As Donald Trump's disastrous march through America's legal institutions continues unabated, progressives are desperately looking for something -- anything -- that can stem the tide. One possibility folks have seized upon is Senate obstructionism. The line goes that even a single Senator can do a ton of things to throw sand in the gears -- objecting to unanimous consent, slowing down hearings, delaying votes -- that can extract real costs on the MAGA agenda and provide Democrats with some negotiating leverage. So far, no Senator has taken this approach, and that in turn is a source of considerable frustration to progressive partisans who feel that Democrats have been rolling over without a fight.
But for me, the fact that no Senator has done this raises a different question: If this strategy was so effective, wouldn't someone have done it by now?
There are 47 Democratic (or Democratic-aligned) Senators in Congress right now. And as a collective, I absolutely believe there are plenty of plausible explanations for why they're hesitant to adopt the defiant, resistant pose so many of us are thirsting for. If you told me that (too) many still harbor a gut desire for "bipartisanship" and "working across party lines", I'd believe you. If you told me that (too) many remain attached to Senate norms of civility and comity, I'd believe you. If you told me that Chuck Schumer has attempted to unify the caucus around a strategy that, for whatever reason, doesn't include maximal obstructionism, I'd believe you.
But if it's really true that just one Senator has in his or her power the ability to grind Congress' gears to a halt, is it really possible that not one of the forty-seven would try it? There wouldn't be a single defector?
Do you really think Bernie Sanders is afraid to rattle cages? Do you really believe that Adam Schiff has in the past few weeks become enamored by venerable Senate traditions? Do you really imagine that Tammy Baldwin is inclined to cower before any and all Chuck Schumer diktats (do you really believe Chuck Schumer is that good at keeping his entire caucus in absolute ramrod lockstep)?
It just doesn't seem plausible to me. Someone would have defected by now. In fact, even if this strategy was considerably less effective than it's cracked up to be, or even if you think Senate Democrats are all fat cat posers who don't actually care about resisting Trump at all, you'd still think someone would have tried it simply to be a clout-chaser. The fact that nobody has done it suggests that either it is a lot less effective than people think, or there are a lot more (and more serious) hidden costs to it than people recognize.
I won't claim to be an expert on Senate procedure, and reading about the various machinations around blue slips and unanimous consent and holds makes my head spin. So it's entirely possible I'm missing something here. But whatever I'm missing has to explain not why "Senate Democrats", collectively, aren't adopting an obstructionist strategy; it has to explain why every single individual Senate Democrat has so far refrained from using their power as a one-Senator army to bring things to a halt. And I just don't see what that explanation is, aside from this alleged silver bullet not actually being one.
1 comment:
There are a couple of issues-- one is what obstruction can actually accomplish, and what that's worth. Like Republicans have control of both chambers of Congress and the presidency. You can filibuster lots of things but... the Trump administration isn't doing legislation anyway. And as terrible as the appointments are, it's still in the nation's interests to have a cabinet in place. Some are beyond unqualified, like Hegseth and Patel and Gabbard. But as much as I dislike Marco Rubio, there probably isn't any value in not confirming him on principle.
But the real issue is what happens when the administration breaks the very tools of governance. Like many of the executive orders are plainly unconstitutional. Democrats have challenged them in court and have won a bunch. But as Vance and co. have signaled, they likely just... won't comply with court orders. And then what do you do? The answer is probably to take to the streets, but how many millions of people are you going to get flooding onto the National Mall to protest things like deportations of citizens who were born here who Trump and co. decided aren't because they don't believe in birthright citizenship?
The kind of core issue is that to fix a broken ship, you need a mass movement of disaffected people. And I'm very skeptical that enough people care or are willing to go out on a limb enough to actually create that movement.
Post a Comment