A couple weeks ago I wrote a piece on what’s really killing climate legislation: the absurd procedural chokepoints in the U.S. Senate, coupled with an unprincipled minority devoted to obstruction. I’m happy to report there’s been an uptick lately in people trying to draw attention to this problem. From the last week or two:
- Univ. of Miami professor Greg Koger, who has a book coming out on filibusters, has a series of five posts offering history and analysis of the filibuster. See esp. The Rise of the 60-Vote Senate.
- Chris Bowers: If GOP wins 3 Senate seats, and Dems don’t destroy filibuster, then Dems can’t govern after 2010—Bowers advocates Dems using the “nuclear option” to get rid of the filibuster.
- The Nation‘s politics editor Chris Hayes: What Ails the Senate.
- Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein: Want real reform? Let’s start with Congress.
- Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein: Four ways to end the filibuster.
- Washington Post column Harold Meyerson: The do-nothing Senate.
- Annie Lowrey: How the Senate filibusters the world.
- Jonathan Krasno and Gregory Robinson: Time to rein in the filibuster.
- Benjamin Sarlin and Samuel P. Jacobs: Senate Stonewallers: Capitol Hill’s most ornery No Men.
- Matt Yglesias: Can The Filibuster Be Reformed?
- Kevin Drum: Reforming the Senate.
Here’s one thing to add to the discussion. The Copenhagen climate talks are coming up. The Obama administration has been scrupulously careful not to promise anything in international negotiations that it can’t deliver—i.e., that it can’t get past the U.S. Senate.
Senate ratification of an international treaty requires not just 60 but 67 votes. Say 34 senators rally to block such a treaty—senators from, oh, Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Thus can representatives for 22,540,352 people—7.4% of the population—block the will of the other 281,519,372. Indeed, senators representing 7.4% of Americans can thwart the entire world’s efforts to address the climate crisis.
Killing a treaty is easier than killing a clean energy bill. Why, killing a clean energy bill requires representatives for 25,289,049 people—fully 8.3% of the population!—to thwart the will of the remaining 278,770,675. (If you’re keeping score, the guilty parties here would be: Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Iowa.) For the record, 15 of those 21 states (71%) voted for Bush in 2004.
Now of course it won’t be these precise coalitions of senators that kill the COP15 treaty and the clean energy bill. They’ll snag high-population senators like Cornyn and Hutchison from Texas. But the point remains: the Senate, already unrepresentative thanks to the disproportionate influence of rural, low-population states, has become, thanks to the routine use of filibusters and holds, grotesquely undemocratic.
The country just can’t be governed this way. And consequently, the world community cannot coordinate to effectively meet the climate threat.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
Comments
View as Flat
burnabybelle Posted 7:05 pm
12 Nov 2009
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 5:11 am
13 Nov 2009
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:08 am
13 Nov 2009
The city is obsolete.
Technology now allows familes to free the grid and high taxing Democrat machine.
Live free!
Vote Palin 2012.
Permalink
agmaynard Posted 5:41 pm
13 Nov 2009
Permalink
wildfire Posted 5:28 am
14 Nov 2009
More importantly, what the populations of these small states, or any states, believe is irrelevant. The politicians vote for the INDUSTRIES that are big in their states. It's true that our ancient and deliberately undemocratic system ought to be changed, so that rural states no longer have such disproportionate clout. But to imagine that the PEOPLE in those states have the clout is naive.
Permalink
John Hoag Posted 3:18 pm
14 Nov 2009
An age-old fear of (urban) density, assuming instead that low-density is always or is always naturally better, typically the touchstone of the rural politicians and demographic, may likely fly in the face of facts and technical capacity and associated quality-of-life of society as we all (attempt to) go forward – locally, nationally & globally...
Urban populations have many benefits of agglomeration and dense markets, and dis-benefits of the congestion or public health nature. Perhaps the velocity of the urban public health events or vulnerabilities is the partially-obsolete basis to an ancestral evolutionary fear of density. So nowadays, does this fear really deserve to exist - especial with modern remedies, public health infrastructure and medical/pharmacological technology – seen more often away - at denser development?
I bet not (especially per rural capita).
