More stories

  • in

    Kill Switch review: how the Senate filibuster props up Republican power

    For nearly a month, Mitch McConnell and his Senate Republicans have waged the parliamentary equivalent of a guerrilla war. Having lost the Georgia runoffs and with them the Senate, McConnell has still managed to stymie formal reorganization of the chamber. In an already sulfurous political landscape, the filibuster – the need for super-majorities of 60 votes to pass legislation – looms once again as a flashpoint.
    In other words, Adam Jentleson’s book is perfectly timed and aptly subtitled. Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy is an authoritative and well-documented plea for abolishing a 19th-century relic used to thwart the majority’s agenda.
    As Jentleson makes clear, the filibuster was first wielded by an agrarian and slave-holding south in opposition to the north’s burgeoning manufacturing economy – and modernity itself. A century on, in the 1960s, the filibuster became synonymous with Jim Crow, segregation and the malignant doctrine of separate but equal.
    A 54-day filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act refocused the nation on the jagged legacy of slavery, a full 101 years after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. In a century and a half, so much and so little had changed.
    In Jentleson’s telling, John Calhoun stands as progenitor of the filibuster. As a senator from South Carolina in the 1840s, he sought to gag voices supporting the abolition of slavery. Constricting debate was one way to do it. Calhoun had also been vice-president to John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. He saw slavery as more than just an evil to be tolerated. As Jentleson notes, to Calhoun, slavery was “a good. A positive good.”
    Calhoun also believed states could secede from the union. For that, he earned the ire of Jackson, a fellow slave-owner. Jackson reportedly said: “John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from the rest of your body.” Old Hickory was an ex-general as well as a president.
    Jentleson draws a line from Calhoun to McConnell via Richard Russell, a segregationist Georgia senator and Democrat who served from 1933 to 1971. Russell once said: “Any southern white man worth a pinch of salt would give his all to maintain white supremacy.” One of the Senate’s three office buildings is named after him.
    As for the Senate’s current minority leader, Kill Switch reminds the reader of an earlier McConnell quote: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” A dubious distinction, but one Donald Trump would instead come to hold.
    Jentleson is not a dispassionate observer. An avowed Democrat, he was once deputy chief of staff to Harry Reid. As Democratic leader in the Senate for a decade, Reid, an ex-boxer from Nevada, frequently sparred with McConnell. Reid’s legacy includes the Affordable Care Act and scrapping the filibuster for nominations to lower federal courts and the executive branch.
    Picking up where Reid left off, McConnell ended the filibuster for supreme court confirmations. Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have him to thank for their jobs, not just Trump.
    “With the flick of a wrist,” Jentleson writes, McConnell had gone “nuclear himself”.
    These days, the author hangs his hat at Democracy Forward, a political non-profit chaired by a Democratic super-lawyer, Marc Elias, which includes on its board John Podesta, a veteran of the Clinton and Obama White Houses. Ron Klain, now Joe Biden’s chief of staff, was once treasurer. The group’s targets have included Ivanka Trump and her alleged ethics violations.
    Kill Switch can become myopic when it points the finger elsewhere. For example, the book takes Republicans to task for attempting in 2013 to block the confirmation of Mel Watt, a longtime North Carolina congressman, to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), a financial regulator. But Jentleson makes no mention of Watt’s lapses.
    Watt sought to slash funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) – after it cleared him over allegations he diluted consumer protection legislation in exchange for campaign contributions. For his efforts, the liberal-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington branded Watt’s conduct “disgraceful”.
    In 2018, furthermore, reports surfaced of Watt being investigated for sexual harassment. More than a year later, the FHFA reached a settlement.
    Jentleson can also make too much out of race and ethnicity, interconnected realms strewn with pitfalls and landmines. He asserts that of the Senate’s current members of color, only two are Republican: Tim Scott of South Carolina, an African American, and Marco Rubio of Florida, whose parents came from Cuba. But Rubio self-identifies as both white and Hispanic.
    Book embed
    In the beginning, senators relied on the filibuster to block civil rights and labor legislation. Now it’s the new normal, wielded by Democrats and Republicans alike. Not much legislating gets done. When the Republican party is home to a congresswoman who muses about Jewish laser beams deployed to “clear space or something for high speed rail”, as a colleague put it, finding common ground is unlikely.
    Whether the filibuster is abolished or modified remains to be seen. Although only a simple majority is needed to end it, it appears safe for now. Two Democrats have voiced opposition to changing the rules and the president is OK with the status quo.
    If the Democrats can bypass the filibuster through reconciliation, a process used for budgeting that relies upon a simple majority, calls to end the filibuster will likely soften. If not, expect the filibuster to remain front and center heading into the 2022 midterms. Keep Kill Switch close at hand.
    Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy, is published by Liveright Publishing Corporation More

