National Review
Joe Biden was right the first time in the obstruction
Americans who expected the supposedly “moderate” President Biden to face his party in something concrete, will have to wait a little longer. Having reaffirmed yesterday afternoon that he was still in favor of obstructing the Senate, the president told George Stephanopoulos last night that he was now open to changing his mind. At the very least, Biden suggested, the obstruction should be amended in order for the senators to continue talking to support it. Why? Because “democracy is having difficulties to function”. And even? And, if so, when did it start? All in all, there is an inevitable “for me, but not for you” smell in the Democratic Party’s approach to Senate rules. Biden served in the upper chamber for three and a half decades, during which he enthusiastically participated in countless obstructions. Looking back on his career in 2005, Biden suggested that one of the most important lessons he learned in 1975 was that, even considering small changes in the rules (in this case, reducing the clotting threshold from 67 to 60), any “change in the rules by a simple majority vote ”was“ mistaken ”. “The Senate,” said Biden, “should not act hastily, changing its rules to satisfy a stubborn majority acting in the heat of the moment.” Having left the vice president’s office in 2017, Biden persisted in that belief, looking with satisfaction as his party used the obstruction to thwart most of Trump’s agenda and declaring during last year’s presidential election that “ending the obstruction is too much dangerous move. “That only now, after becoming president, Biden believes that a simple majority should change the rules is curious, to say the least. Unfortunately, Biden is not alone in his overnight conversion. Unlike Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues, who resisted President Trump’s intense anti-obstruction pressure, the Democratic Party collapsed, almost for one man, in seven weeks. In 2017, 31 of the 48 senators who joined the Democrats – including figures like Kamala Harris, Ed Markey, Mazie Hirono and Cory Booker – signed a bipartisan letter stating their opposition to “any effort to restrict Os sen’s existing rights and prerogatives Adores must be involved in a broad, robust and extensive debate. Presenting the letter, which ended up receiving more than 60 signatures, its co-author, Senator Collins, classified it as a defense of “an important Senate tradition that recognizes the rights of the minority”. Perhaps she should have added a few extra words: “even if that minority is a Republican”. Principle aside, the timing of Biden’s move is strategically dubious. The Senate is split 50-50 between parties, with the vice president breaking all ties. The house is as divided as it has been for decades. Democrats are already struggling to reach 50 votes – a problem that only tends to grow as the honeymoon phase subsides. It would take only a single death or retirement within the Democratic caucus to make action against the obstruction dangerous or debatable. And it was the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, that most recently benefited from the minority’s safeguards. In 2017, despite having an absolute majority in the Senate and a long list of priorities, Mitch McConnell instinctively understood that the pendulum can swing quickly and that the best legislative rules evaluate this fact. Is Chuck Schumer unable to resist like McConnell did? Obviously, the passions in our policy are particularly high now. Of course, it was precisely for moments like this that our patchwork of weights and counterweights was planned. On these occasions, presidents must reflect their position as the only nationally elected actor in the system and remind the country of its long-term commitments. Joe Biden once liked to play that role in the Senate, admonishing aspiring obstruction reformers in strict terms: I have been in the Senate for a long time and many times I would have loved to change this rule or rule to pass a bill or to confirm a candidate that I had a lot of conviction. But I didn’t, and it was clear that the option to do so was simply not on the table. You have fought in political battles; you fought a lot; but you fought them within the constraints and requirements of the Senate rules. Despite the short-term pain, this understanding served both parties well and provided long-term gains. The adoption of the “nuclear option” would change this fundamental understanding and uninterrupted practice of what the Senate is. Now, when his influence is as great as it will ever be, Biden seems increasingly willing to join the crowd that seeks to reduce or end the obstruction. There are many words for this approach, but leadership is not among them.