Is It Fair to Say that Harry Reid Outright Caved on Filibuster Reform?

    183
    3
    SHARE

    I’m hatching a political plan that’s based on that supposition, i.e. that Harry Reid had an opportunity to wage a meaningful fight on filibuster reform but caved instead?  

    Before I go forward, I would like to make sure my understanding of what happened is correct. Was Reid in a position to make a bold move against the Republicans for their trampling on American tradition with its abuse of the filibuster –requiring 60 votes, not as an emergency measure in special situations, but on ALL things, replacing the principle of majority rule with one of rule by its minority– but instead he shrank from the battle?

    So I would appreciate the help of the people here to tell me Whether that characterization of what happened in January is accurate and fair.

    Did Harry Reid have a stronger hand to play?  Was he in a position to fight a fight that needed to be fought, and did he instead essentially forfeit instead of fight?

    Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia’s 6th District.  He is the author of various books including The Parable of the Tribes:  The Problem of Power in Social Evolution.  

    • He reached an agreement with Mitch McConnell, but it was far less than what many of us were hoping for. However, I suspect that Reid didn’t have a particularly strong hand, plus he’s undoubtedly concerned about what could happen in the future (e.g., 2015) if the Republicans take control of the Senate. So…I have mixed feelings.