  • in

    Biden says Congress needs to 'act now' on $1.9tn Covid relief proposal

    Joe Biden said on Friday that Congress needs to “act now” on his $1.9tn Covid-19 relief proposal, even without Republican support, adding that most economists believe additional economic stimulus is needed.“We have to act now,” the president told reporters at the White House. “There is an overwhelming consensus among economists … that this is a unique moment and the cost of inaction is high.”Biden later said he supported passing Covid-19 relief with or without Republican help.“I support passing Covid relief with support from Republicans, if we can get it. But the Covid relief has to pass with no ifs, ands or buts,” Biden said.This suggests that even as Biden has stressed the importance of bipartisanship and reaching out to moderate Republican lawmakers, his tolerance for opposition has its limits.Biden spoke as Democrats who lead the US Senate and House of Representatives prepared to take the first steps next week toward delivering fresh assistance to Americans and businesses reeling from a pandemic that has killed more than 433,000 people.Congress enacted $4tn in Covid-19 relief last year.On Thursday, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said the sharply divided chamber would begin work on robust legislation next week, despite misgivings among Republicans and some Democrats about the size of Biden’s proposal.With the 100-seat Senate split 50-50 and Kamala Harris, the vice-president, wielding the tie-breaking vote, Democrats are preparing to use a parliamentary tool called “reconciliation” that would allow the chamber to approve Covid-19 relief with a simple majority. Because of Senate rules, legislation usually requires 60 votes to pass in the chamber.“There is no time for any delays,” Biden said on Friday. “We could end up with 4m fewer jobs this year … It could take a year longer to return to full employment if we don’t act and don’t act now.“The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, predicted on Thursday that both chambers of Congress would be ready to move forward through reconciliation by the end of next week. More

  • in

    US House members ask for more security amid fears they're targets

    Pervasive fear among some members of Congress that they will be the targets of further politically motivated violence following the deadly insurrection at the US Capitol has led more than 30 of them write a letter to House leaders.The group sent the letter to the House of Representatives speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the Republican minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, asking for more support over security concerns.As the less senior politicians do not have personal protection services provided by the government around the clock, they are asking if they may use their personal allowances for additional security costs in their home districts, such as for hiring local law enforcement or other security personnel.The letter, first obtained by CBS News, reveals an enduring anxiety and sense of unease among lawmakers. It was sent by the Democratic representatives Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Dean Phillips of Minnesota.And it was signed by 29 other Democrats who represent states all across the country, including Texas, Rhode Island, Washington, Georgia, Illinois, Alabama and Kansas, and one Republican, the Michigan representative Fred Upton.“Today, with the expansion of the web and social media sites, so much information about members is accessible in the public sphere, making them easier targets, including home addresses, photos, personal details about members’ families, and real-time information on member attendance at events,” they wrote.Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterFears are heightened in the wake of the Capitol riot on 6 January by supporters of the then president, Donald Trump, after he exhorted them at a rally near the White House beforehand to march on Congress and overturn his election defeat.White supremacists, rightwing extremists and conspiracy theory followers were among the mob of several thousand that broke into the halls of Congress while the House and Senate were meeting officially to certify Joe Biden’s presidential victory.The representatives, who spend most of their time in their home districts, wrote that the attack “reminds us of the grim reality that Members of Congress are high-profile public officials, and therefore, face ongoing security threats from the same domestic terror groups that attacked the Capitol”.The signatories pointed to a “surge of threats and attacks” on members of Congress, including the 2017 shooting that severely wounded the Republican whip, Steve Scalise, at a baseball game practice.The letter called current rules governing how their personal allowances can be spent as “constrictive and anachronistic” and have not kept up with current threat levels.The letter was sent as the homeland security department issued a bulletin on Wednesday that the domestic extremists behind the Capitol attack “could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence”.“We’re all totally freaked out about this,” one House member told the online outlet Politico.While lawmakers are afforded Capitol police protection while in Washington DC, they do not have the kind of permanent security details that party leadership is assigned.“Protecting members in their district is much harder because local law enforcement agencies are stretched and limited, and often don’t have sufficient staffing or money to provide regular protection to members,” the letter said.They added that “current legal statutes make it extremely difficult to prosecute most threats” made against them.Under current House rules, lawmakers are permitted to use their $1.4m office allowances, known as MRAs, to reimburse themselves for security equipment such as bulletproof vests, as well as funds for security at local public events.But given raised political tensions, they requested that their allowances should also cover security upgrades at their district offices, local law enforcement or other security personnel, and other security measures to protect them in their homes.According to the letter, there has been a nearly fivefold increase in threats against members in recent years.In 2016, there were 902 investigated threats against members; by 2018, the Capitol police chief, Steven Sund, had testified that there were 4,894 threats against members, a number that was on track to rise the following year.Soon after the riot this month, police officers based at the Capitol briefed lawmakers about plots by armed militias against Democratic party members.“The idea that everyone is untouchable? No, we’re all touchable now. If there’s a nuclear bomb, we accept we’re probably the first to go. But we never though that a mob would be able to get into the Capitol,” a House staff member told CBS.Later on Thursday, Pelosi said lawmakers would probably need more funding for security as “the enemy is within”.Asked what she meant when referring to the “enemy within”, Pelosi said: “It means we have members of Congress who want to bring guns on the floor and who have threatened violence against other members of Congress.” More

