Threat Of Senate Standstill A Myth? Well, No

The One True bIX

In the battle over the threatened GOP "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster in the United States Senate, a curious development hit the liberal blogosphere today.

Both MyDD and TalkLeft are reporting in the wake of a blogger conference call with Senator Harry Reid that the standstill/shutdown/slowdown threat is merely a myth.

Here's what Chris Bowers of MyDD says:

First, and most importantly, the frequent reports that Reid and Democrats would "shut the Senate down," if Frist and the Republicans went ahead with the nuclear option are wrong. The actual plan of attack would be to "stop giving deference" to the Republican agenda in terms of what is debated on the Senate floor. What "deference" means in the context of the Senate, if I understood this part of the call correctly, is that traditionally the majority party has set the agenda for what proposed legislation is taken up on floor debates, while the minority party pursues its agenda in the form of amendments on the proposed legislation that is being debated.

However, if Frist goes ahead with the Nuclear Option, Senate Democrats would stop showing that deference, and use a Senate rule known as a "motion to proceed" that would require our agenda--health care, education, increased veterans benefits--to be debated on the floor of the Senate without the approval of the majority party. This would force Republicans to vote down health care, education, and other issues that are very popular with the public. In short, the end of judicial filibusters would also mean the end of deference to the agenda of the majority party.

The problem is, this idea that the shutdown threat is a myth is actually the real myth.

In a March 15 letter to Senator Bill Frist, Reid outlined what the Democrats would do if Frist pursued the "nuclear option":

The Senate conducts most of its business by cooperation and consent. The minority provides that consent with the expectation that the courtesies it extends to the majority will be met with respect for minority rights. And no Senate right is more fundamental than the right to debate. Should the majority choose to break the rules that give us that right, the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business.

Of course Democrats would never block legislation vital to our troops or other national security interests, and we will help ensure that critical government services continue to function for the American people. Beyond that very limited scope, however, we will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters. Just this year we passed the class action and bankruptcy bills under procedures negotiated in good faith between the majority and the minority. We would decline to provide such cooperation in the future if you implement the nuclear option.

That threat from March is not what Reid is threatening now. That threat from March very much would result in a standstill/shutdown/slowdown of Senate activity. For the sake of comparison, imagine if one member of the Portland City Council were to insist that every item on this week's Consent Agenda were to be removed from the consent agenda and discussed and voted upon individually, one by one.

It would dramatically extend and draw out the Council session far beyond the time it normally takes. Reid's threat from March is much the same thing.

Now, however, Reid says they are going to do something else entirely if the "nuclear option" is pursued, using Senate rules to force votes on Democratic issues and proposals.

And that's fine as far as it goes (and I suspect the Dems might have been doing some polling, which could have revealed that a Senate standstill was about as popular with the American people as the "nuclear option" itself, which is to say not very popular at all).

Whether the myth that the threat was a myth is an invention of the bloggers on the conference call, or if Reid really tried to convince them that it was all just a myth, I have no idea. But it's important for the liberal blogosphere both to not let itself get spun, and to not somehow manage to spin itself. The standstill/shutdown/slowdown threat was no myth. It was Reid's own professed and intended strategy.

By The One True bIX April 25, 2005