McConnell is already moving to strangle the Biden presidency
The moment of truth in the Senate may arrive sooner than anyone thought
Senate Democrats have a bare majority in the new Congress — 50 seats, plus Vice President Kamala Harris as the tiebreaker. It's the first time the party has had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency in a decade.
But the leader of the Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell, is already plotting to throttle this government in the crib. He is demanding Democrats preserve his ability to block anything they propose with the Senate filibuster, so he can ruin the country and blame it on them, and he is gambling that moderate Democratic senators will be too scared to call his bluff. Democrats should tell McConnell to go pound sand, and nuke the filibuster right now.
To understand what McConnell is doing, a bit of background on Senate procedure is required. The Senate does not formally change its rules for each new Congress, since only a third of its members are up for re-election in any particular cycle. So in normal times, the body votes through a Simple Resolution detailing how the majority party will fill up the committees, select chairmen, and so on, and everything else remains the same.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
However, this time we have a tied Senate, meaning Vice President Harris gives Democrats control with her tie-breaking vote. In this circumstance — most recently for six months in 2001 — the Senate has passed a different Organizing Resolution to organize itself. This is a sort of power-sharing arrangement with different details given that there may be ties at the committee level and such.
Recall that the filibuster allows just 41 senators to block most legislation. Activists have begged Democrats to get rid of the filibuster after witnessing McConnell use it to shamelessly obstruct Democratic priorities and then immediately remove it as an obstacle to his own chief priority, confirming right-wing Supreme Court Justices. Yet so far a crucial segment of moderate Democratic senators have resisted, for reasons of "tradition," or worries it will force them to take difficult votes, or simple timidity. Now McConnell has broken yet another Senate norm by threatening to filibuster the Organizing Resolution unless Democrats agree to keep the legislative filibuster for the next two years. To the best of my knowledge, filibustering the initial organizational rule package in a new Congress has never happened before. (Incidentally, since the Senate will continue to operate under its current rules, that leaves Republicans in charge of the committees so long as it is not passed.)
If Democrats agree, given McConnell's history, he is virtually guaranteed to not allow any normal legislation through, and to drag out the confirmation of any appointee as long as possible. The only way to pass any law will be through the cumbersome and limited reconciliation process. Just as he did under President Obama, McConnell wants to throw sand in the gears of government, prevent Biden from accomplishing anything, blame Democrats for the resulting dysfunction, and take back full control of the Senate in two years.
The obvious solution here would be to call McConnell's bluff and simply get rid of the filibuster now. There is no reason why the Senate can't pass laws through majority vote, as virtually every other legislative body on Earth does. (Indeed, the Senate is already ridiculously biased towards a handful of small states even without the 60-vote requirement.) As Akhil Reed Amar argues at length in Duke Law Journal, it is both legal and constitutional for Democrats to invoke Rule 20, which outlines how questions of procedure are adjudicated, to amend the rules and delete the filibuster through a simple majority vote. Then they pass the Organizing Resolution with that same majority. The Senate rulebook, precedent, and the Constitution all agree that ultimately a Senate majority must be able to decide at any point how the body should be organized.
This is the so-called "nuclear option," and indeed happened in 2013 under then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), when Democrats got rid of the filibuster for ordinary judicial nominations. It happened again under McConnell himself in 2017, when Republicans got rid of it for Supreme Court nominations. One should also note at this point that, contrary to the fake history of the filibuster as some time-honored Senate tradition, its creation was entirely accidental and, prior to McConnell establishing it as a routine occurrence, was mainly used by white supremacists to block civil rights legislation.
So far, even moderate Senate Democrats don't seem to be buying McConnell's gambit. They want to preserve at least the threat of nuking the filibuster as leverage for getting things passed. Yet many of them clearly still don't want to get rid of it altogether. But if they don't, the chance of passing almost any bill through normal order will be dead for the next two years. Count on it.
So in a way, it might be lucky that McConnell is forcing Democrats to face this choice right out of the gate. If they just rip off the band-aid, they can pass what laws they like and let the 2022 electorate judge them on that, rather than trying to beat Republicans in a game of blame avoidance. Let's give democracy a chance.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
-
What is Mitch McConnell's legacy?
Talking Point Moving on after a record-setting run as Senate GOP leader
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
US election: who the billionaires are backing
The Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published