  • in

    Republicans will try to create an 'ethics' trap for Democrats. Don't fall for it | David Litt

    A press secretary who tells the truth. An independent justice department that respects the rule of law. A president who doesn’t tweet conspiracy theories in the wee hours of the morning. After four dispiriting years and one near-death experience for American democracy, it would be comforting to conclude that nature is healing. Our political guardrails held. The Trump Era was nothing more than a temporary blip.But such complacency would be a terrible mistake. What we’re seeing at the dawn of the Biden presidency is not the reestablishment of norms, but the establishment of double standards.Yes, it’s commendable that the incoming Democratic administration pledges to behave responsibly, but it’s far from guaranteed that future Republican administrations will do the same. In fact, as things currently stand, it’s practically guaranteed that they won’t.Just look at a brief history of the White House ethics pledge. In 2000, when George W Bush took office, Republicans went all in on “The K Street Project,” formally integrating lobbyists into conservative policymaking and vice versa. Industries who donated to Republican candidates and hired Republican staff were given access to party leaders. Those that did not were not.The Bush Administration’s pay-to-play approach to government – and the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal which ensued – eroded public trust in government. In response, President Obama put in place the strictest ethics pledge in history. He banned lobbyists from serving in his administration, banned members of his administration from becoming lobbyists, and generally tried to block the revolving door between public service and influence peddling.This was clearly the right thing to do. Yet President Obama rarely got credit for doing the right thing. Instead, the pledge’s ambition was soon taken for granted by the Washington press corps, while its imperfections – the waivers granted to lobbyists deemed too essential to exclude from the administration – became news. Donald Trump was able to run for office on a promise to drain the swamp. After winning, he watered down the requirements he inherited. On his final day in office, he shredded his own ethics pledge, freeing former members of the Trump administration to lobby however and whomever they pleased.In between, President Trump – who served half as long as President Obama – hired more than four times as many lobbyists to serve in his administration. Yet Trump’s low standards didn’t remain newsworthy. Like Obama’s high standards, they were soon taken for granted by the press.Now the tables have turned once again. The Biden Administration has unveiled the strictest ethics pledge in history, building on President Obama’s lobbying bans by covering not just registered lobbying but also the so-called “shadow lobbying” that long served as an ethics loophole. It’s another big step forward. But it’s also a reminder that Democrats and Republicans are on two entirely different trajectories. If past is prologue, Biden will face more criticism if he fails to perfectly implement his high standards than Trump faced for having practically no standards at all. And rather than feel any political or moral obligation to follow Biden’s example, the next Republican administration will pick up right where the last president of their party left off.In other words, Democrats and Republicans are playing by different set of rules. And not just when it comes to ethics pledges and lobbying bans. We now know that many of the principles we once imagined were pillars of our democratic society – a respect for truth; a belief in the importance of a free press; the rejection of nepotism; a commitment to honor the results of elections not just in victory but in defeat – are propped up almost entirely by the good faith of politicians. And as we learned over the last four years, in American politics, bad faith is hardly in short supply.That’s why it’s not enough to usher in an administration that models good behavior. We must ensure that we create high standards that apply to everyone.That starts with changing political incentives that currently punish leaders who try to act responsibly and reward those who don’t. Some members of the press will surely be tempted to return to their own version of normalcy – one where Obama’s tan suit is a scandal, Joe Biden’s Peloton is a political liability, and it’s generally assumed that Republicans will behave like arsonists while Democrats behave like adults. Yes, the press should hold the Biden Administration accountable. But it would do the American public a disservice to pretend the last four years didn’t happen, or to take it for granted that most Republican politicians will behave like arsonists and most Democratic politicians will try to behave like adults.Nor is it just the press – and other, similarly nonpartisan institutions – who should do more to prevent the emergence of double standards. Democrats currently control both houses of Congress. They should use that control to codify norms into laws. In past Congresses, for example, Senator Elizabeth Warren has put forward a bill that contains and expands on the provisions in the Obama and Biden ethics pledges. Similar bills could make it harder to oppose the certification of a fair and free election, use the justice department as a political weapon, or rely on corrupt dark money to finance campaigns. Most important, legislation can accomplish what relying on politicians’ good faith cannot – constraining the behavior not only of Democrats, but of Republicans as well.If we don’t take this opportunity to restore the norms that allow our political system to function, we may not get another chance. Perhaps the Republican Party, emboldened by Trumpism and empowered by gerrymandering and voter suppression, will develop a more strategic and successful model of authoritarianism. Or perhaps a new generation of Democrats, convinced that our institutions won’t act to protect their own bedrock principles, will decide that abandoning those principles is the only way to ensure Trumpism doesn’t reemerge.If such a race to the bottom comes to define American politics, the entire country will lose. But that’s ultimately why the beginning of the Biden Era is a moment of a relief. We haven’t turned the page on an awful chapter of American history. But finally, together, we can. For the first time in four years, America’s most powerful institutions are run almost entirely by people who care about our democracy and want to see it survive. They must make the most of this moment, not just to clear the low bar set by the previous administration, but to raise the bar for future ones before it’s too late. More

