The Constitution as Nuclear Weapon

Many of you may have heard that the Senate is considering exercising what has been called the "nuclear option." This is the idea that either the Vice President (by fiat) or a majority of the Senate could change the Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster. I hadn't paid much attention until now, but it seems that some conservative bloggers (such as Powerline) are hopping on this bandwagon. They have asserted that it is perfectly consistent with the Constitution to change the rules on the filibuster, and in fact it has been done several times in the past. So the right is dubbing this the "Constitutional option" with typical conservative doublespeak.

Now I will concede this point: it is in fact constitutional to change the rules of the Senate. I think the VP idea is on shakier ground, but it is certainly plausible to think that a Senate majority could alter the rules of that chamber. But for me the question is not can we do something, but should we. I could cheat on my wife - it is technically feasible - but it would be stupid, self-destructive and cruel to do so.

So let's look for a moments on the substantive rather than merely formal elements of this question. The filibuster exists to prevent an oppressive majority from dominating a minority. It also guarantees full deliberation of issues in the Senate, and requires that public policy is the product of consensus rather than narrow (and frequently short-term) political advantages. In sum, it is a very conservative device to force political opponents to come to a meeting of the minds. As Alan Simpson (former Senator from Wyoming) has argued, the existence of the filibuster has prevented the Senate from degenerating as an institution like the House has. There really is no argument on the merits to dump the filibuster. No matter who is in the majority.

The right has gotten very literal-minded over the last generation. If you look at libertarianism, strict interpretation of the constitution, religious fundamentalism, their defenses of torture, etc., you can see that they have gotten very legalistic and simple-minded in their approach to questions. What they have forgotten is that can does not, in fact, imply should. They have gone even further, deciding that if they can get away with something, they should do it. Just look at their election shenanigans in the last couple of cycles. They have, in fact, stopped being "conservatives" at all, so obsessed are they with their quest for domination. I mean really, what is conservative about wanting to re-write a long-standing political tradition like the filibuster? What in the world is Burkean about willy-nilly altering constitutional procedure for the sake of short-term gain?

I have not mentioned that fact that the Republicans were all in favor of the filibuster when they were in the minority, using it to frustrate Clinton and the Democatic majority (which was much larger than the R's have today). I could go on and on attacking them for trying to have it both ways, and doing anything and everything in the name of expediency. But mocking them for their hypocrisy would be too easy. It'd be beneath me. Really.