[ad_1]
Democrat and presidential candidate Cory Booker promised on Friday to make a strange promise, saying he would have virtually no legislative results if he were elected president.
Sen. Cory Booker: "My colleagues and I, everyone I've talked to, believe that the legislative filibuster should stay there, and I will personally resist the efforts to get rid of it." https://t.co/A74naRpbX8 pic.twitter.com/kQLLpZs8CA
– ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 1, 2019
Rules of the Senate require a majority greater than 60 Voice the lion's share of legislation – although there is a way around this filibuster rule for most finance bills. That means that a President Booker could perhaps make changes to the US tax policy or to many ways to spend money if the filibuster was upheld, but the only way to save money was to keep the money. His entire regulatory program would certainly be dead upon his arrival.
People's Rights Bill that Democratic leaders have identified as their main policy proposal would be dead. It would be the same for any attempt to expand civil rights of all kinds. Or to regulate any sector. Or strengthen the rights of workers. Or, perhaps more importantly, to control a rogue supreme court that could pass the next democratic presidency to fabricate absurd legal doctrines whose sole purpose is to enshrine republican politics in law.
The question that Booker must ask is whether, should he be elected president in 2020, he wants to spend the year 2024 to campaign for reelection without any success in a country that, thanks to the Republican Supreme Court, would have put in place even more conservative policies than those that existed before Booker took office.
We understand why Booker and many of his Democratic colleagues fear a world without filibuster. The Republican party has turned into a revanchist movement eager to dissolve the welfare state and openly hostile to the right to vote. When Republicans control the government, the buccaneer makes it more difficult for them to implement a program that would repeal most of the 20th century.
However, in the long run, the demands of the absolute majority and other such barriers to legislation benefit anti-government parties, and it is difficult for parties that undertake to improve them. people's lives through good governance to meet that commitment.
As Professors Evelyne Huber, Charles Ragin and John D. Stephens wrote in the American Journal of Sociology "The Characteristics of Constitutions That Make Decision-Making and Implementation Difficult" decisions on the basis of restricted majorities – which, on the contrary, allow the interests of minorities to hinder legislation – will hinder in-depth reforms of social policy. "
" a structure that disperses power policy and offers multiple points of influence on the implementation of the policy ", they add," are hostile to are the expansion of the state.
The best argument for preserving systematic obstruction is that, if given the opportunity to legislate freely, the Republicans would probably use this power to give a boost to the scale. election. National laws on voter identification, laws undermining trade unions, barriers to registration, mandatory electoral purges, and similar attacks on democracy would become law very quickly.
But here it is: Republicans already control the Supreme Court and the Republican majority of this court is already implementing an aggressive agenda against voting rights. Republicans do not need to control another branch of government to skew elections in their favor, but Democrats will not be able to oppose anti-democratic (and anti-democratic) judges less able to pass a law. [19659005] There is no guarantee that an unobstructed Senate can prevent a democratic retreat. Perhaps a recession hits in 2024, pushing the Democratic leader out of power and giving Republicans the opportunity to enact national legislation enlisting the GOP rule. When one of the two main parties of a nation adopts illiberalism, it is terribly difficult to maintain liberal democracy in this nation for very long.
But the best thing the Democratic Party can do to remain viable in the long run is to regain control of the government, and then enact a broad popular agenda that corrects many aspects of our current system that provide an unfair advantage to the people. Republicans and that so improves the lives of voters that these voters remain faithful democrats for many years.
Think of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose New Deal success policies have rooted the Democrats as the dominant party in the country for two generations. The best chance for Democrats to have a future is to emulate Roosevelt. The alternative is to fall into irrelevance.
[ad_2]
Source link