  • in

    Schumer promises quick but fair trial as Trump impeachment heads to Senate

    Ex-president forms legal team before February hearingsBiden focuses on nominations and legislative prioritiesTrump plots revenge on Republicans who betrayed himThe single article of impeachment against Donald Trump will on Monday evening be delivered to the Senate, where Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer is promising a quick but fair trial. Related: Trump’s second impeachment trial: the key players Continue reading… More

  • in

    Biden wants unity and democracy. But in the US these have always been in conflict | David Runciman

    The three words that stood out in Joe Biden’s powerful inaugural address, if only for the number of times he used them, were “democracy”, “unity” and “truth”. But it was democracy that took centre stage. “This is democracy’s day,” he said, in his first statement after taking the oath of office. “The will of the people has been heard … Democracy has prevailed.”Is this apparent vindication of democracy enough for unity and truth to prevail as well? The founding fathers of the American republic, whose history and institutions Biden also repeatedly invoked, might have been surprised to hear him run the three together. They believed they were founding a state that was designed to keep democracy at arm’s length. James Madison, one of the authors of The Federalist Papers and a future president, stated that the American constitution he helped to write would mean “the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share [in the government]”.The founders were as keen on unity and truth as Biden. But they thought too much democracy would put them at risk. They viewed the voting public as notoriously fractious and prone to believe all sorts of nonsense. The point of establishing a republic rather than a democracy was to ensure there were safeguards against populism in all its forms.Biden clearly meant something different by democracy than the people gone wild. He was invoking a different, and much later tradition, that sees democracy as defined by the peaceful transfer of power. In academic circles this is sometimes called the minimalist theory of democracy. It says that it is sufficient for democracy if incumbents, who control the armed forces, hand over that control to the people who defeat them at the ballot box. The guns change hands when the voters change sides.The trouble with this view is that it is so minimal, unity and truth are optional extras. There are many places around the world where democracy has failed even this test and defeated incumbents have refused to leave, leading to dictatorship or civil war. But when the test is passed it leaves unresolved most of the questions about how to do politics better.Coming just two weeks after an attempt to storm the Capitol and prevent the certification of the election result, Biden’s inauguration took place in the shadow of the most serious threat to this minimal definition of democracy in recent American history. The country had come dangerously close to failing the test. What Biden could also have said, but didn’t, was that the founders were in part to blame.The anger of Trump’s supporters was stoked by the institutions designed to keep the people away from the most important decisions. In strict majoritarian terms Biden won the election comfortably, by a national margin of more than 7 million votes. But the electoral college made it seem much closer, and allowed the defeated president to look for a few thousand votes here or there that might have made the difference. Millions of voters are much harder to conjure out of thin air.Trump’s resistance to democratic realities also rested its hopes on the other institutions of the republic that were meant to keep the people out. He believed that the supreme court, with three of his appointees on it, should save him. He looked to the Senate, which gives a disproportionate influence to sparsely populated rural states, to have his back. The fact that these hopes were misplaced – and the Senate may yet convict him in an impeachment trial – doesn’t mean that democracy was vindicated. The institutions that quelled popular resistance to the election result were the same ones that inflamed it.This suggests it is not enough for Biden to fall back on the long history of American democracy in making his case for what should come next. The peaceful transfer of power obscures the ways in which American democracy is at odds with the institutions that achieved it.There is a choice to be made here. Democracy could be enhanced – and institutions such as the electoral college and the Senate reformed to reflect current demography rather than ancient history. But that is