Meanwhile, out in the low-density / rural areas, the population is assuming or conned that they are safe and isolated from "bads” that occur elsewhere (particularly the "urban" elsewhere). Looking at the pollution, toxicity (or public health, crime or hunger) across the US, etc. – especially as trends continue - is this really a reliable perception?
Furthermore, do the rural areas feel that they are not or are not part of the overall economy, (meaning everybody’s prospects)? Should not Rural America feel it is truly in partnership with the urban areas on such basics as resource harvesting, agricultural supply chain, transportation and electrical grids, renewable energy sources, and on and on? If not - then how do such areas and folks expect to survive? Or at what costs (Rural and Urban and National and Global) will we all see the non-collective prospects play out? (And, at what costs can we already presently see these costs to play out?)
There is no such thing as Autarky except in fairy tales.
Such "Idealized Independence" never was, and it never will be - especially because Man has always drawn down off of Natural Resources - with unsustainable ways, knowledge and attitudes.
The rural areas are in fundamental need of connection to and partnerships with urban research, technology and techno-political institutions to resolve rural problems that are possible (especially per capita) much more dispersed, intractable & dire than urban issues – air pollution, ground water pollution & scarcity, general toxicity and disease issues that are not currently addressed in ways that urban areas inherently can address their respective issues, and the issues of distance, time (both real-time inputs and for time horizon planning purposes) and so on, that are the (relatively) dis-benefitting aspects of the rural political-geography.
The urban areas ironically may have many of the instrumental answers that the rural areas desperately need, regardless of differences in rural and urban nature, populations, characteristics, resources, needs, etc – simply put: the major national (& urban) basis of experience in putting solutions into play, in a positive forward-looking approach, that the rural areas currently do not – but could – if they wake up. This chasm in locational political-policy capability is presently widening - in synch with the rural (as well as urban) insistence on putting their heads in the (polluted) sand.
There is no “Urban Elsewhere” for Rural America – we are in this together...
Rural America may be the most vulnerable, isolated and disconnected (especially per capita) place to live. Their politicians, leaders and populations should wake up to this reality – that they are important and equal partners – not irritating obstructionists – in the future and attitude of this country and planet.
Rural Folks work hard, just like Urban Folks – and we all need quality-of-life that is sufficient and sustainable.
We are each other. We need each other.
Let’s all grow up. Make it a friendly rivalry and prosperity/knowledge exchange, as well as a sustainable partnership.
Do Rural Americans in general have or share unique critical knowledge that Urban Americans should as well? In the big picture, I doubt it – except for some Sages – who exist in all cultures, despite location. And, we all are in the age of the internet, newspapers, higher and adequate K-12 education, trades, professions, etc. So the knowledge and the information (for sustainability as well as for other advanced states of being such as good government and media) are roughly universal – except for the way they are blocked or corrupted – often locally or by habits, associations or greed.
The populations everywhere - need to reject stupidity and con-games from the media and from the politicians. Informed Clarity & Independence of Thought are key.
Sure, The Land and Rural America can teach us all a lot – no matter where each of us lives – but let's get it through the Sages – not the Demagogues.
If you discover, have or inherit special critical knowledge –whether based on location or other aspects of your education, activities, insights or lives – share it critically and sincerely. Challenge it. Develop it. Refine it. Let it go if it doesn’t add up or make sense – common sense as well as collective sophisticated scientific sense. But don’t just mindlessly embrace it, especially in ignorant, perverse or selfish satisfaction.
Think about the integrity of your knowledge and attitude bases, and of your commitments and your actions – beyond locational association, intellectual habit, personal selfishness or present-tense generations.
And throw the bums out – wherever they live.
Permalink
selti Posted 7:14 pm
15 Nov 2009
The most important point in the American system is it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Long line the American system!
Permalink
latecommer Posted 11:30 am
17 Nov 2009
You climate alarmists have had 20 years and billions of research dollars and have still not found one piece of evidence that man is the cause of warming globally. Any evidence that has been produced can and has been better explained by natural cyclic processes we have (as a global climate) gone through many times in the past.
Instead of saying we have proof how about publishing same? I have been looking for even one piece of evidence, just like your scientists have, for years.
To distract, you have set up AGW as the null hypothesis, when in fact it is still a hypothesis searching for validation.
I am not sure what alarmists are preaching but as a scientist for 40 years I know for sure it isn't science you are speaking of.
Permalink