If you don’t understand politics, you need to invite the grandkids for a sleepover. Come bedtime, various political theatrics abound as you find yourself trying to coax the little tykes into doing what’s best and necessary yet obviously something they really don’t want to do.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
Find out how to advertise here - Email us! [email protected]
Recently, we re-enacted the ageless ritual of negotiating pajamas onto the bodies of three little wigglewarts. One was ready for bed and gave up rather timidly; another was exhilarated by the brief freedom of nakedness while exchanging clothes and needed the next half hour and a few children’s books plus a climactic reciting of “The Three Bears” before settling down.
But the third one, well, his path is always to the beat of a different drummer. His practiced fight against sleep is an art form. Repeated trips to the bathroom are laced with a continuous stream of mindless questions, anything to keep the voice going and eyes anything but shut. When those antics begin to fail and little eyes droop into blinking, he’s still alert to any movement in the room, especially if that movement involves your exit.
He knows he’s losing the fight but, as senses drift from reality, he continues the battle for control by scratching his arm — not hard, but just enough to let you know he’s still fighting. He refuses to succumb despite the circumstances. So, even when the matter finally settles into slumber, you are afraid to move forward, fearing the fight is not yet over. His itch to fight is still there.
So, alone in the dark, I found myself counting measured breaths. Oddly, I started thinking of Jimmy Stewart. The classic movie actor is one of my favorites and his various roles are plentiful. I suppose, due to what I’d just experienced in the bedroom, I reflected on Jimmy Stewart’s performance in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and realized similarities.
The key scene in the movie was when this common man, Mr. Smith, elected to serve in Congress, engaged in a filibuster to fight for his cause. His fight, of course, is even more dramatic than the antics of any grandkids at bedtime. But I was struck by how, perhaps in only a basic sense, they are very much the same.
That got me thinking. About all I knew about a legislative filibuster comes from watching that movie. This seems more than a bit shallow. So, during my next early morning private time, I decided to read something more than just another round of “The Three Bears.”
Tom McClintock is a California Congressman. Prior to his election to Congress in 2009, he served for 22 years in the California legislature and ran for governor in California’s recall election in 2003. As a senior member of the House Natural Resources Committee, chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Lands, and member of the House Budget Committee, his thoughts were recently featured in “Imprimis,” a publication of Hillsdale College.
The entire piece is worth your read. But McClintock’s insight about the two-track filibuster system is particularly informative. Here’s a portion of a speech, entitled “How and Why the Senate Must Reform the Filibuster,” which he delivered on Jan. 11 during a lecture series:
“Within a few decades of the American founding, senators rediscovered [Roman Senator] Cato’s practice of killing a bill by killing time, and the Senate filibuster was born. Yet it was rarely used because of its natural limitations. A filibustering senator had to remain for the most part at his desk and on his feet.
“In 1908, for example, Robert La Follette of Wisconsin held the floor for 18 hours — speaking for long periods of time, and demanding dozens of quorum calls and roll call votes — to stall a banking reform bill. The bill eventually passed, but not without significant consternation on both sides, due to the fact that until the filibustered matter was disposed of, the Senate could not move on to other business.
“The filibuster is fundamentally different today because of two changes to Senate rules — changes that explain the body’s current inability to act. The first occurred in 1917 in response to a filibuster of something called the Armed Ship Bill. The Senate adopted a cloture rule setting the threshhold for ending debate at two-thirds of those present and voting, later changed to three-fifths of the whole Senate. Even then, this change was in keeping with common parliamentary practice. And even after its passage, the filibuster’s physically demanding nature meant that it was seldom employed. There were only 58 filibusters in the next 52 years — barely one per year.
“But beginning in 1970, the number of filibusters exploded by a magnitude of 36-fold. There have been 1,700 in the 46 years since then. Why? Because in 1970, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield allowed the Senate, by unanimous consent or the approval of the minority leader, to bypass a filibustered bill and go on to another. This relieved a filibustering senator of the job of having to talk through the night and it relieved his colleagues of their frustration.
“The filibuster thus entered the couch-potato world of virtual reality, where an actual speech is no longer required to block a vote. The filibuster has been stripped of all the unpleasantness that discouraged its use and encouraged compromise and resolution.
“Whereas the filibuster prior to 1970 was designed to ensure debate, after adoption of the two-track system it mutated into a procedure that prevents debate. As a result, the greatest deliberative body in the world now has difficulty deliberating on anything of importance.”
Sorry for the civics lesson; you probably already know this stuff. I intended to write a fluff piece about the grandkids’ sleepover. See how my mind works? Pray for me.
No, better yet, let’s pray for our country.