Between the venerable Dr. Howard Dean and the deeply spiritual Mssrs. Frist and Delay, one can imagine why lately I have begun to question whether all who are involved in politics in this country have one brain collectively between the thousands of them. I sometimes get the feeling that the respective party elites -- both Republicans and Democrats -- run their party's positions on the issue du jour not out of an underlying philosophy, but solely draw on what they think will drive me and any other sensible American crazy. As if the utterly ridiculous sideshow that was the Terri Schiavo debacle was not enough, the Powers That Be decided to keep me up at night with their well thought-out, premised, and logical debate concerning the filibuster of judicial nominees.
What did each side do wrong in this case? The first things that come to mind are the absurdities, such as a certain Republican leader being beamed into "megachurches" to talk about how the filibuster is offensive to, or being used particularly against, people of faith. There is something comical and at the same time frightening in seeing a larger-than-life face of an elected official in front of a religious audience creating connections between religion and politics where none exist.
Conversely -- and perhaps it is more important to point this out due to the political persuasion of the Dartmouth community as a whole -- the Democrats behaved equally as badly. Democratic leaders blindly asserted that filibustering is a basic necessity in our government to ensure minority rights. The fact of the matter is that they care nothing for minority rights as an idea. They care only for their rights as the minority. They understandably think that they have the best prescription for the agenda of this nation, and see that the absence of a filibuster would mean their platform would be further from implementation. Therefore, their decision to support the filibuster was based entirely on momentary strategic considerations and not at all on principle. I understand that politics is more or less all momentary strategic considerations; but at this point in my life I am unwilling to give up the good fight and admit that we must all lower ourselves to an entirely unprincipled slugfest. Democrats who supported and support the filibuster regardless of what they might think of it removed from the current situation (who are decidedly different from Democrats who are principled), are no better than Republicans who care nothing for the reasoning behind what might be easily referred to as the "Amend for Arnold" campaign. I support an amendment permitting immigrants to run for the Presidency; but the thought that I would do so not out of a desire for equal opportunity but for reasons that it would be good for the Republican party at this point in history is revolting. I have not yet become so entrenched in American politics to be free of this selfish taint of the Parties.
Enough of what's wrong -- what did each side get right in this debate? As unfortunate as it might be, the case for the "nuclear option" seemed logical enough. I support the contentious nominees as much as the Free Press might, but it is dubious to assert the minority has the right to stop nominations that at first glance purport to be processes that run by majority votes. Opposition has a place in this process, it can be argued: that's why there's a "nay" on the proverbial ballot. One can understand how it is on a very pragmatic level unattractive to allow a minority stop this process when their votes alone would not be sufficient.
Consequently, there was something about the Democratic argument in this situation that is soothing to my soul, which is still retching from the poison spewed in the past election cycle. The party that is eternally so fixated with seeming "progressive" and on the cutting edge of change was prostrate before us, on its knees showing reverence to a supposedly long-standing Senate tradition in such a way that makes the most conservative of us blush. The Republicans, on the other hand, the supposed old guard "conservatives" who speak out against "activist judges" hypocritically suggested they rewrite the rulebook.
There needed to be more self-questioning among each side. The Republicans needed to take a look at the philosophical question of minority rights. The Democrats should have reassessed whether there is even a tradition to support, or if, like Republicans with respect to marriage, they invented a tradition to worship. A decision by the Republicans to use the nuclear option without adequately examining the situation could have set in motion a series of events that would have been very damaging to our government. The Democrats were right to take caution not to be the ones to take the rash action.
