March 3, 2010

By Ed Carson

IBD Editorials Capital Hill Blogs

President Obama and congressional Democrats are gearing up to try to ram through a sweeping health care overhaul through reconciliation, bypassing the need to get 60 votes to override a GOP filibuster in the Senate. Why, ask Democrats and the liberal punditry, should a minority block the will of the majority? Actually, there are a number of good reasons.

1. Sweeping legislation should enjoy broad political support.

If plans to radically remake the country don’t have broad support among lawmakers and the public, the nation can probably do without it. The Founding Fathers wanted to make it hard to pass laws, thus protecting the minority and individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

Keep in mind that Democrats had a supermajority in Congress for most of the past year. They still have 59 Senate seats. If ObamaCare were popular, Democratic lawmakers wouldn’t have wavered and some moderate Republicans would be touting their “yes” votes.

2. Voters are fickle, and becoming more so.

The filibuster hasn’t always been around, as its critics point out. But the Founding Fathers created the Senate to be a more deliberative body, to slow down and resist the passions of the majority. With both parties damaged and independents more and more numerous, the political pendulum is swinging faster and faster, as election analyst Charlie Cook notes:

For four decades, up until the Republican Revolution of 1994, Democrats held a majority in the U.S. House, and for 34 of those years, they also held a majority in the Senate. Basically, in good years and bad, voters elected Democratic majorities. Then, in 1994, voters threw Democrats out and put Republicans in, and they held that majority in the House for 12 years, before being equally unceremoniously dumped from power in 2006. Now, just four years later, Democrats are at great risk of losing their majority again. Even if they don’t lose their majority, they won’t keep it by much.

Can you see a pattern? A 40-year run for one party followed by a 12-year run for the opposition party, then a four-year run that will either be cut short or very nearly cut short. The circle is getting tighter and tighter and spinning faster and faster. Voters are demonstrating an impatience that they didn’t use to have.

There’s a lot of moaning from liberal pundits that Washington has become “ungovernable.” That’s simply not true. Obama did a lot his first year — a massive stimulus bill, taking big stakes in GM and Chrysler after favoring unions over creditors in the auto bankruptcies, expanding a children’s health care program.

Obama hasn’t been able to get his health care or climate change agenda through Congress because voters are opposed. End of story.

When in power, ideologues of all stripes would love to seize the day, override minority opposition and institute their utopian vision. But the day is fleeting.

Imagine a scenario in which parties rammed through sweeping changes and repeals during their brief terms in power. How could families, businesses and investors plan if taxes, regulations and entitlements swung up and down after every election cycle. For example, cutting taxes wouldn’t do much to spur hiring or spending because nobody would believe that they’re permanent.

Democrats risk treating sweeping legislation like “American Idol”: Lots of attention and angst at the time, but disposable by the time of the next season.

3. Dumping the filibuster would accelerate voter swings.

Democratic leaders want to rush through big legislative changes because they fear they’ll lose their big majorities — possibly even control of Congress after November’s elections. But that thinking can be self-fulfilling. By obsessing on unpopular legislation rather than focus on jobs, Democrats have set themselves up for far bigger electoral losses in November than would have otherwise.