Patrick Sullivan, Thomas Sowell and Why Liberals Get it on Filibuster Reform

     I seem to have a new playmate-the very conservative Patrick Sullivan. We've tangled in the past over at Sumner's Money Illusion. Since my big moment in getting linked to Delong I've heard from Patrick quite a bit. Should I use his last name as evidently we're not friends? I mean he doesn't consider me a friend I'm guessing though I really have no personal animosity of course.

    Sullivan has been leaving a number of comments-mostly to gloat-since George Zimmerman was found innocent. I don't necessarily consider him vindicated as I feel the verdict was wrong. Anyway, Florida law is screwy between having only 6 jurors to stand your ground-which may have had something to do with the verdict though Sullivan and others say no.

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2013/07/is-george-zimmermans-acquittal-about.html

     With him dropping by, I have read some of his blog and I must say in all fairness I consider it pretty well done. I've come across Righties leaving stuff on my blog before but when I checked out their blogs they were just full of putrid racial obscenities. Sullivan's is nothing like this. He makes some pretty good arguments considering I believe him wrong on many things.

     I came across a piece he did about Thomas Sowell who applied the economic concept of a 'free good' or a demand with 'zero price' to his time in the military in the early 50s.

    "Some people were surprised that I dared to give Sergeant Grover a hard time, on this and other occasions, especially since he was a nasty character to deal with. Unfortunately for him, I knew that he was going to give me as hard a time as he could, regardless of what I did. That meant that it didn't really cost me anything to give him as hard a time as I could. Though I didn't realize it at the time, I was already thinking like an economist. Giving Sergeant Grover a hard time was, in effect, a free good and at a zero price my demand for it was considerable."

     http://hisstoryisbunk.blogspot.com/2013/06/sgt-grover-usmc.html

      I've been in similar circumstances. I had a job once, where the boss I had tended to give me a real hard time. As I knew he would regardless, I would give it back to him. Again, many of my coworkers like Sowell's fellows in the military wondered why did this-why didn't I do what I could to placate him. However, I knew he wouldn't take it easier on me because I went out of my way to give no offense. So yes, I took the free good and in time we did have a pretty good relationship-he learned to respect me in a way.

     What's true is when you are dealing with a bully-or at least someone who has malevolent intent towards you for whatever reason-trying to give no offense won't help. Now speaking of bullies, we have Mitch McConnell's Senate GOP filibuster machine. I'm very happy to hear Dems saying that even if the GOP does take back the Senate in 2014 it's time to go nuclear. Indeed, this is another free good, a demand met at a zero price. The GOP tries to intimidate the Dems by evoking how mercilessly they will grind things to a halt if we have filibuster reform. As if it will be any different otherwise.

     As Greg Sargent puts it, if this level of GOP obstruction doesn't justify filibuster reform-what level would? Sargent acknowledges that this precedent could lead to further rollback of the filibuster.

     "No one is claiming this isn’t a legitimate worry. It is. Changing the rules by simple majority really could create precedent for exercising the nuke option to get rid of the filibuster entirely, which could have plenty of negative consequences."

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/15/the-morning-plum-time-to-go-nuclear/

     See, on that I'm not sure I agree. On balance, a case could be made that we're better off without the filibuster in any case-many of the Senate's allegedly August tradition has been changed over time and most people would consider these changes as for the good today. Who thinks we should return to the Senators being chosen not by the citizens of the state but by a small committee, much less the 3/5 of a man compromise. We certainly also would be better off without there being 2 Senators per state regardless of the size of the population-this was another rule to placate the South, enabling it to dominate the country for many years despite being in the minority. 

   This talk by liberals in the Senate show they understand that at this point the nuclear option is a free good. McConnell can't even pretend he's going to back off a little on filibustering everything. 

    "Now that former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is not running for Senate, Nate Silver and others are predicting the GOP’s odds of taking back the Senate have improved markedly. Does that weaken the case for doing away with the filibuster on executive nominations, if necessary, on the theory that Dems will regret the move once Republicans are in control?"

     |Not at all. This is about making the Senate functional — whoever is in charge. Indeed, that is the very premise driving those who would reform the Senate — such as leading Senate progressives Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall."

     “This is about going to a simple majority on executive nominations,” Merkely, a leading proponent of Senate reform, told me today. “I support that whether I’m in the majority or in the minority.”

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/07/15/the-morning-plum-time-to-go-nuclear/

      GOPers today are evoking the idea that they now may have a better shot at retaking the Senate as a warning to Reid and the Democrats. Yet the Senate liberals have the right answer:

     "There’s been a fair amount of chortling on the right today about the confluence of two things: first, the mounting signs that Republicans could take back the Senate; and second, that Harry Reid really may make good on his threat to change the rules. But for would-be Senate reformers, much of this is beside the point. Reform is about rendering the Senate more democratic, which means that the question of who the voters put in charge of the Senate is irrelevant to the question of whether to pursue reform."

     “It’s very important that we not have a situation where a minority of the Senate can essentially impair the functioning of the other two branches of government,” Merkley says. “That’s not advise and consent. It’s obstruct and destroy. Those who care about good government — about making government work better — should want to make these sorts of changes.”

     "Senator Tom Udall, another leading reformer, agrees. “I do not believe the Constitution gives me the right to block a qualified nominee — no matter who is in the White House,” Udall will say in a speech later today, per his office. “I do not believe the Constitution gives me the right to block a qualified nominee — no matter who is in the White House. I say that today, and I will say it if I am in the minority tomorrow.”

      At the end of the day, even if the GOP takes back the Senate in 2014, the Dems will still have the White House. So there's less to fear than meets the eye. However, I agree with Merkley and Udall that it's about making the Senate more democratic. And it's past time to fight back. At this point the status quo is so bad that fighting back is a free good. 

     "To be sure, some are making the case that the way Reid is changing the rules — by simple majority, i.e., the dreaded “nuclear option” — is part of the problem. This could set a precedent for the GOP to do away with the filibuster entirely."

      "There is something to this case, and in some ways, a last minute deal defusing the confrontation would be preferable. But ultimately, if Republicans won’t lift their blockade on key Obama nominations — Harry Reid reiterated today that they must allow seven high profile nominations to proceed or he will hit the nuke button — that leaves Dems with a choice: Either they accept the GOP’s success in grinding key agencies to a halt, or they act. And as Merkley put it to me, what we currently have is “form of paralysis” that leaves acting as the only alternative."