likely to come at the cost of unity. Republicans would resist fiercely. Truth would probably suffer too, if only because we have learned that these days resistance tends to come as an assault on the facts. Any attempt to change the constitution would be challenged not just as unpatriotic, but probably as a foreign plot.The alternative is to stick with the status quo and hope it is enough to paper over the cracks. In that case, unity will have been prioritised over democracy. It is probably the easier path, and Biden may think he has better things to do than pick a fight on democratic institutional reform. Any bipartisan consensus is unlikely to survive changes that leave one party worse off in electoral terms. Enacting the people’s will can be a deeply divisive enterprise.One temptation – and Biden would hardly be the first president to succumb to it – is to use the word democracy as a catch-all while avoiding these difficult choices. In the short term, it might enable him to concentrate on tackling the immediate challenges the country faces, from the pandemic to the economy. But it also means that frustration with political elites will continue to build.Invoking the will of the people while relying on institutions that are designed to stifle it is not a recipe for long-term stability. Yet doing anything about it risks the unity for which Biden stands. He is treating democracy as though it were a panacea, when in truth it is always a fight.On the day of Biden’s inauguration the people were indeed excluded, but not in the way the founders had intended. Instead, because of the threat from extremists, the crowds were kept away and replaced by military personnel around the podium and flags down the Mall. It was in keeping with an occasion that paid lip service to an idea whose reality is much more contentious.The peaceful transfer of power, particularly achieved at such a high price, is only the bare minimum of what needs to be done for democracy to prevail. The rest is much less certain and comes with many risks.It was the riskiness of democracy that made the founders nervous, but that is its point: the dynamism of people’s politics has always gone with a dangerous unpredictability. But there are other risks too. Keeping democracy at bay for the sake of unity does not guarantee a peaceful life. The danger is that it comes to seem less like democracy fulfilled, and more like democracy endlessly deferred.• David Runciman is professor of politics at Cambridge University More

  • in

    Senate Republican threatens impeachments of past Democratic presidents

    The Texas Republican senator John Cornyn warned on Saturday that Donald Trump’s second impeachment could lead to the prosecution of former Democratic presidents if Republicans retake Congress in two years’ time.Trump this month became the first US president to be impeached twice, after the Democratic-controlled House, with the support of 10 Republicans, voted to charge him with incitement of insurrection over the assault on the Capitol by his supporters on 6 January which left five people dead.Trump failed to overturn his election defeat and Joe Biden was sworn in as president this week.After a brief moment of bipartisan sentiment in which members from both parties condemned the unprecedented attack on Congress as it met to formalize Biden’s victory, a number of Senate Republicans are opposing Trump’s trial, which could lead to a vote blocking him from future office.“If it is a good idea to impeach and try former presidents, what about former Democratic presidents when Republicans get the majority in 2022?” Cornyn, a 19-year veteran of the Senate who last year tried to distance himself from Trump when it seemed his seat was at risk, tweeted at majority leader Chuck Schumer. “Think about it and let’s do what is best for the country.”Democrats hold narrow majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate but it is common for a president’s party to lose seats in elections two years after a presidential contest. Impeachment begins in the House. The Senate stages any trial.Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has said the mob in the Capitol putsch was “provoked” by Trump – who told supporters to march on Congress and “fight like hell”. Other Senate Republicans claim trying Trump after he has left office would be unconstitutional and further divide the country.There are also concerns on both sides of the aisle that the trial could distract from Biden’s legislative agenda. Schumer, who became majority leader this week, tweeted on Friday that the Senate would confirm Biden’s cabinet, enact a new Covid-19 relief package and conduct Trump’s impeachment trial.The trial is due to be held in the second week of February. More