"Against Fires and Fire Hoses"

Jonathan Chait writes in New York Magazine about the angst exhibited on the editorial pages of the once great Washington Post  Bezos Bugle about the decision by Senate Democrats to scale back the filibuster in the face of unrelenting Republican obstruction and sabotage:

The more prevalent threat is that scaling back the filibuster will worsen bipartisan relations. The Washington Post editorial page, and two of its centrist columnists, Ruth Marcus and Dana Milbank, all excoriate Senate Democrats for what the Post calls “accelerant of poisonous partisanship.” They argue that weakening the filibuster will create more partisan rancor, undaunted by the fact that partisan polarization and use of the filibuster have risen precisely in tandem.

The bizarre, defining feature of this argument is that, unlike the crocodile tears being shed by Republicans, the centrist Establishmentarians all take the view that the Republican judicial blockade was completely unacceptable. They argue that the solution to the unacceptable blockade is that, as the Post piously insists, “Both parties should have stepped back and hammered out a bipartisan compromise reform.”

That Republicans did not offer to compromise or in any way back down from the stance the Post calls unacceptable is a fact so fatal to this argument that none of the three writers in any way acknowledges it. I would agree that a 5o-vote threshold for lifetime judicial appointments represents a sub-optimal arrangement. It would be better if there were some way for the Senate to filter out extreme nominees without having the power to wantonly blockade a vital court for nakedly partisan reasons. Given the refusal of Republicans to back down, I prefer majoritarianism to the existing alternative. The Establishmentarians refuse to grapple with the trade-off. They are against fires and fire hoses alike.  (our emphasis)

Charles Pierce also had this reaction to the Bezos Bugle's pearl-clutching "Civility Fairy" Marcus:

I believe that somebody who looks quite like me -- and, oddly enough, was wearing my socks -- predicted yesterday that Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post would not take well the adjustment of the Senate rules whereby Barack Obama will actually get to be president for a couple of years. The Civility Fairy did not disappoint.  (our emphasis)

Anyone who maintains the notion that the power-for-power's-sake Republican party, in the instant following their becoming a majority and regardless of whatever precedent had been set or broken, would not run amok with Senate rules to lock in every advantage, as they already have with existing House rules, should not be allowed near sharp objects or open flames. Also, as we noted the other day, nearly half of all nominees filibustered since the beginning of the Republic have been President Obama's.  The anti- fires- and- fire- hoses crowd over at the Bugle may be shocked (shocked!) that this era is over, but it is over, and thank God (and Harry Reid) for that.