, though. And any attempt to say this is about any particular amendment or lack of debate is just a smokescreen behind these people fighting so hard about something they claim doesn't matter. This isn't about holding honest debate. This is about using those obscure and convoluted parliamentary rules to obstruct the will of the people – to have that very same debate we've been holding at our dinner tables and watercoolers for months now.

But do you know who sets those rules? The Senate. During the last Congress during one fight or another about one horrid decision by Bush or another, there was talk of the “nuclear option”. Because, you know, at the time the Democratic Party was contemplating using those rules to block a Presidential appointment or three. The Republicons, in return, would have responded by rewriting the rules and getting rid of the fillibuster and cloture and all those things that are supposed to protect the minority from a runaway majority in the Senate's rule. They called it the nuclear option because once that happen, it would have been the end of any restriction on outright political, partisan warfare. It never came to pass but, at the time, I heard an interesting idea – that the Democratic senators should go ahead and force the issue, force the nuclear option to be put into play. Not only would it help to reveal the Republicons as the domineering bullies they were in that Congress, but it would also be to the Democrats advantage over the long run. When they eventually regained power. Because the fillibuster is, essentially, an undemocratic mechanism that can be used to block the will of a slim majority even as it can be used to protect that of a small minority. The Republicons weren't afraid to at least threaten abolishing it because they figured their reign would last forever. But history shows they were wrong.

To me, this was a brilliant tactical call. The confirmation battle was one the Democrats were destined to lose. But rather than simply packing up and saving their wanning strength for the next fight, I felt it was time to start drawing some lines in the sand. Fight tooth and nail even in an ugly loss – make the opponent pay dearly. Make them pay again and again. Weaken them. Until, down the line, they became vulnerable enough to lose one. You know, take a stand. Show that what those of us rooting for them believed in was worth fighting for. That kind of battle is the kind to fight even when you're going to lose. It, of course, didn't come to pass and it's arguable whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

But if that fight had been fought? If the nuclear option had been used? Well, we wouldn't be having this problem today. Even though, I think, in light of the tidal wave of frustration evident in the last election, we'd be at pretty much the same place. It goes to show the value of long range planning – this is, to put it in the crudest and most overused terms (Cheapened, of course, by everyone who'd throw around such a metaphor casually. Me, though, I've never seen a war. Not in person. And I hope never to. So, I don't.), a war. A war between those who want to preserve our culture and our nation on one side and those who'd end it in the name of those same things on the other. And in a war you can lose some battles so long as you don't lose the important ones. Sometimes, it's sacrificing those important things that you don't want to that can lead to greater victory down the road. And we're going to have to think in that longterm if we hope to pull this one out. To, in so many words, take the hit now to spare ourselves the pain in the future.