Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 24 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 6/23/13

Mitch McConnell is the face of a broken Senate

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)   16 comments
Message Brian Cooney
Become a Fan
  (22 fans)

Mitch McConnell
Mitch McConnell
(Image by Gage Skidmore)
  Details   DMCA

Mitch McConnell by Gage Skidmore
  After Mitch McConnell became Senate Minority Leader in 2007, the yearly total of filibusters doubled . It's now assumed that any legislation over which there is disagreement requires a super-majority of 60 votes to pass.

By crippling the Senate in this way, he has made the legislative process of the federal government mostly dysfunctional. So there is no doubt that Kentucky's senior senator is a very powerful man, for better or for worse.

   There is a procedure (often called the "nuclear option") by which a simple majority of 51 senators could overturn the 60-vote requirement. Since the Democrats have 52 senators (and two independents who caucus with them), Democrats could use the nuclear option to break McConnell's stranglehold.

   Yet they lack the will to do so, and President Obama hasn't pressed them even though the filibuster has blocked much of his agenda. So you could say that the Democratic senators have chosen to give McConnell his power. They have connived with him to create legislative gridlock. There are two reasons for this:

   First, the difficulty of assembling a super-majority magnifies the power of individual senators in both parties. Each individual can drive a harder bargain for their vote and expect richer "inducements" from lobbyists.

   This only worsens the already undemocratic nature of the U.S. Senate. Despite huge population differences, each state has two senators. So the senators who drive a hard bargain for adding their votes to a supermajority may come from states with a tiny population compared to other states whose senators strongly support a bill. One of the most infamous examples of this distortion was the " Cornhusker kickback " to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) for his vote on Obamacare. (California has twenty times the population of Nebraska.)

   Second, some Democratic senators want to be able to obstruct Republican legislation in case the GOP wins a majority in the Senate in a later election, especially if a Republican wins the presidency in 2016. To preserve this option, they're willing to extend Congressional dysfunction into the indefinite future.   Adolescent libertarians may rejoice in this prospect, but the rest of us know that our federal government needs to be able to enact legislation to address a rapidly changing world. That's what Congress is for.

   Because members of Congress assume that most legislation dies in the Senate, sponsoring and voting for bills often degenerates into cheap talk and demagoguery, especially for the GOP. For example, two years ago Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) introduced a bill to eliminate the EPA, an agency created by Republican President Nixon. (The bill's 15 co-sponsors were also global warming deniers.)

Would this have happened if there were a chance of passing the bill? Would most Republican lawmakers want to live in an unprotected environment, drinking and breathing a growing list of pollutants and poisons and incurring the wrath of voters over the harmful effects of their legislation?

On May 16 the House voted for the third time to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA aka Obamacare). This was the 37 th time the House had voted to repeal all or part of it--a repetitious tantrum over major legislation the GOP had come so close to obstructing.

Would House Republicans be so eager for total repeal if they thought their bill would pass the Senate? How would their constituents feel when insurance companies resumed denying coverage for preexisting conditions and refusing to renew policies for people who get sick? Would they welcome back those annual and lifetime caps on coverage that leave people one serious illness away from bankruptcy?

The deeply flawed ACA barely managed to get 60 votes in the 2009 Senate just before the Democrats lost their 60-vote majority. In order to get past giant health industry lobbies and McConnell's solid GOP phalanx, the bill had to get every last Senate Democrat's vote. The price was major concessions such as stripping out the public option and failing to negotiate drug prices.

   The legislative paralysis created by filibusters can't continue. It's a national embarrassment. For as long as Congress lurches from one crisis to another without settling anything, problems will only get worse and we, as a nation, will lose confidence and self-respect.

   Mitch McConnell is Mr. Filibuster--he is the face of this paralysis that threatens our future. Obstruction is his principal contribution to American political life. This may be part of the reason why, according to Public Policy Polling, "Mitch McConnell continues to rank as the most unpopular Senator [within his own state] in the country."

   According to the latest PPP poll (4/9/13), 54% of Kentuckians disapprove of his performance, and a mere 36% approve. Yet only 25% of respondents described themselves as "very" or "somewhat liberal." McConnell's 2014 re-election prospects are still good because he runs a fiercely anti-Obama campaign that gets a lot of Kentuckians to hold their noses and vote for him.

   McConnell still rages against the ACA. It's really sweet for him that this law is commonly called Obamacare. This lets him merge Obama, the ACA and the federal government into a single demon for Kentuckians to fear and hate. He offers nothing in its place--just a return to the status quo before the ACA.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 3   Well Said 3   Valuable 2  
Rate It | View Ratings

Brian Cooney Social Media Pages: Facebook Page       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

I'm a retired philosophy professor at Centre College. My last book was Posthumanity-Thinking Philosophically about the Future (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). I am an anti-capitalist.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Are humans creating a posthuman future?

The Mythology of Individualism

The elephant in America's living room

Is capitalism inherently anti-democratic?

Trump's mental instability threatens national security

Haspel nomination is a sign of increasing lawlessness and brutality of U.S. government

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend