Delay Windows: A Practical Bipartisan Way to End The Filibuster

Below, I've outlined a bipartisan way of getting rid of the filibuster, without harming any of the incumbent interest groups that would normally block such a move.

Motivation

Imagine how much better the US government would function if we could solve the filibuster problems. Not only is the filibuster anti-democratic, it also prevents the senate from getting anything done.

Even if both parties have a long-term interest in getting rid of the filibuster, in the short term, it's just a political football: The majority party wants to overturn it to pass its agenda. The minority party wants to hold on to it to block the other party's agenda. The problem never gets solved because short-term political interest always pits one party against the other.

To be sure, there are some senators, including the late Senator Robert Byrd, who will attest to the value of the filibuster. The filibuster does not have the most illustrious history, however. The Civil Rights Act of '57 and '64 were both initially blocked by filibuster. Furthermore, it's become so commonplace to filibuster in recent years that it has ground the legislative process to a halt, preventing it from solving chronic national problems.

Democrats are currently proposing various sneaky ways of overriding the filibuster with a simple majority, but not only would Republicans cry foul, it might also set a dangerous precedent of congress flippantly changing its rules of governance.

Changing the filibuster is generally assumed to require a two thirds majority in the senate, an unreachable goal without a bipartisan approach.

Proposal

I propose a solution that is simple, practical, and bipartisan: Structure a bill to overturn the filibuster so that it only takes effect after the passage of a 10 year delay window. This delay window should, in theory, eliminate both self and party-interest from the equation because

1) Current incumbents are unlikely to remain in office after the delay window has past, allowing them to look beyond their own self-interest in their voting decision.

2) Each party has a roughly 50% chance of being in the majority after the time window expires. This means neither party will win or lose from the rule change.

These two factors should allow the senate to achieve the bipartisan, two thirds majority necessary to finally overturn the antiquated, undemocratic filibuster.

Philosophy

The idea of a delay window can be seen as a practical application of the Rawlsian concept of the veil of ignorance. According to this idea, individuals should make civic decisions as if they were blind to their own status in society. Similarly, the delay window would allow congresspersons to make political decisions blind to how those decisions might affect their own and their party's political future.

Other Uses

This same delay window technique might also be useful for eliminating gerrymandering. The delay window might need to be longer though, because incumbents tend to stay in office longer, meaning a ten year window might still be seen as damaging to their self-interest. Another problem is that parties tend to stay in office indefinitely in certain states: Texas is likely to remain Republican indefinitely, just as California is likely to remain democrat. Parties which agreed to surrender gerrymandering in their own state would be at a disadvantage to those that don't. If Democratic and Republican dominated states both agree to tackle the problem at the same time, however, these inequities should cancel out.

Conclusion

The main drawback to using delay windows is that they postpone badly needed reform. If immediate reform is unrealistic anyway, as seems to be the case with with the filibuster, then nothing is lost.

Delay windows could be used to fix a range of seemingly intractable government procedural problems, including the filibuster and gerrymandering. It's a simple solution that should gain the bipartisan support necessary to reform the system.

The Important Question about Violent Republican Rhetoric

There's been a big hoopla over whether violent Republican rhetoric can be blamed for Jared Loughner's heinous attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. But I think this discussion misses the point: Even if this rhetoric didn't cause Loughner's attack, it was still highly -- shall we say -- sympathetic to it.

The important point is that Sarah Palin continued to endorse Sharron Angle, even after she repeatedly called for the use of "second amendment remedies" to solve "the Harry Reid problems", and to "take out Harry Reid". This rhetoric can only be interpreted as a literal endorsement of assassination. After all, Angle gave a long spiel about how the point of the second amendment was to give Americans the tools to overthrow their government if necessary. The only practical way citizens armed with guns could overthrow a government armed with nukes is through assassinations and terrorism, so it's pretty transparent what they mean by "second amendment remedies".

Critics might say their violent rhetoric is beside the point if it didn't directly cause the Loughner shooting, but I disagree: When it comes to terrorism, we typically condemn anyone who verbally endorses the cause, not just those directly involved in it. Granted, we can't convict someone who justifies the attack of 9/11 in a court of law, but at the very least, we can and should shame them.

In the same way, Palin, Angle, and anyone else who condones the use of "second amendment remedies" to resolve ballot box "failures" deserve a good public shaming.

You bring the tar, I'll bring the feathers.

Republican Violence "Metaphors"

US today's polling shows a majority of Americans don't think conservative inflammatory rhetoric caused the Loughner shooting, but that they're evenly split over whether heated political rhetoric in general was a major cause.

On the surface, conservatives seem to have a point: Palin's use of words like "reload", and her placement of Giffords and other democrats' names in gun sights only represented metaphorical shooting. Similarly, when Obama said “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”, it wasn't meant to imply violence is okay.

But a deeper look at mainstream Tea Party rhetoric reveals a more frightening truth:

• Palin enthusiastically endorsed Sharon Angle, who last January suggested using "second amendment remedies" to "take out Harry Reid":
  

  Angle: You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years," Angle said. "I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

• Palin published her democratic "hit list" right after health care reform was passed in March. At that same time, militia leaders like Mike Vanderboegh urged followers to "throw bricks through windows" of certain democratic offices, including that of Giffords. This vandalism was committed at DNC offices across the country, including the Alaska office. Despite the violence, Palin continued her charged rhetoric, and has not to this day taken down her "hit list", even after Giffords was shot. She never really spoke out against the vandalism of the offices, and only now when Giffords has been shot, has she strongly condemned this use of violence.

Everyone is focusing on this second issue, but I think the Sharron Angle situation is far more damning. If Palin was serious about preventing violence, she should have withdrawn her Angle endorsement the moment Angle spoke of using "second amendment remedies" to "take out Harry Reid" if Republicans couldn't win at the ballot box. There is nothing remotely metaphorical about this Angle's violent rhetoric. What she called for is exactly what happened to Gabrielle Giffords. America deserves an apology from both Giffords and Angle for instigating this violence.